Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The kids with Hep C and HIV cannot do anything about their conditions. Nor can kids who are unable to be vaccinated due to various medical problems. The issue is perfectly healthy kids whose parents chose not to have them vaccinated.
Here in Arizona, because they have a similar waiver system as in California, you have schools where less than 50% of the kids are vaccinated, well below the threshold of what is considered to be herd immunity. Schools like that are ripe for outbreaks of highly infectious diseases such as the measles among others. That is the problem that laws like this are trying to curb.
A sore arm IS a reaction. Just because you're lucky enough to have only that reaction does not negate it's a reaction.
These infectious diseases are named "childhood diseases" for a reason. If you vaccinate children for these and they are more susceptible as adults then you are doing a disservice. The unvaccinated are not infected until exposed. The kids with Hepatitis and HIV are infected. There is a difference. I still think it unfair to have perfectly healthy unvaccinated kids banned from school while disease infected kids are fine. Where is the logic in that?
I don't fear "childhood diseases" any more than I fear the kid with HIV.
So funny! You think spending $25 for lunch for a doctor while someone gives a presentation on a drug is absolutely terrible!
The only significant amounts are for research studies. You know what those are? They are often Phase III and post-marketing studies - you know, where they get the info on how effective the drug is and any side effects or complications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConeyGirl52
No need to apologize. I understand.
Who knows if those ingredients were there in the 60s and 70s? I dont. The list of toxins you asked for is more current.
There are fewer ingredients in many vaccines than in the past. None of them are toxic. Just continue to show your ignorance of biochemistry. It does not help your credibility
Quote:
HPV didnt exist back then. The vaccines didnt protect me from measles mumps and rubella. I never had diptheria though.
HPV was indeed around "back then". Women have been dying from cervical cancer, mostly due to HPV, for millennia. Did you take the vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella? It would be very strange for none of those to protect you.
Quote:
I stepped on plenty of nails and bottle caps and junk back then, running around barefoot all summer. I still get ingured by metal from time to time, havent had a tetnus shot in decades, and Im still alive.
Even a lot of anti-vax people take tetanus vaccine. There is no herd immunity for that, so you cannot count on others being vaccinated to protect you. Good luck.
Quote:
HPV is interesting on 2 fronts.
It has been proven that it killed 139 girls. Its lead researcher has testified that it is a needless vaccine, and actually has a conscience over the deaths. Its a rare STD, that in 98% of cases clears itself of the body on its own.
If you asked any of those girls, "Would you like to maybe die now from the vaccine, or maybe die later from the off chance of being diagnosed and treated for cervical cancer later in life?", how many of them would answer:
"um, gee! Oka-ay, I'll take the risk to prevent the possiblity of maybe coming down with cerivcal cancer later in life."
No one has the answer to that, they didnt get the opportunity.
From the signage Ive seen regarding HPV, its a wonder men arent inquiring about it as well. It simply says the vaccine prevents cancer.
No, there have been no confirmed deaths from HPV. VAERS reports are not confirmed deaths. When the reports were investigated, none of the deaths were from the HPV vaccine. Your continuing to say so does not make it true.
The strains of HPV that are associated with cancer are less like to spontaneously regress. The overall regression rate of those is nowhere near 98%. I would be interested in seeing where you got that figure. I suspect you made it up.
The "lead researcher", by whom I suppose you mean Diane Harper, has not said that it is a needless vaccine.
"In a 2012 peer-reviewed article about Cervarix, Dr. Harper states that 'Cervarix is an excellent choice for both screened and unscreened populations due to its long-lasting protection, its broad protection for at least five oncogenic HPV types, the potential to use only one-dose for the same level of protection, and its safety.' Again, she speculates that cervical cancer screening may be just as useful, but nowhere does she recommend that the vaccine not be used, that it's safety profile is unacceptable, or that the vaccine cannot prevent cancer. In fact, she recommends expanding the guidelines for HPV vaccines for older women because as they age, they are more susceptible to other serotypes of HPV, against which Cervarix confers protection. She also states that Cervarix may also have a protective effect against some autoimmune disorders. This does not sound like a researcher who is losing sleep about the HPV vaccine, but who fully supports its use, with some exceptions.
