From the December 2001
95 percent of doctors clueless as to vaccine ingredients
by Don Harkins
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, an osteopath from Cleveland, had no idea what vaccines
were made of until she attended the September, 2000 National Vaccine
Information Center conference in Alexandria Virginia.“I was an ER (emergency
room) doc for 12 years and have operated an alternative healthcare practice
for six years and I had no idea what was in vaccines. I always assumed they
contained some virus and saline
solution,” Dr. Tenpenny explained.
What she said next is shocking. “If I, an orthodox physician with an
alternative care practice who is an information junkie to boot, had no idea
what vaccines are made of, then 95 percent of the doctors out there don't
know either.” At the conference Dr. Tenpenny learned that vaccines are
cocktails of toxic substances such as formaldehyde, mercury, aluminum,
alcohol and genetic material from aborted human fetal tissue, chickens,
cows, sheep and monkeys. That was all it took for her to dedicate her
tremendous research abilities to the vaccination issue. Last spring she
organized her research into a two-day seminar that she taught to physicians
in seven cities including Orlando, Chicago, Denver and San Francisco.
If Dr. Tenpenny's response to vaccine ingredients are any indication, then
physician participation in mass vaccination could be the result of easily
curable ignorance. Every physician has in his office lists of vaccine
ingredients. The ingredients, as well as test data, adverse reactivity and
contraindications, can be found compiled in the Physicians Desk Reference or
in package inserts that accompany vaccines by law.
“Get your doctor to read the PDR for the vaccines they intend to inject into
your child,” Dr. Tenpenny advised. “Then get them to do the math.” “A
vaccine may only contain .002 percent of a toxic substance such as
formaldehyde. The percentage may seem like an insignificant, or 'safe'
amount. However, the percentages, particularly when multiple antigens are
injected at one time, often exceed the parts per million safety guidelines
established by the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental
Protection Agency,” Dr. Tenpenny explained.
We are headed into an era where the federal government is going to recommend
that states force people to be vaccinated against diseases such as smallpox.
If we are to prevent such mandates we will have to
convince doctors that vaccines are not safe. The easiest way to do that is
make sure that they understand that vaccines contain toxic ingredients and
foreign DNA that do not belong in the bodies of people.
Since drug salesmen and public health officials would rather physicians just
pump people full of poisons rather than read about them, it is once again up
to ordinary citizens to insist that they do the reading and do the math.
Once they have done the homework, it becomes nearly impossible for
physicians to justify vaccinating children as the most intelligent way to
“immunize” them from childhood diseases.
For years, medicine believed
that dosing with mercury was an effective treatment for many infections. How
about the use of thalidomide for morning sickness? X-Rays to determine the
size of children's feet? Antibiotics used prophylactically throughout the
winter to prevent ear infections? The history of studies on vaccines began
in 1922 when a smallpox vaccination program caused an outbreak of
encephalitis, with a secondary result of Guillain-Barre Syndrome, an
ascending paralysis ending in death. The poliovirus produces a breakdown of
the myelin sheath, called poliomyelitis, which results in paralysis.
Encephalitis, whether caused through disease or as a result of vaccination,
can cause demyelination of the nerves. For more information, see again The
Mechanism of Encephalitic Damage from Vaccines. "In regions in which there
is no organized vaccination of the population, general paralysis is rare. It
is impossible to deny a connection between vaccination and the encephalitis,
which follows it.
New of the World 1/12/02 (December 1, 2002)
DOCS BRIBED TO BULLY PARENTS INTO MMR JABS
Kids struck off to meet targets
DOCTORS are being offered cash by the government to give children the
controversial MMR jab.
And some GPs are so desperate to get the money, they are ‘striking off'
youngsters who don't have the injection. The combined MMR vaccine for
Measles, Mumps and Rubella has been linked to autism and bowel conditions
and the News of the World is campaigning for the government to offer parents
single jabs for each disease.
However the Department of Health has set doctors a target which means they
can claim £2,730 if they immunise 90 per cent of their patients aged two and
under with the MMR jab. The medics get the money if the youngsters also have
injections to protect them against other diseases.
But while parents have no objections to vaccinating their kids against
illnesses such as whooping cough, polio and diphtheria, thousands are
worried that the MMR jab could cause harm and are refusing to let the GPs
give it to their kids. So, in order to get the bonus, some doctors are
‘cooking the books'. They de-register those youngsters on their lists who
don't have the injection and re-classify them as ‘temporary residents'
instead. A temporary resident can get the same care from their GP as a
resident, but may have to pay for their treatment.
Magda Taylor, from The Informed Parents Charity, is adamant that doctors are
fixing the figures to get the cash. She said: "Doctors seem to be cooking
the books. They may tell the government they've reached the 90 per cent
target, but in reality that figure is much less. "If they exclude patients
who are reluctant to have the vaccination from their registers, the figures
Mum Karen Kennedy-Milne, of Kingston, Surrey, was furious when she
got a letter from her doctor saying her toddler Abigail would be treated as
a ‘temporary resident' because she hadn't had the MMR jab. She said: "My
choice for my children has been compromised by doctors trying to cash in on
my child's health."
