Your name, website, phone
number, and contact info here
July’s issue I started was a little controversial – FEVER. I realize that most of what I am presenting
represents a departure from old thinking, and that’s good. Let’s not stop here though. Let’s explore
an issue which is making billions of pharmaceutical dollars in OTC meds from unsuspecting
parents:
Fever Frenzy (cont’d)
Why do you have to take your child’s temperature when
he/she is feverish? Good question—you don’t. The
degree of fever is not important. Increasing numbers of
chiropractic doctors as well as physicians feel that a
child’s temperature should not be taken. Taking a child’s
temperature is an unnecessary ritual. I could not agree
more.
You are probably wondering that if this is the case, then
how did this fever phobia begin? Well, it was borne out of
marketing efforts by the pharmaceutical industry whose
aim was to teach the public that fever should be feared
and treated so that sales of anti-fever medications would
soar. This marketing plan was very effective and is still
prevalent today.
So, when is it necessary to treat fever?
It isn’t. Many doctors now feel that it is
neither necessary nor wise to lower body
temperature. FEVER IS NOT THE
PROBLEM: it is simply the result of the
body
attempting
to
recover.
Any
medications taken to lower the temperature
of the body will work only temporarily.
Once the body excretes them, the
temperature will once again increase. The
reason for this is that those drugs have no
real effect on the problem and therefore
giving them to your children changes
nothing.
I would suggest that you have your child checked
by a chiropractor like myself instead; the goal
here would be to provide your child with the
optimum function of the nervous system so that it
can successfully deal with his/her “illness.”
This may surprise you: I have just recently
learned that back in the 1940’s in Davenport,
Iowa, many chiropractors of the time were
referred to as “flu doctors” and apparently, many
patients would see a chiropractor in those days
when
they
had
the flu. They found that the length of time of their
illness, its severity, and frequency was shortened
sometimes up to 80 percent.
If you must absolutely do “something” while your
child is recovering, there are a number of natural
health products found in health food stores that
may help your child cope with this period of time
when the body is “doing its thing.”
There are, however, certain situations that
warrant careful observation. If your child is under
the age of one, and has a fever with the presence
of any of the following signs, you should seek the
advice of a health care professional:
he/she is in severe pain and cannot be
comforted, is anxious and or lethargic, whining
continuously, cannot retain fluids and/or has
diarrhea, has difficulty urinating, breathing, or
swallowing, has an unexplained rash and has a
rapid pulse rate. Any of the above or any
combination thereof, indicates the body is having
difficulty dealing with whatever it is handling, and
I advise you to take a trip to your health care
professional and seek his/her advice.
All in all, fever should be viewed as a
good sign - as the nervous system and immune
system are doing exactly what they are designed
to do. I suggest that the next time your child has
a fever, understand the reason for it, but do not
jump the gun and try to lower your child’s
temperature; you may actually be delaying
recovery!
And please feel very welcome to ask me
anytime! I am here to help!
Cool kids in high school often
have troubles later on in life
In what is sure to be a controversial study
based on your social standing as a teenager, a
new report says being cool in high school
might not be a good thing. The study,
published in Child Development, tracked 184
kids starting at age 13 until they were 23.
It measured “cool” by looking at certain
behaviors associated with popular kids:
“Displays of romantic behavior (like kissing or
touching), deviant acts (like damaging their
parent’s property or sneaking into a movie
theatre without a ticket), or by associating
themselves with more physically attractive
friends,” Jezebel reported.
Those behaviors, though, “predicted long-term
difficulties in close relationships, as well as
significant problems with alcohol and
substance use, and elevated levels of criminal
behavior,” said the study
Source: Lisa Cianci – Orlando Sentinel
The Belief in Vaccines
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny,
I always find it interesting that a discussion over the topic of
vaccination can become "heated" and "volatile". Why is
that?....would the same debate rage over an antibiotic or an
antihypertensive medicine if there was evidence that it was
causing harm?
Highly doubtful.
It would be removed promptly from the market if deaths
resulted from its use. Even if deaths were suspected to be
caused by a medication, we stop using it until we prove it is
safe.
Not so with a vaccine. We keep using it until we can "prove" it
is causing harm.
Why the double standard?
The doublespeak occurs because vaccination is built around a "belief" system, and challenging the
validity of vaccines challenges long-held foundational beliefs. We BELIEVE that vaccines are safe; we
BELIEVE that vaccines are important for our health; we BELIEVE that vaccines will protect us from
infection; we BELIEVE that vaccines were the reason infectious diseases decreased around the world.