Dr. Diane Harper is one of the leading researchers in biomedical science, an individual who has spent her life studying vaccines. She has the academic training and research credibility at a level that if she said 'Gardasil is dangerous,' many of us would stand up and begin to wonder. But the facts are she has not said anything of the sort about Gardasil and Cervarix. In peer-reviewed articles published in important, high impact journals, she has given strong, but scientifically qualified, endorsements to HPV vaccines. These are the facts. Any other allegations about her lack of support for vaccinations is based on misinformation, disinformation and lies."
All Harper has said is that she had reservations about the cost effectiveness of HPV vaccines in the US.
Smart parents are having their kids vaccinated against HPV before they become sexually active. It is safe, effective, and has already been shown to reduce the incidence of precancerous conditions of the cervix. Since cervical cancer must proceed through those conditions, preventing them will prevent cervical cancer. The vaccine will also protect against other cancers, including vulvar and vaginal cancers, anal and throat cancers in men and women, and penile cancer in men. I suspect if you ask girls if they would rather have a sore arm or a fainting spell to protect against cancer later on, they would take the vaccine. Ask a man if he would rather have a sore arm now or have surgery on his penis or lose a good chunk of his throat later, he'd take the vaccine.
apologies for the misquote.... your post was SIMULAR, oh wait.... I mean SIMILAR, to another that I intended to respond to....
It is difficult for me to comprehend how SO many people can disregard tested and proven scientific data, but believe random, unproven "stories" on the internet.....
Honestly, it is a wonder how those of us raised in the 60's and 70's survived all of those poisonous vaccinations that kept us from contracting polio and smallpox and measles and mumps and tetanus and diphtheria and whooping cough.....
Actually it isn't tested or proven. If these studies where done in my lab classes they'd receive an F. You can't have a placebo test with the adjuvants present. All these studies were with the vaccine versus the aduvants and additivies but without the virus/bacteria. How is that an actual study. If it is the adjuvants that cause reaction then, of course the outcome will be that it doesn't matter.
"The development of second-generation vaccines continues as solid global evidence that the high-risk types of most importance include the five types already covered by Cervarix and three additional types (HPV 35, 52, and 58) [60]. Of more importance is the possibility of conjoining the L1 and L2 VLPs to develop a pan-protective vaccine whose one-dose produces at least 15 years of efficacy against all CIN 2+. With this future-generation vaccine, it would be possible to discuss the discontinuation of routine cervical cancer screening programs."
Harper's opinion, which is not shared by other experts, is that in the US cervical cancer screening with optional HPV vaccine is an option. However, with vaccines that protect against more strains of HPV, eventually, given high vaccine coverage, it may no longer be necessary to screen for cervical cancer.
There is now a Gardasil vaccine that covers nine strains.
So funny! You think spending $25 for lunch for a doctor while someone gives a presentation on a drug is absolutely terrible!
The only significant amounts are for research studies. You know what those are? They are often Phase III and post-marketing studies - you know, where they get the info on how effective the drug is and any side effects or complications.
After market studies are acceptable? Really? So when a vaccine insert says there are so many side effects then none of them are serious? Are our kids guinea pigs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
There are fewer ingredients in many vaccines than in the past. None of them are toxic. Just continue to show your ignorance of biochemistry. It does not help your credibility
"none of them are toxic" yet none of them have been studied as injections but if ingested they are considered toxic. Toxic substances aren't really toxic? Is that really your argument?
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
HPV was indeed around "back then". Women have been dying from cervical cancer, mostly due to HPV, for millennia. Did you take the vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella? It would be very strange for none of those to protect you.
