www.nmaseminars.com
© 2002 by Sherri Tenpenny
 

I always find it interesting that a discussion over the topic of vaccination can become "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, we stop using it until we 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-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 she/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 their "vaccines are safe" mantra but the long term and relatively unknown complications from vaccines reveal that no vaccine is safe.

3.  A vaccine "safety" study compares a new vaccine to a "placebo" determine the safety of the new vaccine. 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 called "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.www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/hib.pdf 
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,1999, Vol. 281, No. 22, p.3132

5.  We want to "believe" that if we receive a vaccine, we will be protected from the 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.

When you research vaccinations and the vaccine industry, you will find that your foundational beliefs regarding vaccines will be seriously challenged. 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 mandatory vaccination policies currently being enforced must be changed.

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny
New Medical Awareness Seminars
 

© 2002 by Sherri Tenpenny