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.
Do you realize how FEW cases of cervical cancer there are and even fewer deaths? And that the vaccine only covers 4 strains, and that 2 of the strains covered do not cause cancer?
I was not "leaving anything out". I posted the link for anyone to read, it is too long to post all of it. The point of my post was to show that even the CDC admits there are problems and I used part of the article to demonstrate my point.
"In 2007 (the most recent year numbers are available)—
12,280 women in the United States were diagnosed with cervical cancer.*2
4,021 women in the United States died from cervical cancer."
" GARDASIL is the only human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine that helps protect against 4 types of HPV. In girls and young women ages 9 to 26, GARDASIL helps protect against 2 types of HPV that cause about 75% of cervical cancer cases, and 2 more types that cause 90% of genital warts cases. In boys and young men ages 9 to 26, GARDASIL helps protect against 90% of genital warts cases."
It is a matter of making informed choices. As to girls age 14 and younger getting this- please.
You say yourself, Gardasil covers "2 types of HPV that cause about 75% of cervical cancer cases, and 2 more types that cause 90% of genital warts cases."
That is similar to the polio vaccine covering the three strains of poliovirus that cause the majority of polio cases.
As for "only" 4000 deaths. . . really! What if one of those "onlies" was you/your spouse (don't know if you are male or female); your mother; your sister; your daughter; your aunt, etc. "Only" indeed!
Girls and guys should get this vaccine before they become sexually active.
Do you realize how FEW cases of cervical cancer there are and even fewer deaths? And that the vaccine only covers 4 strains, and that 2 of the strains covered do not cause cancer?
I was not "leaving anything out". I posted the link for anyone to read, it is too long to post all of it. The point of my post was to show that even the CDC admits there are problems and I used part of the article to demonstrate my point.
"In 2007 (the most recent year numbers are available)—
12,280 women in the United States were diagnosed with cervical cancer.*2
4,021 women in the United States died from cervical cancer."
" GARDASIL is the only human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine that helps protect against 4 types of HPV. In girls and young women ages 9 to 26, GARDASIL helps protect against 2 types of HPV that cause about 75% of cervical cancer cases, and 2 more types that cause 90% of genital warts cases. In boys and young men ages 9 to 26, GARDASIL helps protect against 90% of genital warts cases."
It is a matter of making informed choices. As to girls age 14 and younger getting this- please.
Actually you not only left it out you contradicted it. Sounds pretty deliberate to me.
HPV is a pretty big deal...
********************
Genital human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is the most common sexually transmitted disease. Each year 1 million new cases of genital warts are diagnosed, two thirds of which are in women. The estimated prevalence rate in the US population is 15 percent.
******************** An evidence-based review of medical and surgical treatments of genital warts
So not only do you get rid of most of 12,000 cases of cancer you also get rid of most of a million cases of genital warts.
There have now been enough vaccinations to be reasonable sure of the side effects other than very long term ones.
You say yourself, Gardasil covers "2 types of HPV that cause about 75% of cervical cancer cases, and 2 more types that cause 90% of genital warts cases."
That is similar to the polio vaccine covering the three strains of poliovirus that cause the majority of polio cases.
As for "only" 4000 deaths. . . really! What if one of those "onlies" was you/your spouse (don't know if you are male or female); your mother; your sister; your daughter; your aunt, etc. "Only" indeed!
Girls and guys should get this vaccine before they become sexually active.
And 25% of those 4,000 would NOT be prevented by the vaccine- IF the vaccine works anywhere close to 100% of the time, which will not be known for a long time. SERIOUS side effects from this vaccine could easily kill more than 3,000/year since millions have been vaccinated or leave them damaged and debilitated from a very young age.
Cervical cancer has a decent cure rate- looks like over 8,000 did NOT die from it according to those 2007 stats.
Look, a person has to become informed and make a decision. Do you really have ZERO questions about the efficacy and safety of vaccines? Even the consideration of whether or not to eat ice cream has it's pros (yum) and it's cons (belly fat and elevated blood glucose.)
If many women in my family historically died from cervical cancer, I would consider the vaccine. I would study cervical cancer and the vaccine much more closely than I already have.
If I had a daughter, I would present to her what I have learned and encourage her to study and decide for herself at age 18. If there was no family history of cancer, from what I know now, no way would I take this vaccine or have it given to my minor children.
