| The
Belief in Vaccines
By Dr. Sherri Tenpenny
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 promptly be removed from the market if deaths
resulted from its use. Even if deaths were suspected to be caused by a
medication, we would stop using it until we proved it was 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 complications from vaccines are relatively 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
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 percent of people will spend their time and energy defending their
current beliefs and only four percent 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 four percent 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
The author of the above
article, Sherri J. Tenpenny, D.O., is a nationally renowned and respected
vaccine expert. |