FLU SHOTS AND THE NEW ADJUVANTS: BEWARE! + VACCINATIONS AND THE RIGHT TO REFUSE

[Guest guest]

FLU SHOTS AND THE NEW ADJUVANTS: BEWARE!

http://www.newswithviews.com/Tenpenny/sherri6.htm

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, DO

May 1, 2006

NewsWithViews.com

 

Vaccination of “every man, woman and child†has been in the planning for at

least the last several years. The current concept, originated by former Health

and Human Services (HHS) Secretary, Tommy Thompson,[1] is being advanced by

his successor, Mike Leavitt.[2] Of course, Thompson envisioned mass vaccination

using the smallpox vaccine. But times have changed, and the flu shot now

appears to be the instrument of choice for those pursuing the universal

vaccination agenda.

 

The fact that the flu shots are ineffective in every age group hardly seems

to matter to those who continually promote their use. Multiple studies

published in highly reputable publications have documented that flu shots are

ineffective in all ages. For example, The Cochrane Collaboration produced a

series of

articles in 2005 reviewing the published literature to determine the

effectiveness of the flu shot. Nothing substantiating its usefulness was found.

 

In a review of 51 studies involving more than 260,000 children, including 17

papers translated from Russian, researchers concluded that there was “No

evidence that injecting children 6-23 months of age with flu vaccines is any

more

effective than placebo.â€[3] For healthy adults, the results were similar. A

total of 25 studies were reviewed that included more than 60,000 study

participants. Again, The Cochrane Group found that vaccination reduced risk of

influenza

by a meager 6% and reduced the number of days missed from work by less than

one (0.16) day. Researchers concluded, “Universal immunization of healthy

adults was not supported by the results of this review.†[4]

 

For the elderly population, the prime target group for flu shots, The

Cochrane Group reviewed 64 studies and chided that, “The runaway 100%

effectiveness

that's touted by proponents [of the flu shot] was nowhere to be seen…What you

see is that marketing rules the response to influenza, and scientific evidence

comes fourth or fifth.â€[5]

 

A new study, soon to be released in the prestigious medical journal, Vaccine,

resulted in the same conclusion. The study was undertaken to determine

whether the incidence of influenza had decreased in Ontario, Canada following

the

introduction of the Universal Influenza Immunization Campaign (UIIC) in 2000.

All laboratory-confirmed influenza cases—diagnosed between January 1990 and

August 2005—were analyzed. It was determined that, “…despite intensified

vaccination distribution and the increased financial resources used to promote

vaccination,†the incidence of influenza had not been decreased by the

national flu

shot campaign.[6]

 

Perhaps something needs to be done to strengthen the flu shot so that it will

work better?

 

During the week of April 17, 2006, The Washington Post ran a story that not

only extolled the use of the influenza vaccines but pushed for a new and

improved version by saying, “Why wait for the pandemic to benefit from better

flu

vaccines?â€[7] The story went on to say that the National Institutes of Health

(NIH) is planning to strengthen the flu shot “destined for the elderly†by

adding an immune-boosting compound to the shot called an adjuvant.

 

An adjuvant is a substance added to produce a high antibody response using

the smallest amount of virus (antigen) possible. By definition adjuvants are

considered to be “pharmacologically active drugs.†They are designed to be

“

inert without inherent activity or toxicity†and yet they are required to “

potently augment effects of the other compounds†in the vaccines.[8] It is

difficult

to explain how a substance can be defined as “pharmacologically active†and

at the same time be described as “inert and have no activity or toxicity.â€

 

The limiting factor for approval of new adjuvants has been that most are far

too toxic for use in humans. However, one adjuvant has been approved in Europe

and its approval is on the way for use in the U.S. It is an oil-based

adjuvant called MF-59, a compound primarily composed of squalene.

 

On first blush, squalene seems like a good choice for an adjuvant.

Manufactured naturally in the liver, squalene is a precursor for cholesterol. In

addition, squalene can be purchased at health food stores in its more commonly

known

form, “shark liver oil.†However, ingested squalene has a completely

different effect on the body than injected squalene. When molecules of squalene

enter

the body through an injection, even at concentrations as small as 10 to 20

parts per billion, it can lead to self-destructive immune responses, such as

autoimmune arthritis and lupus.[9]

 

Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain this reaction.

