Vaccinations
Vaccination is the administration of antigenic
material (the vaccine)
to produce immunity to a disease. Vaccines can prevent or
ameliorate the effects of infection by a pathogen. The material administrated can either be live but
weakened forms of pathogens (bacteria or viruses),
killed or inactivated forms of these pathogens, or purified material such as proteins.
In
addition to the antigens from the pathogens, vaccines include many other items
such as egg proteins, Triton X100, formaldehyde, resin, gelatin, tributylphosphate,
polyscorbate 80, gentamycin, and thimerosal – a mercury containing
preservative.
Sherri
Tenpenny, DO has dedicated a tremendous amount of her time, more than 700 hours
to study the existing literature and to stay abreast of new developments spends
2 to 3 hours everyday, investigating vaccines. Her review of the
primary medical literature and CDC documents surprised her. Below is a list of some of what she
uncovered:
- Vaccines
are not responsible for the eradication of diseases, such as polio and
smallpox.
- Vaccines
have not been "proven" to be safe.
- When a
vaccine is called “effective”, it is not the same thing as
being “protective.”
- There
are no true double-blind, placebo-controlled studies used in vaccine
research. The new, investigational vaccine is compared against a vaccine
with a "known side effect profile." Therefore, "control
group" is given a "placebo" that is another vaccine, not
saline, sterile water, or no vaccine at all.
- Vaccines
are not “relatively harmless”…as thousands have been injured and have
died, as a result of vaccination.
Medical issues
being scrutinized as part of the “vaccine-injury spectrum” include the autism
epidemic, thimerosal/mercury toxicity, and the rampant childhood epidemics:
asthma, allergies, eczema, ADD/ADHD, and cancer.
I share Dr.
Tenpenny’s views on vaccinations and believe as she does that vaccines cause more harm to the health of the individual than the
“protection” and “benefit” they are proclaimed to provide.
- I oppose
the “one-size-fits-all” public health policy imposed by state rules and
implemented by physicians regarding childhood vaccination.
- I oppose a system that forces parents to inject their children,
against their better judgment, in exchange for an education that they have
paid for with their tax dollars.
- I oppose
a system that forces parents to make decisions based on fear. Any
physician who forces a parent to vaccinate through threats—threatening to
turn them into Children’s services for “medical neglect” or threatening to
dismiss them from their medical practice—is not the physician you want
caring for your family’s health. I am opposed to those behaviors.
- I support the freedom to refuse any
medical procedure, including the right to refuse a vaccination, and I am
willing to fight to defend that choice. Once people understand the real
risk of the viral “vaccine-preventable” infections vs. the risks of vaccines
designed to prevent the infections, I believe people should be allowed to
make a choice regarding which risk they are willing to accept.
- I am in favor of true, complete informed consent, which means a person hears the full spectrum of pros and cons
regarding a medical option and then is given the choice to refuse this
therapy. Our current public health policy does not allow that option.
- I am pro-information. Most of the
information given to the general public is incomplete and even deceptive.
Information stimulates discussion. Vaccination needs to be questioned and
debated. That cannot occur without substantiating information to support a
contrarian position on vaccination.
An excellent reference on vaccines is www.nvic.org.
Dr. Linda is willing to help you legally
request that your child(ren) be exempt from
vaccinations. She has been successful in
helping others.