If all people who are sexually active have HPV (truth) and yet adults who are HPV positive (meaning they have had sex) get cervical cancer then HPV = Cervical cancer? Seriously? Did you ever take an IQ test? HPV causes cancer? Everyone who has sex has HPV. There is no doubt. There are several strains of HPV yet the vaccine only covers a few. How does the vaccine (scientifically and logically) prevent cancer or HPV?
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Even a lot of anti-vax people take tetanus vaccine. There is no herd immunity for that, so you cannot count on others being vaccinated to protect you. Good luck.
Tetanus comes from bacteria primarily from large animal feces. When there was a lot of people riding horses, it was prevalent that many people pricked by nails (anaerobic deep tissue injury) would get tetanus. These days we don't ride horses and it is unlikely we will get tetanus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
No, there have been no confirmed deaths from HPV. VAERS reports are not confirmed deaths. When the reports were investigated, none of the deaths were from the HPV vaccine. Your continuing to say so does not make it true.
The strains of HPV that are associated with cancer are less like to spontaneously regress. The overall regression rate of those is nowhere near 98%. I would be interested in seeing where you got that figure. I suspect you made it up.
The "lead researcher", by whom I suppose you mean Diane Harper, has not said that it is a needless vaccine.
There ARE confirmed maladies from HPV vaccine and you are certainly not familiar nor receptive to the VAERS reports that actually do show death and deformity from vaccines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
"In a 2012 peer-reviewed article about Cervarix, Dr. Harper states that 'Cervarix is an excellent choice for both screened and unscreened populations due to its long-lasting protection, its broad protection for at least five oncogenic HPV types, the potential to use only one-dose for the same level of protection, and its safety.' Again, she speculates that cervical cancer screening may be just as useful, but nowhere does she recommend that the vaccine not be used, that it's safety profile is unacceptable, or that the vaccine cannot prevent cancer. In fact, she recommends expanding the guidelines for HPV vaccines for older women because as they age, they are more susceptible to other serotypes of HPV, against which Cervarix confers protection. She also states that Cervarix may also have a protective effect against some autoimmune disorders. This does not sound like a researcher who is losing sleep about the HPV vaccine, but who fully supports its use, with some exceptions.
Dr. Diane Harper is one of the leading researchers in biomedical science, an individual who has spent her life studying vaccines. She has the academic training and research credibility at a level that if she said 'Gardasil is dangerous,' many of us would stand up and begin to wonder. But the facts are she has not said anything of the sort about Gardasil and Cervarix. In peer-reviewed articles published in important, high impact journals, she has given strong, but scientifically qualified, endorsements to HPV vaccines. These are the facts. Any other allegations about her lack of support for vaccinations is based on misinformation, disinformation and lies."
Again, there is 100% chance that if you have sex, you will have HPV. Yet you have ___% chance of getting cancer. There is no correlation there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
All Harper has said is that she had reservations about the cost effectiveness of HPV vaccines in the US.
Smart parents are having their kids vaccinated against HPV before they become sexually active. It is safe, effective, and has already been shown to reduce the incidence of precancerous conditions of the cervix. Since cervical cancer must proceed through those conditions, preventing them will prevent cervical cancer. The vaccine will also protect against other cancers, including vulvar and vaginal cancers, anal and throat cancers in men and women, and penile cancer in men. I suspect if you ask girls if they would rather have a sore arm or a fainting spell to protect against cancer later on, they would take the vaccine. Ask a man if he would rather have a sore arm now or have surgery on his penis or lose a good chunk of his throat later, he'd take the vaccine.
"The development of second-generation vaccines continues as solid global evidence that the high-risk types of most importance include the five types already covered by Cervarix and three additional types (HPV 35, 52, and 58) [60]. Of more importance is the possibility of conjoining the L1 and L2 VLPs to develop a pan-protective vaccine whose one-dose produces at least 15 years of efficacy against all CIN 2+. With this future-generation vaccine, it would be possible to discuss the discontinuation of routine cervical cancer screening programs."