And we really want to BELIEVE that our doctor has read all the available information on
vaccines--pro and con and that s/he is telling us the complete truth about vaccines......
However, belief is based on faith; not necessarily on fact.
With only a cursory review of the literature and CDC documents, one will find the following facts:
1. No vaccine has ever been proven to be completely safe. Safety studies are small and only include
"healthy" children. However, after a study is completed, vaccines are given to ALL children, regardless
of underlying health conditions or genetic predispositions. We have a "one size fits all" national
vaccination policy; one that does not allow for personal choice or individualized options; and one that
has caused a myriad of health problems for many.
2. Observations for side effects continue for a maximum of 14 days during a "safety study". Complex
problems involving the immune system can take weeks or even months to appear. This arbitrary 14 day
cut off set by the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry stops the observation long before complications
are likely to appear. This is the basis for their "vaccines are safe" mantra but the long term and relatively
unknown complications from vaccines reveal that no vaccine is safe.
3. A vaccine "safety" study compares a new vaccine to a "placebo" to determine the safety of the new
vaccine. When we examine the study a little more closely, we discover that the "placebo" is NOT a
benign, inert substance, such as saline or water. The "placebo" is another vaccine with a "known safety
profile." So if the new vaccine has the same side effects as the "placebo", the new vaccine is called
"safe."
4. Vaccines are said to confer protection by causing the development of antibodies. However, there are
many references in CDC documents (the Highest Authority in the land regarding vaccines) which
reveal that antibodies don't necessarily protect us from infection. Here are a few examples from
medical journals and CDC documents:
Pertussis: “The findings of efficacy studies have not demonstrated a direct correlation between
antibody response and protection against pertussis disease.” MMWR March 28, 1997/Vol.46/No. RR7, p.4
H. Flu (HiB): “The antibody contribution to clinical protection is unknown.” ---HibTITER package insert
”The precise level of antibody required for protection against HiB invasive disease is not clearly
established.” http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/hib.pdf.
Smallpox: “Neutralizing antibodies are reported to reflect levels of protection, although this has not
been validated in the field.” JAMA June 9,1999, Vol. 281, No. 22, p.3132
5. We want to "believe" that if we receive a vaccine, we will be protected from the infection. Several
medical journal articles document that this is not necessarily so. Here are a few examples:
Pertussis Infection in Fully Vaccinated Children in Day-Care Centers, Israel (Emerging Infectious
Diseases Vol. 6, No. 5; Sep-Oct 2000)
Pertussis in the Highly Vaccinated Population, The Netherlands (Emerging Infectious Diseases
Vol. 6, No. 4 July-Aug 2000)
Pertussis in North-West Western Australia in 1999; all vaccinated. (Communicable Diseases
Intelligence 2000 Vol 2 4 No 12)
The debate surrounding the use of vaccines goes back and forth with "data" and "studies" used to
support both sides. But the bottom line is this:
Vaccination has been "accepted" as safe, effective and protective for nearly 200 years. It is a "sacred
cow" and with all "sacred cows", people react with a visceral response when someone suggests that
the "cow" should be "sacrificed". There are many examples of this over the centuries:
Copernicus who insisted that the Sun is the Center of the solar system and Semmelweiss who
showed that doctors performing hand washing saved women's lives. Both men were ridiculed in their
day. It is heresy to suggest that the "status quo" is wrong.
Statistics have shown that when presented with a new, different, challenging idea, 96% of people will
spend their time and energy defending their current beliefs and only 4% will embrace the idea as
something to seriously consider.
When you research vaccinations and the vaccine industry, you will find that your “foundational beliefs”
regarding vaccines will be seriously challenged. When you begin to study the negative effects--both
actual and theoretical--that vaccines have on the immune system, you will likely become part of the
4% who understand that “truth” about vaccines is not really “The Truth” and that the mandatory
vaccination policies currently being enforced must be changed.
100 Ways to live to 100:
52. Routine mammograms (unless cancer is suspected)
This blunderbuss approach, which uses x-rays to detect breast cancer, doesn’t see cancer at
its earliest stages and fails to pick up aggressive tumors. For every women whose cancer is correctly
detected, healthy women will go through unnecessary worry, further testing and even treatment
before doctors realize they’ve been misled by a false-positive. Consider thermography instead.
I will continue this topic over the next issues until we reach 100 points. Please enjoy!