There are many factors to consider and each individual needs to consider the facts that can be assembled from many sources, their personal and family history, their current medical status (are they immune compromised?, have arthritis?, asthma? lots of allergies?- etc.) And then consider the adjuvants, poisons, contaminants, "manufacturing errors", bacteria, animal proteins, etc. that are in any particular vaccine and decide for themselves.
" Dr. Diane Harper is a lead researcher in the development of the HPV vaccine and she criticizes the way Gardasil has been marketed. She has studied the Human papillomavirus for over 20 years. She admits that giving this vaccine to girls as young as 11 years old is a "great big public health experiment" and that it has NOT been tested for effectiveness for them. She also says that it will not protect girls at all that are as young as nine years old.
Harper feels the ideal way to vaccinate women is to offer it at 18 years of age. She says these women should be screened for HPV. If the test results are negative then they should schedule the 3 shot series. She admits that if the test comes back positive there is truly no understanding of how to medically respond to that.
"The zealousness to inoculate all these younger girls may very well backfire at the very time they need protection most." Harper says. "This vaccine should not be mandated for 11-year-old girls," she reiterated. "It's not been tested in little girls for efficacy. At 11, these girls don't get cervical cancer - they won't know for 25 years if they will get cervical cancer."
Clearly if it has not been tested for efficacy in 11 year old girls, it is neglectful and wrong for CDC and politicians to even suggest [much less recommend] the vaccine to be effective or safe for nine year old girls. Physicians should be careful not to follow in such disgrace by administering the vaccine to these young girls."
"Merck has not been able to prevent cancer. Not in the trials and not now. Gardasil is not 100% effective against HPV. Harper reminds us that it is only 100% effective against two types of HPV. Those would be the two high risk types [HPV-16 and PHV-18]. The other two [HPV-6 and HPV-11] are low risk and have not been associated with cervical cancer. As stated earlier, 3 year olds, 5 year olds, 10 year olds etc. have been diagnosed with HPV infection without sexual contact. If a young girl already has HPV-16 and HPV-18 markers before inoculation, the vaccine will not protect her from infection of those strains. The only way to test for the presence of HPV is to conduct a vaginal swab, which is inappropriate to do with young girls. Merck assumed that because older girls did not show up with HPV markers after inoculation, the young girls (as young as 9 years old) would be protected as well. Sound science does not run on assumptions."
"28. Before the autism epidemic, it was already well known that vaccines have caused the cancer epidemic in today's society. Both the Small Pox and the Oral Polio Vaccine are made from monkey serum. This serum has helped many monkey viruses to enter the human blood stream. Out of these the only researched virus, SV 40, has been found to be cancerous. As per recent revelations these viruses continue to be in the vaccines. The presence of SV 40 in various human cancers has been demonstrated. Today it is known that the virus is being passed on to future generations as its presence in the mother's milk and human sperms has been established."
This is a joke right? No one can be this stupid and survive the process of tying their shoes.
You repost the same link that has no relevance some one stating vaccines cause a birth defect more then 10 years after coming out of the womb, and just add that humans "devolved from monkeys" (I would like to see where that came from).
That post is so bewilderingly incoherent in relation to what anyone says...I don't think anyone can actually believe this crap. You must be the most horrible parodist I have ever seen.
And 25% of those 4,000 would NOT be prevented by the vaccine- IF the vaccine works anywhere close to 100% of the time, which will not be known for a long time. SERIOUS side effects from this vaccine could easily kill more than 3,000/year since millions have been vaccinated or leave them damaged and debilitated from a very young age.
Cervical cancer has a decent cure rate- looks like over 8,000 did NOT die from it according to those 2007 stats.
Look, a person has to become informed and make a decision. Do you really have ZERO questions about the efficacy and safety of vaccines? Even the consideration of whether or not to eat ice cream has it's pros (yum) and it's cons (belly fat and elevated blood glucose.)
If many women in my family historically died from cervical cancer, I would consider the vaccine. I would study cervical cancer and the vaccine much more closely than I already have.
If I had a daughter, I would present to her what I have learned and encourage her to study and decide for herself at age 18. If there was no family history of cancer, from what I know now, no way would I take this vaccine or have it given to my minor children.
There are many factors to consider and each individual needs to consider the facts that can be assembled from many sources, their personal and family history, their current medical status (are they immune compromised?, have arthritis?, asthma? lots of allergies?- etc.) And then consider the adjuvants, poisons, contaminants, "manufacturing errors", bacteria, animal proteins, etc. that are in any particular vaccine and decide for themselves.