Abigail's doctor refused to comment when we contacted her at the Canbury
Medical Centre, but the tot was reinstated as a full member of the surgery
after we called. John Stark, communications director of the Kingston Primary
Care Trust, told the News of the World: "The trust tried to resolve the
issue between the Canbury Medical Centre and the Kennedy-Milnes by
contacting the family to offer assistance. The issue has now been
resolved." But he admitted the trust did not have the power to stop GPs
de-registering patients for monetary gain.
He said: "The trust's policy is that children should not be removed from GP
lists to influence target payments. But GPs are self-employed and they don't
have to follow our guidelines."
Parents' anger over MMR threat to GPs
BY VICKI SHAW
PARENTS today reacted angrily to news that GPs will lose Government cash if
they fail to immunise children with the controversial MMR vaccine.
Doctors used to receive bonuses for achieving targets on vaccinating
children with the triple measles, mumps and rubella jab. But now, a new
policy set down by the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI), states that
GPs will LOSE money if they fail to convince enough parents to have the
inoculation. Today family support groups said the new ruling was
"outrageous" and put the doctors "between a rock and a hard place."
Wakefield mum Maria Woodward, who believes her daughter Francine, 12, was
left epileptic and with learning difficulties after having the jab, said:
"It's just ridiculous. "GPs would happily provide the separate vaccines
parents have been calling for, but the Government won't allow them. Why
should they be penalised for something that is not their fault. "Instead of
punishing people, the Department of Health should concentrate on restoring
the public's confidence in MMR by instigating a fully public inquiry.
"I am concerned that doctors will begin to put extra pressure on parents
when they are already making what is a terribly difficult decision."
Uptake rates for the combined jab have fallen to an
all-time low, with only six in ten children in some areas having the
vaccine. Parents began shunning the jab following a report by Dr Andrew
Wakefield of the Royal Free Hospital in London which linked the vaccine to
bowel disorders and autism. His findings have since been refuted by several
other major reports and his own colleagues who worked on the study in 1998
have distanced themselves from him. Parents have been calling for the NHS to
provide separate vaccines which they believe put less pressure on the immune
system. However, the Department of Health insists the triple jab is safe and
refuses to provide single injections for free.
The new CHI ruling will see doctors given star ratings for the number of
children they immunise. If they are downgraded they could lose essential
cash for their local Primary Care Trust. In the past, NHS hospital trusts
that fail to achieve the maximum three stars have lost £1m a year each. It
is not known how much cash is attached to the GPs' new inoculation targets.
Despite these recommendations, it is well known that
many doctors refuse to vaccinate themselves and their families.14,15 In
the Feb. 20, 1981, issue of the Journal of the American Medical
Association, an article entitled “Rubella Vaccine in Susceptible Hospital
Employees, Poor Physician Participation” reports that the lowest
vaccination rate among medical personnel for the German measles vaccine
occurred among obstetrician/gynecologists and the next lowest rate
occurred among pediatricians.16 The authors conclude, “The fear of
unforeseen vaccination reactions was the main reason for the low uptake
rate of physicians to be vaccinated.”
Dr. Robert Mendelson wrote a report about a Los Angeles physician who
refused to vaccinate his own 7-month-old baby. According to Mendelson,
this doctor stated, “I’m worried about what happens when the vaccine
virus may not only offer little protection against measles but may also
stay around in the body, working in a way that we don’t know much
about.”17 Yet the doctor was still vaccinating his patients and
justifying his actions: “As a parent I have the luxury of making a
choice for my child. As a physician, legally and professionally, I have
to accept the recommendations of the profession, which is what we also
had to do with the whole swine flu business.”
In the British Medical Journal, an article entitled, “Attitudes of
General Practitioners Towards their Vaccination against Hepatitis B”
tells us that of 598 doctors questioned about hepatitis B vaccine, 86
percent believe that all general practitioners should be vaccinated
against hepatitis B. Yet 309 of those practitioners had not been
vaccinated themselves. This less than enthusiastic response by
physicians is further noted in another British Medical Journal article on
hepatitis B vaccination and surgeons: “Infection with hepatitis B virus
is a serious hazard for health workers. Surgeons are particularly at
risk with potentially devastating consequences to their well-being and a
major threat to their livelihood if they become carriers.”18 However,
either surgeons do not take this threat seriously or realize that
vaccinations do not offer protection, because the article goes on to say,
“Despite good evidence of an increased risk of infection, a high
percentage of surgeons in this study had not been immunized. Clearly,
there is a failure by all surgeons to protect themselves and to insist
that junior staff are protected.”
It would seem that there are many doctors who are in agreement with the
words of Dr. James Sheenan, who says, “The only wholly safe vaccine is a
vaccine that is never used.”
Back to page