Metabolically, squalene stimulates an immune response excessively and

nonspecifically. More

than two dozen peer-reviewed scientific papers from ten different

laboratories throughout the U.S., Europe, Asia, and Australia have been

published

documenting the development of autoimmune disease in animals subjected to

squalene-based adjuvants.[10] A convincing proposal for why this occurs includes

the

concept of “molecular mimicry†in which an antibody created against the

squalene

in MF59 can cross react with the body’s squalene on the surface of human

cells. The destruction of the body’s own squalene can lead to debilitating

autoimmune and central nervous system diseases.

 

The squalene in MF59 is not the only cause for concern. One of its

components, Tween80 (polysorbate 80) is considered to be “inert†but is far

from it. A

recent study (December 2005) discovered that Tween80 can cause anaphylaxis, a

sometimes fatal reaction characterized by a sharp drop in blood pressure,

hives, and breathing difficulties. Researchers concluded that the severe

reaction

was not a typical allergic response characterized by the combination of IgE

antibodies and the release of histamines; it was caused by a serious disruption

that had occurred within the immune system.[11]

 

Vaccine manufacturer, Chiron, is already using MF59 in its European influenza

vaccine for seniors called Fluadâ„¢. It remains to be seen if Chiron will gain

approval for using this adjuvant-containing vaccine in the U.S. In the mean

time—and for the first time—all children from age six months to five years

will

be targeted for the flu shot this fall. Expect even more children to be on

the vaccine list as early as 2007; discussions are underway to mandatorily

vaccinate the healthy five to nine year-old group as a school requirement.

 

With a record 120 million vaccine doses expected to be produced for the

2006-2007 flu season, be prepared for a huge push to get everyone vaccinated

this

fall. Consider it to be psychological pre-conditioning. The plan is to get each

person ready—and eager—to roll up their sleeve for an injection of the “

pandemic†flu vaccine when it becomes available.

 

Retaining the right to refuse will become increasingly important, especially

in the face of concentrated pressure from self-appointed experts at the CDC

and the WHO. But keep this in mind: The “bird flu†vaccine will not be any

more

effective than the annual flu shot. Even worse, there is a high probability

it will contain MF-59.

 

Footnotes:

1, CIDRAP News. " US pledges smallpox vaccine for world stockpile. " December

4, 2004.

2, Department of Health and Human Services FY 2007 Budget announcement.

February 6, 2006

3, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. " Vaccines for preventing

influenza in healthy children. " 1-(2006).

4, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews " Vaccines for preventing

influenza in healthy adults. " . 1-(2006)

5, Rosenthal Elisabeth. " Two Studies Question the Effectiveness of Flu

Vaccines. " The New York Times. September 21, 2005.

6, Groll, DL, Thompson, DJ. " Incidence of influenza in Ontario following the

Universal Influenza Immunization Campaign. " Vaccine. April 5, 2006. PMID:

16624458

7, Neergaard, Lauren. " Experts Say Elderly Need Better Flu Shot. " The

Washington Post. April 17, 2006

8, Kenney, R. T., Edleman, R. " Survey of human-use adjuvants, " Expert Review

of Vaccines 2 (2) (2003): 167-188.

9, Ref. No. 1: Svelander, L., Holm, B. C., Buchtt, A., Lorentzen, J. C.,

Svelander, L. " Responses of the rat immune system to arthritogenic adjuvant

oil, "

Scandinavian Journal of Immunology 54 (2001): 599-605. PMID: 11902335.

10, Matsumoto, Gary. Vaccine A: The Covert Government Experiment That's

Killing Our Soldiers and Why GIs Are Only the First Victims Vaccine. (New York:

Basic Books)

11, Coors, Esther A., Seybold, Heidi, Merk, Hans, Mahler, Vera. " Polysorbate

80 in medical products and nonimmunologic anaphylactoid reactions, " Annals of

Allergy, Asthma and Immunology 95 (2005): 593-599.

 

------------

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny is respected as one of the country's most knowledgeable

and outspoken physicians regarding the impact of vaccines on health. Through

her education company, New Medical Awareness, LLC, she spreads her vision of

retaining freedom of choice in healthcare, including the freedom to refuse

vaccination.

 

A portion of this article is an excerpt from her new book, FOWL! Bird Flu:

It's Not What You Think, released in April, 2006.