Harper's opinion, which is not shared by other experts, is that in the US cervical cancer screening with optional HPV vaccine is an option. However, with vaccines that protect against more strains of HPV, eventually, given high vaccine coverage, it may no longer be necessary to screen for cervical cancer.
There is now a Gardasil vaccine that covers nine strains.
Again, 100% of people that have sex have HPV. Given that.... 100% of vomen who have sex should have cervical cancer. Yet that is not the case. How is that possible? Certain strains of HPV cause cancer while others don't? Seriously this vaccine is as useless as the Flu vaccine.
I'm against it because I don't think it's a good idea to mandate something with potentially harmful side effects. I think a parent needs to accept that responsibility, not the government. There are several different approaches to this issue, mandated by coercion being the most extreme.
I feel if we allow this it will open up more doors to medical mandates like circumcisions and end of life decisions. I don't think mandated medical procedures a line with our constitutional ideals.
I think incentives and transparent records will go further.
This issue is causing a divide I think will be harmful in the long run, and I don't think we will achieve what the mandated vaccines set out to do.
After market studies are acceptable? Really? So when a vaccine insert says there are so many side effects then none of them are serious? Are our kids guinea pigs?
After market studies are standard. If you do not know that, then you really have no business discussing drugs and vaccines at all. It is not possible to do large enough studies to pick up rare complications of any medication. It would be too expensive to enroll hundreds of thousands of participants. That is why after market studies are done and surveillance continues even after the drug (or vaccine) is available to the general public.
Quote:
"none of them are toxic" yet none of them have been studied as injections but if ingested they are considered toxic. Toxic substances aren't really toxic? Is that really your argument?
Millions of doses of vaccines have been administered with no evidence that the ingredients in them are harmful. That is clear evidence of their safety.
Quote:
If all people who are sexually active have HPV (truth) and yet adults who are HPV positive (meaning they have had sex) get cervical cancer then HPV = Cervical cancer? Seriously? Did you ever take an IQ test? HPV causes cancer? Everyone who has sex has HPV. There is no doubt. There are several strains of HPV yet the vaccine only covers a few. How does the vaccine (scientifically and logically) prevent cancer or HPV?
Not all sexually active people have infections with HPV strains that are potentially carcinogenic. Many just cause simple warts. The prevalence varies by age, with the highest in women in their early twenties: about 20%. About half of men may have genital HPV.
The vaccines are targeted against those carcinogenic strains. By preventing the HPV infection, the vaccine prevents the cellular changes caused by the virus that can progress over time to cancer.
It appears that you do not understand how vaccines work. Briefly, they present all or part of a virus (either a live, weakened version or one that has been inactivated - killed) or bacterium to the immune system, which then learns how to make antibodies to the organism. If the vaccinated person is then exposed to the wild version of the organism, it destroys it before it can cause any damage.
Quote:
Tetanus comes from bacteria primarily from large animal feces. When there was a lot of people riding horses, it was prevalent that many people pricked by nails (anaerobic deep tissue injury) would get tetanus. These days we don't ride horses and it is unlikely we will get tetanus.
Tetanus organisms can be found in soil anywhere, not just or even primarily soil containing animal manure.
"The spores are widely distributed in soil and in the intestines and feces of horses, sheep, cattle, dogs, cats, rats, guinea pigs, and chickens. Manure-treated soil may contain large numbers of spores. In agricultural areas, a significant number of human adults may harbor the organism. The spores can also be found on skin surfaces and in contaminated heroin."
You can get tetanus from any wound, particularly a deep puncture wound, that is contaminated with dirt.
Quote:
There ARE confirmed maladies from HPV vaccine and you are certainly not familiar nor receptive to the VAERS reports that actually do show death and deformity from vaccines.