" Dr. Diane Harper is a lead researcher in the development of the HPV vaccine and she criticizes the way Gardasil has been marketed. She has studied the Human papillomavirus for over 20 years. She admits that giving this vaccine to girls as young as 11 years old is a "great big public health experiment" and that it has NOT been tested for effectiveness for them. She also says that it will not protect girls at all that are as young as nine years old.
Harper feels the ideal way to vaccinate women is to offer it at 18 years of age. She says these women should be screened for HPV. If the test results are negative then they should schedule the 3 shot series. She admits that if the test comes back positive there is truly no understanding of how to medically respond to that.
"The zealousness to inoculate all these younger girls may very well backfire at the very time they need protection most." Harper says. "This vaccine should not be mandated for 11-year-old girls," she reiterated. "It's not been tested in little girls for efficacy. At 11, these girls don't get cervical cancer - they won't know for 25 years if they will get cervical cancer."
Clearly if it has not been tested for efficacy in 11 year old girls, it is neglectful and wrong for CDC and politicians to even suggest [much less recommend] the vaccine to be effective or safe for nine year old girls. Physicians should be careful not to follow in such disgrace by administering the vaccine to these young girls."
"Merck has not been able to prevent cancer. Not in the trials and not now. Gardasil is not 100% effective against HPV. Harper reminds us that it is only 100% effective against two types of HPV. Those would be the two high risk types [HPV-16 and PHV-18]. The other two [HPV-6 and HPV-11] are low risk and have not been associated with cervical cancer. As stated earlier, 3 year olds, 5 year olds, 10 year olds etc. have been diagnosed with HPV infection without sexual contact. If a young girl already has HPV-16 and HPV-18 markers before inoculation, the vaccine will not protect her from infection of those strains. The only way to test for the presence of HPV is to conduct a vaginal swab, which is inappropriate to do with young girls. Merck assumed that because older girls did not show up with HPV markers after inoculation, the young girls (as young as 9 years old) would be protected as well. Sound science does not run on assumptions."
cervical cancer vaccine: a scientific and medical breakthrough (http://poisonevercure.150m.com/vaccines14.htm - broken link)
You are clearly an advocate unable to deal fairly with the issue.
For those who care here is a reasoably balanced view.
I don't suppose there are any other more moderate ways, such as taking good care of yourself, eating right, getting enough Vitamin D3, getting enough sleep, hand washing, and other sensible measures that could take the place of vaccines, beetroot, and garlic........ although garlic does have it's mainstream approved attributes.
I took care of a lady with Guillain Barre syndrome around 1976. Horrible to watch a person become paralyzed from the feet up to - the lungs....... and nothing that could be done other than supportive measures.
And where do you think AIDS came from?
One thing I'll bet on, you will be thinking about these things the next time you take a vaccine, or sign your babies and children up for about 36 of them.
Guillain Barre syndrome is self limiting and patients make a full recovery. Unfortunately, women with cervical cancer do not.
This is a joke right? No one can be this stupid and survive the process of tying their shoes.
You repost the same link that has no relevance some one stating vaccines cause a birth defect more then 10 years after coming out of the womb, and just add that humans "devolved from monkeys" (I would like to see where that came from).
That post is so bewilderingly incoherent in relation to what anyone says...I don't think anyone can actually believe this crap. You must be the most horrible parodist I have ever seen.
No parody involved ... what was stated is absolute FACT.
Here, coming from the horse's mouth (or more appropriately, a horse's arse) Maurice Hilleman, former chief virologist for Merck, and the developer of more vaccines than any other individual CLEARLY declares vaccines as the "bargain basement medicine of the 20th century", and admits to importing the HIV virus into the US via African monkeys used to develop vaccines.
Hilleman also states that Leukemia virus was in yellow fever vaccines, and that he discovered cancer virus (SV40) in the polio vaccine on the shelves at Merck. Fact is, this was no big deal to these ghouls, as they laughed and laughed.
The facts are, vaccines have always been and still are junk science, and vehicles for the spread of disease... not an agent of disease prevention. There are COUNTLESS millions of people that were exposed to cancer and leukemia viruses, mycoplasmas, and other wild viruses from vaccines, which might explain why there are so many cancers today affecting more and more people and younger and younger ages..
It might also explain why childhood cancer is exploding today, when 40-50 years ago, a child with cancer was so rare, doctors would fly in from all parts and visit a patient just for the opportunity to see a case.