For daily updates on the bird flu, including the real reasons behind the

hype, and a bi-weekly e-Newsletter with Dr. Tenpenny's commentary go to

www.BirdFluHype.com

 

 

VACCINATIONS AND THE RIGHT TO REFUSE

http://www.newswithviews.com/Tenpenny/sherri1.htm

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, DO

September 14, 2005

NewsWithViews.com

 

By way of introduction, I like to tell people I’m a physician by training and

a compulsive researcher by inclination. To be specific, I’ve invested more

than seven-thousand hours investigating the under-reported health hazards

associated with vaccinations, along with the attendant ethical and legal issues.

 

What started as a fairly modest research exercise has turned into a second

full-time career. I’ve discussed vaccination hazards on more than 50 radio and

television programs, addressed hundreds of professional, political, and trade

groups, produced two informational DVDs, and authored numerous articles for

both print publications and Internet sites. In addition, I’m scheduled to

produce

two books relating to the subject over the next year.

 

The risk of vaccination must be considered as important—and potentially more

serious—than the risk of a childhood disease. Years of experience and

thousands of hours of research have lead to conclusions that are not uniformly

accepted: the importance of legally ensuring vaccine exemptions in each State

and the

right to refuse Nationally mandated vaccinations.

 

Vaccination is a procedure and vaccines are medications….and both have risks

and side effects which are often ignored by the media and, worse, by many in

the medical profession. As a population, we are against being forcibly

medicated. We value our right to choose what is done to our bodies.

 

Humans are intrinsically healthy and tend to remain so if they are given

nutritious, non-GMO foods, fresh air, and clean water. We have been blessed with

God-given protective barriers against infectious diseases, including our skin

and immune system.

 

Knowing that these facts are true for all members of the human species, how

did we come to embrace the idea that injecting solutions of chemically-treated,

inactivated viruses, parts of bacteria, traces of animal tissue and heavy

metals, such as mercury and aluminum, was a reasonable strategy for keeping

human

beings—babies, children and adults—healthy?

 

If a “dirty bomb†exposed a large segment of US citizens simultaneously to

Hepatitis B, Hepatitis A, tetanus, pertussis, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenza

B, three strains of polio viruses, 3 strains of influenza viruses, measles,

mumps, and rubella viruses, the chickenpox virus, and 7 strains of

Streptococcus bacteria, we would declare a national emergency. We would call it

an “

extreme act of BIOTERRORISMâ€. The public outcry would be immense and our

government

would act accordingly.

 

And yet, those are the very organisms that we inject through vaccines into

our babies and our small children, with immature, underdeveloped immune systems.

Many are given all at the same time. But instead of bioterrorism, we call it “

protection.†Reflect a moment on that irony.

 

Vaccine injuries are reported to be “rareâ€, but only because very few

reactions are “accepted†by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the

Institutes

of Medicine (IOM) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as being caused by

vaccines. I have frequently said that when a vaccine is given, and a bad

reaction occurs, “ANYTHING BUT†the vaccine is “blamed†for the

reaction. Here

is a direct quote from the 6th edition of Epidemiology & Prevention of

Vaccine-Preventable Diseases called “The Pink Bookâ€, published by the CDC:

 

“There is no distinct syndrome from vaccine administration, and therefore,

many temporally associated adverse events probably represent background illness

rather than illness caused by the vaccine…The DTaP may stimulate or

precipitate inevitable symptoms of underlying CNS disorder, such as seizures,

infantile

spasms, epilepsy or SIDS. By chance alone, some of these cases will seem to be

temporally related to DTaP.â€

 

I have to admit, the first time I read that, I cried. Instead of blaming the

vaccine for causing the problem, we blame the children for somehow being

defective and the “defect†shows up after we inject them.

 

Another example of not blaming the vaccine for a reaction comes directly from

the National Vaccine Injury compensation table. Only a handful of injuries

are covered by this program; if your injury isn’t on the table, you don’t

qualify for compensation. The government says “there is no proofâ€â€”no

causal

association—that the problem that was experienced, the seizure, for example,

was

caused by the vaccine.

 

And timing of the injury is important too. For example, the Injury

Compensation Table states that if the baby manifests the symptoms of

encephalopathy –or

brain swelling—within 3 days of being given a DTaP shot, the injury is

probably related to the vaccine. If the complication develops on the 4th

day—or the

5th, 6th or 7th day—it is not considered to be “causally related†and the

parent is ineligible to apply for compensation.