The most common side effects from HPV vaccines are a sore arm and a tendency to faint after the injection. There are no confirmed deaths from the vaccine.
I know it is a long thread, but VAERS reports have been discussed here extensively. Perhaps if you wish to participate in the conversation, reading the thread would be helpful.
VAERS reports do not prove a vaccine caused any injury. All reports alleging death after HPV vaccines have been investigated and none of them are due to the vaccine.
Cervical cancer: Virtually all cases of cervical cancer are caused by HPV, and just two HPV types, 16 and 18, are responsible for about 70 percent of all cases.
Anal cancer: About 95 percent of anal cancers are caused by HPV. Most of these are caused by HPV type 16.
Oropharyngeal cancers (cancers of the middle part of the throat, including the soft palate, the base of the tongue, and the tonsils): About 70 percent of oropharyngeal cancers are caused by HPV. In the United States, more than half of cancers diagnosed in the oropharynx are linked to HPV type 16.
Rarer cancers: HPV causes about 65 percent of vaginal cancers, 50 percent of vulvar cancers, and 35 percent of penile cancers. Most of these are caused by HPV type 16.
High-risk HPV types cause approximately 5 percent of all cancers worldwide. In the United States, high-risk HPV types cause approximately 3 percent of all cancer cases among women and 2 percent of all cancer cases among men."
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
Again, 100% of people that have sex have HPV. Given that.... 100% of vomen who have sex should have cervical cancer. Yet that is not the case. How is that possible? Certain strains of HPV cause cancer while others don't? Seriously this vaccine is as useless as the Flu vaccine.
No, 100% of sexually active people do not have HPV. Of those that do, not all will have high risk strains associated with cancer, and even those with high risk strains will not always develop cancer.
You are dangerously misinformed about HPV. For goodness sake, educate yourself.
"In the trials that led to approval of Gardasil and Cervarix, these vaccines were found to provide nearly 100 percent protection against persistent cervical infections with HPV types 16 and 18 and the cervical cell changes that these persistent infections can cause. Gardasil 9 is as effective as Gardasil for the prevention of diseases caused by the four shared HPV types (6, 11, 16, and 18), based on similar antibody responses in participants in clinical studies. The trials that led to approval of Gardasil 9 found it to be 97 percent effective in preventing cervical, vulvar, and vaginal disease caused by the five additional HPV types (31, 33, 45, 52, and 58) that it targets .
To date, protection against the targeted HPV types has been found to last for at least 8 years with Gardasil and at least 9 years with Cervarix. The duration of protection with Gardasil 9 is not yet known. Long-term studies of vaccine efficacy that are still in progress will help scientists better understand the total duration of protection."
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,365 posts, read 2,146,559 times
Reputation: 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
So funny! You think spending $25 for lunch for a doctor while someone gives a presentation on a drug is absolutely terrible!
The only significant amounts are for research studies. You know what those are? They are often Phase III and post-marketing studies - you know, where they get the info on how effective the drug is and any side effects or complications.
There are fewer ingredients in many vaccines than in the past. None of them are toxic. Just continue to show your ignorance of biochemistry. It does not help your credibility
HPV was indeed around "back then". Women have been dying from cervical cancer, mostly due to HPV, for millennia. Did you take the vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella? It would be very strange for none of those to protect you.
Even a lot of anti-vax people take tetanus vaccine. There is no herd immunity for that, so you cannot count on others being vaccinated to protect you. Good luck.
No, there have been no confirmed deaths from HPV. VAERS reports are not confirmed deaths. When the reports were investigated, none of the deaths were from the HPV vaccine. Your continuing to say so does not make it true.
The strains of HPV that are associated with cancer are less like to spontaneously regress. The overall regression rate of those is nowhere near 98%. I would be interested in seeing where you got that figure. I suspect you made it up.
