A Bullet to the Head
November 17, 2009
Article by Dr Sherri Tenpenny
It seems people often need to experience a bullet to the head before they will believe bullets can be deadly...and then they rue the day they ignored warnings about playing with loaded guns.
Vaccination seems to hold a similar place. People ignore words of caution and roll up their sleeves to get a flu shot. It seems they think getting a vaccine is the same as taking a multivitamin, and equally as benign. But when serious adverse events occur, such as Guillain-Barre paralysis, a seizure disorder or even a death, a jolt of reality lays bare just how damaging a “simple vaccine” can be. continue here
The stranglehold of fear, perpetrated by those in white coats and by the medical bureaucrats in Washington DC who take their marching orders from pharma, is working hard to choke rationally thinking adults into submission. I get emails almost every day that say something like, "I bought your DVDs and your books...but I have a question: Should I get a flu shot?" WHAT?@!>! My mouth drops. I have to clear my head and find a way to say, "No, you should not get the flu shot", being cautious to keep my tone void of sarcasm. That may seem harsh, but in very turbulent times. Soft language and hand holding until people “get it” is becoming increasingly more difficult.
Being in the business of waking people up to the hazards of vaccines certainly has its ups and downs. A recent “up” was the public policy debate held on November 10 at the University of Texas in Austin. Sponsored by the Libertarian Longhorns, the Texas College Republicans and a few other Texas health freedom groups, the discussion called, "Are Vaccine Mandates Good or Bad for Public Health?" was open to the general public. Interest in this timely topic was reflected by the standing-room only attendance of the meeting.
Speaking in support of vaccination and school mandates was Tom Betz, MD, MPH, Director of Region 7 for the Texas Department of Health Services. Several of his health department colleagues joined him in the audience but chose not to join him on the stage. I had the pleasure of being teamed with Dawn Richardson, President and Co-founder of PROVE (Parents Requesting Open Vaccine Education) in Austin, Texas and the Directory of State Advocacy for the National Vaccine Information Center in Vienna, Virginia. Our presentation was mostly about opposition to vaccine mandates but we were able to address our opposition to vaccines in general. Based on the hundreds of comments we received, the debate (found all on YouTube) was well received and enlightening for all.
All three participants were given the questions to review prior to the debate. There is so much to say about vaccines that preparation was important to cover key points, almost as sound bites; only three short minutes were allowed for each answer. Our very professional moderator, Dr. Donna Campbell, allowed equal time for each side.
During the personal introductions, Dr. Campbell informed the audience that the plan was to have two persons on each panel; but that Dr. Betz was the only person from the Health Department who would agree to participate. Prior to settling in on the stage, I had learned the reason why.
Shaking Dr. Betz’ hand, I thanked him for joining the discussion. He returned the niceties with a slight shrug, confessing that, “No one else wanted to do it.” Surprised, I queried, “Why not? This is a great way to tell everyone your message about vaccines.” My unspoken question was, “Why didn’t the Health Department want to jump on the opportunity to bury anti-vaccination ‘pseudo-science’, as you call it, once and for all, in front of everyone?” He quietly replied, “We’ve done these types of programs before; they never go well.”
It seems pro-vaccine arguments are being soundly defeated, time after time. And the real vaccine “pseudo-science” is being exposed for the rhetoric it is: factoids crafted by public health officials from the WHO and the CDC, and then regurgitated by under-informed medical professionals to a naïve public. Funny how medical bureaucrats and doctors are considered the "experts" when it is strangely obvious they don't understand – and probably don’t even read – their own medical literature.
The Austin debate was the next important step in exposing that the “science of vaccination” isn’t so scientific after all. Vaccination has been accepted as safe, effective and protective. The shots can be described as a medical sacred cow, defined as “a medical procedure that is unreasonably immune to criticism.” Doctors and patients who question vaccines are ridiculed and marginalized. It is heresy to suggest that the status quo is wrong.
Vaccine adverse events are considered “rare”, so when reactions occur, steps are taken to negate the association to the vaccine. Patients are discredited, parents are dismissed. Doctors subject very ill persons to thousands of dollars of inconclusive medical tests, rather than to simply acknowledge – and rightfully assign causality – to the vaccine. When a person reacts to penicillin or Paxil or any other drug, isn’t it just blamed on the drug? Not so with vaccines.
Going to Austin was an upbeat offset to other particularly disturbing news reported over the last few weeks about the
H1N1, swine flu vaccine:
• Several schools have vaccinated children without parental consent.
• The growing list of reported miscarriages.
• A teen athlete who is now crippled.
• Two students and a teacher in China who died hours after getting the shot.
• Children having hallucinations, and then committing suicide, after taking Tamiflu.
• The strange and virulent outbreak in the Ukraine, where the WHO has been deafeningly silent about its findings – but knows that whatever is the cause, vaccination is the answer.
We seem to regard germs the same way we think about terrorism: Random attacks that can be deadly. All parties who promote vaccination hawk this view, particularly those pushing both types of flu shots. Tens of millions have been spent in the US on national advertising campaigns, and even Sesame Street merchandising, to convince us that flu shots are necessary to keep us well – and keep us alive. But perhaps we have it backwards. Bugs can cause random, mostly benign attacks, particularly among the healthy. But random, “deadly” attacks, with health consequences that can show up years later? I’d worry more about the vaccines.
After 200 years, with our many advances in science and medicine, you would think that someone could develop a method to protect babies and adults from infectious disease other than injecting them with animal cells, stray viruses, heavy metals and toxic chemicals. Why do we call this health and protection? Until my dying breath I will never understand why people resolutely defend – and demand – the right to inject themselves and their children with these risky potients.
For those who meet resistance when trying to warn family and friends of vaccine risks, the only thing to do, really, is to keep spreading the word. Don’t be discouraged. You never know who is listening and you never know when the seeds will sprout. Focus on those who are waking up and gratefully support them. The rest, well sadly, they may have to find out the hard way what it feels like to get hit by that stray bullet.