Why is it that a discussion surrounding vaccination frequently disintegrates into hot-tempered debate? Would the same emotionally charge interchange occur if the discussion was centered around a new antibiotic or new antihypertensive medication that it was thought to be causing harm?

Highly doubtful. The drug would promptly be removed from the market if deaths were merely suspected. We stop the use of medications until they are proven to be safe. Not so with a vaccine. We continue to use it until we can "prove" it has caused harm.

Why the double standard?

Because questioning the use of vaccines challenges long-held beliefs. We believe that vaccines are safe; we believe that vaccines are essential for health; we believe that vaccines will protect us from infections. And we really want to believe our doctor has read all the available information on vaccines-pro and con-and believe s/he is telling us the complete, unbiased truth.

However, beliefs are based on faith, not facts.

Researching the medical literature and the documents from the CDC (Center for Disease Control) will reveal some startling facts:

1. Vaccines have not been proven to be safe.
Safety studies are small and only include "healthy" children. However, once a study has been completed, the newly approved vaccine is given to ALL children, regardless of underlying health condition or genetic predisposition. The CDC knows this and admits that once the vaccine is licensed for widespread use, the true "study population" is the general public.
2. Side effect profiles are insufficiently monitored.
The observation for side effects only continues for a up to 14 days in most studies. Complex immune system problems can weeks or months to appear. This arbitrary 14-day cut off set by the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry stops the assessment of long before complications long before they are likely to appear.

3. The "gold standard" for the medical industry is the double-blind, placebo controlled study. Vaccine studies violate this principle. When a new drug is studied for effectiveness, it is compared against a standard placebo, a "sugar pill." When a vaccine is studied for "safety," the new vaccine is compared against an existing vaccine with a "known safety profile." If the new vaccine has the same side effects profile as the "placebo" vaccine, 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 within the CDC documents 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. Many
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 vaccines rages on, both sides using "data" and "studies" used to support both their views. But the bottom line is this:

Vaccination has been accepted as safe, effective and protective for more than 200 years. It is a medical "sacred cow" and with all "sacred cows", people react viscerally to suggestions that "the cow should be sacrificed." Many examples of this have occurred throughout the centuries. Copernicus (who insisted that the Earth rotated around the Sun) and Semmelweiss (who proved hand washing saved women's lives) are but two examples. These renaissance men were publicly ridiculed and professionally ostracized for their "crazy notions."

It is heresy to suggest that the "status quo" is wrong. The same is true when suggesting our one-size-fits-all public health vaccination policies must be challenged.

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny
New Medical Awareness Seminars
©2002, 2003
www.nmaseminars.com
440-268-0897

Dr. Tenpenny is board-certified in Emergency Medicine and currently specializes in Integrative Medicine. She is an outspoken advocate for healthcare choice, including the right to refuse vaccination. She speaks nationally and internationally on the subject of "The Unspoken Risks: What Vaccines do to our Health."