I like this article's slant. People are so pumped with fear on this issue that they don't even have the ability to cut through the curtain and look for the truth.By
Sherri Tenpenny, DOIt's interesting how a discussion about vaccination can quickly become heated and sometimes even hostile. Would the same debate rage over an antibiotic or an antihypertensive medicine if there was evidence the drug was causing harm? When it becomes obvious that thousands have been injured by a drug such as Vioxx, it is removed from the market. We stop the use of drugs until they are proven safe. And we sue.
Not so with vaccines. Vaccines are promoted with fanfare until they are statistically proven to cause harm to a large number of persons. The thousands of individuals who suffer from vaccine reactions in proportion to the millions who have been vaccinated are not considered to be a mathematically significant statistic. However, the more than $1billion that has been paid to vaccine-injured persons shows that safety is not all that is it promoted to be. Why the double standard?
Vaccination is built around a "belief system." We believe vaccines are safe; we believe vaccines are important to health; we believe the stories that vaccines are solely responsible for the elimination of smallpox and polio. And we really want to believe that our doctors have read all the available information on vaccines--pro and con--and are telling us the complete truth about vaccines.
However, belief is based on faith, not necessarily on fact. For example, we want to believe that vaccinating our children will keep them from getting sick with measles or chickenpox. However, there is a plethora of information documenting this is not necessarily so.
Why is there an almost desperate need to defend the current belief--and trust--in vaccines? The public’s view of disease seems to be similar to our current view on terrorism: Random attacks that are potentially deadly. The media hawks this view of childhood illnesses and the need for vaccines. Pharma sells it, doctors push it, and educational institutions reinforce it. They keep selling it because most readily buy into it, without question. There is a "just in case" or "better be safe than sorry" mentality when it comes to vaccination and illness with children.* After nearly 200 years of use, fear still sells vaccination.
What do we really know about vaccines? A review of the literature and the CDC documents reveals the following:
1. Vaccine safety studies are relatively small and include only healthy children. However when a vaccine trial has been completed, vaccines are given to ALL children, regardless of the condition of their health, family history or genetics.
2. Vaccine safety studies are short. Most clinical trials monitor for side effects a paltry 21 days, sometimes, it is only for 5 days. It can take months before immune system complications appear. This arbitrary deadline, established by the FDA, precludes associating vaccines with chronic health disorders. "Safe" is a designation given based on limited information.
3. Vaccine safety studies do not use a true placebo. One of the Gold Standards in medical research is the "placebo-controlled" trial. An inactive substance such as a sugar pill is given as a placebo to one group of participants, while the treatment group is given the new drug. The data is analyzed to compare the number of side effects that occurred in those given the drug compared to the numbers of side effects that occurred in those given the placebo. However, the "placebo" used in vaccine research is not an inert substance such as sterile water; it is another vaccine. Inert, sterile water doesn't cause a reaction; as substitute vaccine can. If both groups of babies in a trial have the same number of reactions, the study reports that the vaccine "is as safe as a placebo." This is deceptive science.
4. Vaccine-induced antibodies do not correlate with protection. In fact, the esteemed journal, Vaccine stated this clearly "…It is known that, in many instances, antigen-specific antibody titers do not correlate with protection." The full reference can be found at PMID: 11587808
Vaccination has been accepted as safe, effective and protective. The shots can be described as a medical "sacred cows," by definition, "a medical procedure unreasonably immune to criticism." The strong response is a reaction to a suggestion that the "cow" should be "sacrificed." It is heresy to suggest that the status quo is wrong.
When Copernicus insisted that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the solar system, it went against the philosophical and religious beliefs held during the medieval times. When two other Italian scientists of the time, Galileo and Bruno, embraced Copernican theory their comments were considered blasphemous. Bruno was tried before the Inquisition, condemned and burned at the stake in 1600. Thirty years later, Galileo was brought forward and in front of his "Betters," was forced to renounce his beliefs under the threat of torture and death. Even after his confession, he was sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his days.
The more one investigates vaccination and studies the adverse effects that have been attributed to vaccines, the more one becomes a Copernican heretic, speaking out against the status quo can have deadly consequences. I have personally invested more than 8,000 hours in revealing the truth about vaccines. If the result of this inquiry and exposure is to be called a heretic, than I am in wonderful company.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Vaccines---Why-Fear-Sells&id=610035
