The Belief in Vaccines

[Guest guest]

The Belief in Vaccines Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, DO The Belief in Vaccines Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, DO I always find it interesting that a discussion over the topic ofvaccination can become "heated" and "volatile". Why is that?....would thesame debate rage over an antibiotic or an antihypertensive medicine ifthere was evidence that it was causing harm? Highly doubtful. It would beremoved promptly from the market if deaths resulted from its use. Even ifdeaths were suspected to be caused by a medication, we stop using it untilwe prove it is safe. Not so with a vaccine. We keep using it until we can"prove" it is causing harm. Why the double standard? The doublespeak occurs because vaccination is built around a "belief"system, and challenging the validity of vaccines challenges long-heldfoundational beliefs. We BELIEVE that vaccines are safe;

we BELIEVE thatvaccines are important for our health; we BELIEVE that vaccines willprotect us from infection; we BELIEVE that vaccines were the reasoninfectious diseases decreased around the world. And we really want toBELIEVE that our doctor has read all the available information onvaccines--pro and con--and that s/he is telling us the complete truth aboutvaccines...... However, belief is based on faith; not necessarily on fact. With only acursory review of the literature and CDC documents, one will find thefollowing facts: 1. No vaccine has ever been proven to be completely safe. Safety studiesare small and only include "healthy" children. However, after a study iscompleted, vaccines are given to ALL children, regardless of underlyinghealth conditions or genetic predispositions. We have a "one size fits all"national vaccination policy; one that does not allow for personal choice orindividualized options; and one

that has caused a myriad of health problemsfor many. 2. Observations for side effects continue for a maximum of 14 days during a"safety study". Complex problems involving the immune system can take weeksor even months to appear. This arbitrary 14 day cut off set by the FDA andthe pharmaceutical industry stops the observation long before complicationsare likely to appear. This is the basis for their "vaccines are safe"mantra but the long term and relatively unknown complications from vaccinesreveal that no vaccine is safe. 3. A vaccine "safety" study compares a new vaccine to a "placebo" todetermine the safety of the new vaccine. When we examine the study a littlemore closely, we discover that the "placebo" is NOT a benign, inertsubstance, such as saline or water. The "placebo" is another vaccine with a"known safety profile." So if the new vaccine has the same side effects asthe "placebo", the new vaccine is called

"safe." 4. Vaccines are said to confer protection by causing the development ofantibodies. However, there are many references in CDC documents (theHighest Authority in the land regarding vaccines) which reveal thatantibodies don't necessarily protect us from infection. Here are a fewexamples from medical journals and CDC documents: Pertussis: "The findings of efficacy studies have not demonstrated a directcorrelation between antibody response and protection against pertussisdisease." MMWR March 28, 1997/Vol.46/No. RR-7, p.4 H. Flu (HiB): "The antibody contribution to clinical protection is unknown." ---HibTITER package insert "The precise level of antibody required for protection against HiB invasivedisease is not clearly established." http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/hib.pdf. Smallpox: "Neutralizing antibodies are reported to reflect levels ofprotection, although this has not been validated in the field." JAMA June9,1999, Vol. 281, No. 22, p.3132 5. We want to "believe" that if we receive a vaccine, we will be protectedfrom the infection. Several medical journal articles document that this isnot necessarily so. Here are a few examples: Pertussis Infection in Fully Vaccinated Children in Day-Care Centers,Israel (Emerging Infectious Diseases Vol. 6, No. 5; Sep-Oct 2000) Pertussis in the Highly Vaccinated Population, The Netherlands (EmergingInfectious Diseases Vol. 6, No. 4 July-Aug 2000) Pertussis in North-West Western Australia in 1999; all vaccinated.(Communicable Diseases Intelligence 2000 Vol 2 4 No 12) The debate surrounding the use of vaccines goes back and forth with "data"and "studies" used to support both sides. But the bottom line is this:

Vaccination has been "accepted" as safe, effective and protective fornearly 200 years. It is a "sacred cow" and with all "sacred cows", peoplereact with a visceral response when someone suggests that the "cow" shouldbe "sacrificed". There are many examples of this over the centuries: Copernicus who insisted that the Sun is the Center of the solar system andSemmelweiss who showed that doctors performing hand washing saved women'slives. Both men were ridiculed in their day. It is heresy to suggest thatthe "status quo" is wrong. Statistics have shown that when presented with a new, different,challenging idea, 96% of people will spend their time and energy defendingtheir current beliefs and only 4% will embrace the idea as something toseriously consider. When you research vaccinations and the vaccine industry, you will find thatyour "foundational beliefs" regarding vaccines will be seriouslychallenged. When you

begin to study the negative effects--both actual andtheoretical--that vaccines have on the immune system, you will likelybecome part of the 4% who understand that "truth" about vaccines is notreally "The Truth" and that the mandatory vaccination policies currently being enforced must be changed. Dr. Sherri Tenpenny New Medical Awareness Seminars www.nmaseminars.com

Photos Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever.