From the September 2006 Idaho Observer:

Vaccines: How Deadly Are They? Part 2

by Ingri Cassel

This is a continuation of my response to the question – "Which would you choose if given a choice – a lead bullet in your arm OR a vaccine injected into your arm?"

We felt this to be an important question since the mantra of mainstream media, health departments, public schools, medical schools and colleges is that vaccines are completely safe and the only reliable way to prevent death from infectious diseases. The question is certainly a provocative one for many who are so entrenched in the vaccine religion that they cannot imagine the possibility of an educated person making the choice to take a lead bullet in their arm versus an experimental vaccine.

But for our Vaccination Liberation board members and Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, the choice is actually an easy one as well as an educated one. The rest of my "rant" will cover aspects of the vaccine debate that many are simply not aware of. As Vaccination Liberation founder Walene James stated in the preface of her classic textbook, Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth:

"’Family treasure doesn’t come in through the front gate,’ goes the old Zen saying. Its modern counterpart might be, ‘It is a rule of thumb,’ Paul Hawken said, ‘the more you see a product advertised, the more of a ripoff it is.’ Putting these two statements together, we could say, that which intrudes upon us through the media is least valuable and that which has real value is usually hidden or, at least, must be searched for. By these tokens, how would the vaccination business fare?"

Vaccination Liberation webmaster Dewey Ross Duffel, who has devoted thousands of volunteer hours researching vaccinations and developing the Vaccination Liberation website(s), decided the question we are posing is provocative, and timely, enough to email me the following response:

A Bullet or a Vaccine?

Recently, I was asked to seriously think about the question, "What would I rather have, a bullet in the arm or a vaccine injection." Reflection brings to mind what might be considered a jest made in all seriousness, "Doctor, I would rather have a second opinion."

But back to reality, the political climate of today is rapidly moving our society toward a time where many people must make the above choice. The implications of the above question dictates that the risks must be calculated before answering, "Which is more harmful, a bullet in the arm or a vaccine?" I have survived several vaccinations and perhaps even recovered somewhat from what I believe were vaccine side effects. I believe that certainly one flesh wound from a bullet would have been preferable to the years of health burdens created by multiple vaccine toxins. And old age may bring to me yet more adverse effects from vaccinations received in youth and middle age.

The worst that one more vaccination can do is kill me. The second worst possibility is that I might suffer a life long chronic illness due to yet one more vaccination. Likewise, the worst a bullet in the arm might do is, under rare circumstances, lead to death. More likely than death would be the shattering of the bone with a possible amputation. The most likely effect would be a flesh wound which would eventually heal. Death is probably more likely from the vaccine than from a gunshot to the arm. However this reasoning includes only questions of physical health. My religion teaches that vaccines make the body hard to use by the spirit. Thus the question at hand has implications of a serious moral and spiritual evolutionary import. It would be a violation of integrity on my part to allow myself to be vaccinated. It should be noted that my studies into the vaccine paradigm have demonstrated to me that vaccination carries no benefits; therefore benefits need not be considered as part of the "equation" in answering this question.

So what is the answer? The answer was given long ago by Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty or give me death."  So shoot the bullet, but don’t expect me to consent to or passively await either the bullet or the vaccination.

Please join with me and others in Vaccination Liberation in restoring and keeping the right to make healthy choices.

~Dewey R. Duffel www.vaclib.org

It is clear by Dewey’s personal experience of having received many vaccines in his lifetime and not experiencing any severe debilitating health effects from these vaccines, his choice clearly had to be weighed with the foundational principles of his religion and his strong conviction to protect his most fundamental of human rights – the right to own his own body. Afterall, if we are truly free beings, the choice itself (a bullet or a vaccine) is a ludicrous one. But his more ominous admission from years of independent research that vaccines carry NO benefits should make us all wonder how the vaccine religion got such a strong foothold in our society as the number one means of infectious disease prevention.

As I said in the first part of this article, the question was posed more as an illustration as to how similar the following two scenarios might be: 1) Lining up people to take an avian flu (or other pandemic) vaccine, and 2) Lining people up to shoot them or gun them down.

In one scenario, known poisons and viral proteins that damage the nervous system and pollute the blood are injected into you and others. In the second scenario, bullets are discharged systematically and your life would likely end swiftly, painlessly.

In the first scenario, you live but have chronic ailments and are diagnosed with an autoimmune disease. You never believed vaccines were anything but good for you and your children. Although two of your grandchildren are on the autism spectrum of disorders, their doctors have convinced the family that this is because of bad genes and couldn’t possibly be triggered by the incredible number of vaccines they were given beginning soon after birth.

In the second scenario, you die fairly quickly.

Although the question posed did not involve necessarily a life or death decision, I wanted to illustrate how deadly vaccines are to the normal functioning of the brain and nervous system as well as the normal functioning of our immune "system."

So to simplify why an "old-fashioned" lead bullet is, in my mind, less "deadly" than a vaccine — I have treated many serious wounds successfully using hydrogen peroxide, cayenne pepper and comfrey (Reference previous Back to Basics columns on this topic). But when it comes to serious cases of vaccine reactions, the damage is systemic and much more difficult to treat and recover from.

How does our immune system work?

It is apparent that pediatricians and other doctors who administer vaccines do not have a clue as to exactly what vaccines do to the normal functioning of the immune system. In fact, many of them do not know that every vaccine produces some degree of encephalitis, or swelling in the brain (Reference – "Vaccination, Social Violence and Criminality: The Medical Assault on the American Brain and The Coulter Reader: Exposing the Flaws in the Medical Paradigm" by Harris Coulter, Ph.D).