The "lead researcher", by whom I suppose you mean Diane Harper, has not said that it is a needless vaccine.
"In a 2012 peer-reviewed article about Cervarix, Dr. Harper states that 'Cervarix is an excellent choice for both screened and unscreened populations due to its long-lasting protection, its broad protection for at least five oncogenic HPV types, the potential to use only one-dose for the same level of protection, and its safety.' Again, she speculates that cervical cancer screening may be just as useful, but nowhere does she recommend that the vaccine not be used, that it's safety profile is unacceptable, or that the vaccine cannot prevent cancer. In fact, she recommends expanding the guidelines for HPV vaccines for older women because as they age, they are more susceptible to other serotypes of HPV, against which Cervarix confers protection. She also states that Cervarix may also have a protective effect against some autoimmune disorders. This does not sound like a researcher who is losing sleep about the HPV vaccine, but who fully supports its use, with some exceptions.
Dr. Diane Harper is one of the leading researchers in biomedical science, an individual who has spent her life studying vaccines. She has the academic training and research credibility at a level that if she said 'Gardasil is dangerous,' many of us would stand up and begin to wonder. But the facts are she has not said anything of the sort about Gardasil and Cervarix. In peer-reviewed articles published in important, high impact journals, she has given strong, but scientifically qualified, endorsements to HPV vaccines. These are the facts. Any other allegations about her lack of support for vaccinations is based on misinformation, disinformation and lies."
All Harper has said is that she had reservations about the cost effectiveness of HPV vaccines in the US.
Smart parents are having their kids vaccinated against HPV before they become sexually active. It is safe, effective, and has already been shown to reduce the incidence of precancerous conditions of the cervix. Since cervical cancer must proceed through those conditions, preventing them will prevent cervical cancer. The vaccine will also protect against other cancers, including vulvar and vaginal cancers, anal and throat cancers in men and women, and penile cancer in men. I suspect if you ask girls if they would rather have a sore arm or a fainting spell to protect against cancer later on, they would take the vaccine. Ask a man if he would rather have a sore arm now or have surgery on his penis or lose a good chunk of his throat later, he'd take the vaccine.
Again you lie. Harper said she was telling truth in the hope that she could finally sleep at night. I love how you think the cattle dont know you are lying. Keep it up. Its what keeps us aware that we cant trust some of you.
I posted the link to her statements before that she made in 2009 in Reston, VA. I would listen to her any day of the week, because unlike you, she seems to be a true scientist. Good science reports failures, and rehypothesizes.
Bad science is we might kill you, and you might get the disease anyway, but we are to stand by our bad science because you just dont understand anything, and we have invested a lot of money in getting you to believe - and buy - our bad science.
I understand antibacterial soaps create a clean surface for new bacteria to grow. I also understand that like any life form, any bacteria that was missed evolves to protect itself. BTW, have you used your hand sanitizer several times today? Do you not have any understanding of how bacteria and communicable disease works?
Can you guarantee your science will kill/harm no one, and will definately - without fail - prevent the disease?
Do you not believe your own research that you quote? Even having HPV does not mean you WILL contract cervical cancer.
"In most people with healthy immune systems, the HPV virus clears itself from the body within 12-18 months." But, how healthy is the immune system of someone bombarded by every available vaccine?
The American Cancer Society's estimates for cervical cancer in the United States for 2015 are:
About 12,900 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed.
About 4,100 women will die from cervical cancer.
4,100 women will die this year from cervical cancer - out of millions of women in the US.
I would add that aside from Homeland Security, Medicine is one of the last major industries left in America. And, if you want to stretch it a bit, about half of that is jobed out to other countries, both in imported Doctors and other healthcare professionals, as well as imported products.
Why did Ancient Rome fall? Two theories:
1. Because they chose to line their aquaducts with lead.
2. Because they didnt do anything for themselves anymore.
Last edited by ConeyGirl52; 06-04-2015 at 04:08 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