Don't you deride someone posting useful and factual information! Better you spend your time becoming better informed.
And 25% of those 4,000 would NOT be prevented by the vaccine- IF the vaccine works anywhere close to 100% of the time, which will not be known for a long time. SERIOUS side effects from this vaccine could easily kill more than 3,000/year since millions have been vaccinated or leave them damaged and debilitated from a very young age.
Cervical cancer has a decent cure rate- looks like over 8,000 did NOT die from it according to those 2007 stats.
Look, a person has to become informed and make a decision. Do you really have ZERO questions about the efficacy and safety of vaccines? Even the consideration of whether or not to eat ice cream has it's pros (yum) and it's cons (belly fat and elevated blood glucose.)
If many women in my family historically died from cervical cancer, I would consider the vaccine. I would study cervical cancer and the vaccine much more closely than I already have.
If I had a daughter, I would present to her what I have learned and encourage her to study and decide for herself at age 18. If there was no family history of cancer, from what I know now, no way would I take this vaccine or have it given to my minor children.
There are many factors to consider and each individual needs to consider the facts that can be assembled from many sources, their personal and family history, their current medical status (are they immune compromised?, have arthritis?, asthma? lots of allergies?- etc.) And then consider the adjuvants, poisons, contaminants, "manufacturing errors", bacteria, animal proteins, etc. that are in any particular vaccine and decide for themselves.
" Dr. Diane Harper is a lead researcher in the development of the HPV vaccine and she criticizes the way Gardasil has been marketed. She has studied the Human papillomavirus for over 20 years. She admits that giving this vaccine to girls as young as 11 years old is a "great big public health experiment" and that it has NOT been tested for effectiveness for them. She also says that it will not protect girls at all that are as young as nine years old.
Harper feels the ideal way to vaccinate women is to offer it at 18 years of age. She says these women should be screened for HPV. If the test results are negative then they should schedule the 3 shot series. She admits that if the test comes back positive there is truly no understanding of how to medically respond to that.
"The zealousness to inoculate all these younger girls may very well backfire at the very time they need protection most." Harper says. "This vaccine should not be mandated for 11-year-old girls," she reiterated. "It's not been tested in little girls for efficacy. At 11, these girls don't get cervical cancer - they won't know for 25 years if they will get cervical cancer."
Clearly if it has not been tested for efficacy in 11 year old girls, it is neglectful and wrong for CDC and politicians to even suggest [much less recommend] the vaccine to be effective or safe for nine year old girls. Physicians should be careful not to follow in such disgrace by administering the vaccine to these young girls."
"Merck has not been able to prevent cancer. Not in the trials and not now. Gardasil is not 100% effective against HPV. Harper reminds us that it is only 100% effective against two types of HPV. Those would be the two high risk types [HPV-16 and PHV-18]. The other two [HPV-6 and HPV-11] are low risk and have not been associated with cervical cancer. As stated earlier, 3 year olds, 5 year olds, 10 year olds etc. have been diagnosed with HPV infection without sexual contact. If a young girl already has HPV-16 and HPV-18 markers before inoculation, the vaccine will not protect her from infection of those strains. The only way to test for the presence of HPV is to conduct a vaginal swab, which is inappropriate to do with young girls. Merck assumed that because older girls did not show up with HPV markers after inoculation, the young girls (as young as 9 years old) would be protected as well. Sound science does not run on assumptions."
cervical cancer vaccine: a scientific and medical breakthrough (http://poisonevercure.150m.com/vaccines14.htm - broken link)
Let me get this straight:
You feel a disease that kills fully 1/3 of its patients, "only" a "few" 4000 per year as you stated previously, is no big deal. However, a vaccine that, out of 35 million doses has had 32 deaths linked to it in time (over a period of four years mind you), but not proven to be caused by the vaccine itself, is an unacceptable risk?
Un. . be. . .liev. . able!
In regard to Dr. Diane Harper, she claims she was badly misquoted.
*** Dr Diane Harper, who was quoted as saying that HPV vaccines are more dangerous than cervical cancer, is about to sue the pin-striped pants off the always-lurid Express. Or so I hope.
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.
I don't suppose there are any other more moderate ways, such as taking good care of yourself, eating right, getting enough Vitamin D3, getting enough sleep, hand washing, and other sensible measures that could take the place of vaccines, beetroot, and garlic........ although garlic does have it's mainstream approved attributes. 