Vaccination Liberation co-director Wendy Callahan relates the story of having met a man who was nearly finished with his Ph.D. in immunology. She asked him if he could explain to her exactly how the immune system works. He admitted that he could not and further admitted that no one knows exactly how the human immune system works.

Hilary Butler in her recently published book, "Just a Little Prick," relates how Dr. Robert A. Good, a world-renowned researcher and pediatrician who later became famous in immunology, admitted at a conference that his notebooks from medical school were "filled with lies":

"Except for a few descriptions such as well-established anatomy, everything that seemed so orderly and beautiful with the rather comprehensive treatment I had given it for one moment in history, had changed, grown, and been reordered by the scholarship of the intervening 10 years. That is why it is so important so frequently to take stock…and to consider what has been happening in the research laboratories and in our thinking on so many subjects," wrote Dr. Good in 1974, quoted from pp. 130-131 of Just a Little Prick.

Butler reminds us of what history has repeatedly taught us: What we believe to be true today may change tomorrow. It is also apparent that very few know accurate medical history "to put into context a world where drugs and vaccines are expanding in numbers, and are big business in a way which has never been seen before."

Susan Pearce, co-founder of the Wyoming Vaccination Information Network, wrote an excellent editorial that was published in the August 31, 2006 edition of the Sheridan Press:

Dear Editor,

Am I the only one who was dismayed to see the "complex series of vaccinations" recommended for children these days? In a "Back to School" insert dated August, 2006, in the Sheridan Press, the list not only shows a significant rise in cost, but also a frightening increase in antigens injected into their bodies.

In our impassioned crusade to wipe out infectious diseases, have we been creating chronic allergic and auto-immune illnesses in our children?

If your child is given all of the recommended doses, he will receive over 100 antigens by way of injection, bypassing the normal portals of entry, such as the mouth and nose, by the time he is seven years old. This is because there are sometimes many antigens in one vaccine. For instance, each dose of Prevnar, the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, has eight antigens (seven pneumoniae serotypes plus a diphtheria protein).

Philip Incao, M.D., described how vaccines affect the immune response in his 1999 article, "How Vaccines Work" http://www.ei-resource.org/articles/gulfwar-art07.asp, He explained that vaccination stimulates the immune system just enough to produce antibodies, remembering the disease antigen, but does not stimulate it enough to provoke an "acute inflammatory response by the cellular immune system," which would sicken the person with the very disease the vaccine tried to prevent.

His clear description revealed why the many vaccines we give our children shift the delicate balance of the immune system away from the acute inflammatory discharging side (the cell-mediated side or Th1) toward the antibody-producing side (Th2).

One of his conclusions was that vaccines are usually good at preventing someone from showing evidence of a certain illness, but they will not improve the person’s health or his immune system. We need to heed Dr. Incao’s warning that, although vaccinations decrease acute discharging inflammatory reactions, they increase the tendency to chronic allergic and auto-immune reactions.

Rita Hoffman, in an article on hypersensitivity, said, "Atopic disorders are the cluster of 3 related disorders—allergies, asthma, and eczema, with anaphylaxis being the most severe form of allergic reaction. Atopic disorders are pervasive and raise the alert that the immune system has been sensitized and has shifted away from its normal functioning TH1 mode into a chronically reactive TH2 mode." ["Anaphylactic children - canaries in the public health mine shaft? Are vaccines responsible for the epidemic of anaphylaxis in young children today?" www.vran.org/vaccines/anaphylaxis/ana-vac.htm]

Here are a few interesting facts about some of the vaccines in the recommended schedule. Prevnar vaccine’s package insert, under the heading, "Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility," states, "Prevnar has not been evaluated for any carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or impairment of fertility."

The flu vaccine has been recommended for pregnant women as well as for infants. The 2005–2006 Fluzone Influenza Virus Vaccine package insert says, under the heading "Pregnancy Category C," "Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with Influenza Virus Vaccine. It is not known whether Influenza Virus Vaccine can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity. Influenza Virus Vaccine should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed. For guidance regarding use in pregnant women, see Indications and Usage section."

There are three commonly used vaccines that were propagated from the lung tissue of two aborted babies, one male, one female. These vaccines are rubella (part of the MMR, or measles, mumps, rubella vaccine), chickenpox (varicella), and hepatitis A. There are alternatives for both rubella and hepatitis A, but these products are not available in the United States. These three are in the recommended schedule for our children.

Other vaccines that were propagated using fetal tissue from abortion are combinations such as rubella-mumps (Biavax), rubella-measles (MR-VAX) and Hepatitis A and B (Twinrix). A newer one combines MMR with chickenpox (ProQuad). Several flu and Avian flu vaccines under development also use fetal cell lines from abortion. See www.cogforlife.org/fetalvaccines.htm for the constantly updated list.

Note: Wyoming state law allows both medical and religious exemptions to vaccination. See www.vaclib.org/chapter/wyhome.htm

Bravo to Susan Pearce for presenting important vaccine information to the people in her community that they would not have likely known about. It is clear that Susan Pearce has done her due diligence, researching vaccines for a number of years. But rather than knowing everything there is to know about vaccines, it is even more important to know the right questions to ask while getting clear on the importance of asserting your God-given human rights, the most important being the ownership of your body and mind. We must always remember that, when entering the legal realm, all rights not demanded are presumed waived.

Note: This topic is so important that I will be continuing this "rant"/essay in The October 2006 Back to Basics column.