The Belief in Vaccines
by Sherri Tenpenny, DO
I always find it interesting when a discussion over the topic of vaccination
becomes "heated" and "volatile". Why is that?....would the same debate rage over
an antibiotic or an antihypertensive medicine if there was evidence that it was
causing harm?
Highly doubtful. It would be removed promptly from the market if deaths resulted
from its use. Even if deaths were suspected to be caused by a medication, it
would stop being used until it was proven to be 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-held foundational
beliefs. We BELIEVE that vaccines are safe; we BELIEVE that vaccines are
important for our health; we BELIEVE that vaccines will protect us from
infection; we BELIEVE that vaccines were the reason infectious diseases
decreased around the world. And we really want to BELIEVE that our doctor has
read all the available information on vaccines--pro and con--and that s/he is
telling us the complete truth about vaccines......
However, belief is based on faith; not necessarily on fact.
With only a cursory review of the literature and CDC documents, one will find
the following facts:
1. No vaccine has ever been proven to be completely safe. Safety studies are
small and only include "healthy" children. However, after a study is completed,
vaccines are given to ALL children, regardless of underlying health conditions
or genetic predispositions. We have a "one size fits all" national vaccination
policy; one that does not allow for personal choice or individualized options;
and one that has caused a myriad of health problems for 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 weeks or
even months to appear. This arbitrary 14-day cut off set by the FDA and the
pharmaceutical industry stops the observation long before complications are
likely to appear. This is the basis for the "vaccines are safe" mantra but the
long term and relatively unknown complications from vaccines are unknown.
3. A vaccine "safety" study is designed to compare a new vaccine to a "placebo."
However, when we examine the study a little more closely, we discover that the
"placebo" is NOT a benign, inert substance, 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 as the "placebo", the new vaccine is
considered to be "safe."
4. Vaccines are said to confer protection by causing the development of
antibodies. However, there are many references in CDC documents (the Highest
Authority in the land regarding vaccines) which reveal that antibodies don't
necessarily protect us from infection. Here are a few examples from medical
journals and CDC documents:
Pertussis: "The findings of efficacy studies have not demonstrated a
direct correlation between antibody response and protection against pertussis
disease." 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
invasive disease is not clearly established." http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/hib.pdf.
Smallpox: "Neutralizing antibodies are reported to reflect levels of
protection, although this has not been validated in the field." JAMA June 9,
1999, Vol. 281, No. 22, p.3132
5. We want to "believe" that a vaccine will protect us from infection. Several
medical journal articles document that this is not 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
(Emerging Infectious 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 for nearly 200
years. It is a "sacred cow" and with all "sacred cows", people react with a
visceral response, when someone suggests that the "cow" should be "sacrificed".
There are many examples of this over the centuries: Copernicus who insisted that
the Sun is the Center of the solar system and Semmelweiss who showed that
doctors performing hand washing saved women's lives. Both men were ridiculed in
their day. It is heresy to suggest that the "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 defending their current
beliefs and only 4% will embrace the idea as something to seriously consider.
Researching vaccinations and the vaccine industry, will seriously challenge your
"beliefs" in vaccines. When you begin to study the negative effects--both actual
and theoretical--that vaccines have on the immune system, you will likely become
part of the 4% who understand that "truth" about vaccines is not really "The
Truth," and that the one-size-fits-all vaccination policies currently being
enforced must be changed.
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny
New Medical Awareness Seminars
www.nmaseminars.com
@ 2002
ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND
MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION
PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS
OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR
LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND
COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH
YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.