 

Sort of like saying the black and blue foot you have today had nothing to do

with the frozen turkey you dropped on it last week, because the discoloration

didn’t show up within the time allowed to “prove causation.â€

 

Side effects and complications from vaccines are considered inconsequential

because their numbers are supposedly “statistically insignificant.†This

conclusion comes from epidemiological research involving large numbers of

participants and has nothing to do with the individual person. Population-based

conclusions go against one of the most basic tenants of all of medicine: to

treat

each person as an individual and believe them when they tell you something went

wrong after a vaccine.

 

A “one in a million†reaction may be rare, but if you are “the oneâ€, it

is

100% to you.

 

And even if the one-in-a-million reactions are considered “rare†by the CDC,

the health care costs associated with those “rare†reactions are not

insignificant. Here’s one example.

 

One recognized complication of the flu shot is a condition called

Gullian-Barre Syndrome (GBS). Guillian-Barre is disorder characterized by

progressive

paralysis, beginning in the feet and advancing up the body, often causing

paralysis of the diaphragm and breathing muscles within a matter of hours or

days.

 

Nearly all patients with GBS are hospitalized because of paralysis. The

prognosis of GBS varies. Up to 13 percent die and 20 percent more are left

significantly disabled, defined, for these purposes, as unable to work for at

least a

year.

 

The CDC reports this side effect to be “rare, perhaps 1 or 2 per million flu

shots given.†Using the numbers determined from a variety of sources—

including medical journals and government documents, it can reasonably be

assumed that

the flu shot may cause 40 cases of GBS per year.

 

The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) database reveals that the

average hospital charge per person for GBS is nearly $70,000. Add another $

40,000 per person for rehabilitation costs after months of paralysis. Therefore

the cost to healthcare for this “rare†complication can be approximated to

be

at least $4.4 million.

 

This conservative estimate doesn’t include lost wages, reduced standards of

living for patients who returned to work but had to take a lower paying job

because of their illness. And of course, there is no price tag for the “human

cost

†of being paralyzed and away from your family for months.

 

The advantageous cost-benefit relationship is one of the main

rationalizations given for supporting the national vaccination program at all

levels, infants

through the elderly. But has anyone seriously analyzed the cost of caring for

vaccine complications?

 

This example of Guillian-Barre represents the cost of just ONE complication.

What if the costs for healthcare from all acknowledged side effects were

calculated and added to the cost of the National Vaccination programs? What if

we

add in the parent-observed complications, such as refractory seizures?

 

Are we getting our money’s worth financially? Are we getting our money’s

worth in terms of a “healthier†nation?

 

What about other not-so-obvious costs incurred by vaccine mandates—increased

taxes and increased health insurance premiums to pay for the shots? Increased

administrative costs to track that they have been given? There are many

others, but I’ll stop there.

 

There are three things to take away from this introduction:

 

1. Low infection rates and high vaccination rates should not be the

cornerstone of our public health policy. Vaccine reactions should not be

discounted,

whatever their numbers. Further, the true cost-benefit of the vaccination

program must be considered, and what has been presented is barely the tip of the

iceberg.

 

2. Parents, and all adults, must retain their right to refuse vaccines. They

are not without risk, and those “rare†complications can result in

significant costs, both economic and in terms of human life.

 

3. Children, and all adults, who refuse to be vaccinated are being

discriminated against. They are losing their rights:

a. Rights and access to a public education.

b. Rights to access to health care, as doctors discharge them as patients.

c. Rights to food because often moms on Medicaid are refused food stamps.

 

These rights—including the right to refuse—must be ensured.

 

When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us—and force

us to vaccinate and medicate our children in the name “health†and

“policyâ€

and for “the greater good†we, in essence, accept that the state owns our

bodies, and, apparently, our children.

 

To order Dr. Sherri Tenpenny's latest video,

 

" Vaccines, The Risks, The Benefits, The Choices " ]

http://www.newswithviews.com/HNV/Hot_New_Videos6.htm

 

 

 

is disappearing messages to the group again. Messages

which have a content that isn't politically correct are going missing.

 

This isn't the first time that such practices, as well as other

things, have been used against this group as well as other groups. In

fact, I suspect that the problem is probably quite widespread, and has

been ongoing in one form or another, for quite some time now.

 

Please be aware of the situation and alert others and other groups.

 

Sometimes, I have had to post the same message to the group as many as 5 or 6

times to finally get one copy to slip through. All would have been considered

not politically correct. It seems that is, once again, politically

censoring messages in violation of free speech.