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.
You even emphasized FEW, 4000 deaths a year being a mere drop in the bucket compared to the less than 1 in 1 million deaths in 4 years linked in time only (not by causation) to Gardasil. That's the beauty of the internet. You can't say "I didn't say that", at least after 90 minutes here on CD.
Below is exactly what I said I said! LOL
Quote:
Neither cancer nor the side effects of vaccines are welcome events or to be taken lightly or to be called "just a few". I don't believe I said that. I asked another poster if he/she knew how few deaths there are from cervical cancer. And yes, compared to other cancers, heart disease, diabetes, etc- it is comparatively few. You say the "just a few" does not sit well with cervical cancer patients- and surely it does not. Neither do the side effects, diseases and deaths from vaccines sit well with "those few" as you seem to see them.
I should have said *relatively* FEW to be more precise in describing the matter. You can pick at words, but you are a very intelligent woman and you know that compared to other causes of death, cervical cancer causes FEW.
Should there be ANY deaths from vaccines? Even though (as far we know from what is reported) there are few deaths? Are these relatively few deaths from vaccines less devastating to the victim than the relatively few from cervical cancer?
Honestly, when I looked up 'deaths from cervical cancer' I expected to find 10s of thousands per year based the apparent urgent need for this vaccine for 9 year old girls, regardless of side effects and unknown effects in the future.
I think we can agree that you are FOR vaccines and that I am SKEPTICAL of vaccines.
Will you read? I ask because I've already posted a link to the data presented by a leading developer of HPV vaccines for Merck, so there is no reason to question their statements.
"After all, as Dr. Harper explained, 70% of HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment in one year. After two years, this rate climbs to 90%."
Another interesting excerpt which came from the Merck doctor:
"Dr. Harper further undercut the case for mass vaccination campaigns in the U.S. when she pointed out that “4 out of 5 women with cervical cancer are in developing countries.” (Harper serves as a consultant to the World Health Organization (WHO) for HPV vaccination in the developing world.) Indeed, she surprised her audience by stating that the incidence of cervical cancer in the U.S. is so low that “if we get the vaccine and continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in the US.”
So, we've got some interesting numbers ..... 15% may be infected with the HPV virus ..... which self corrects in 90% of cases. Of the remaining 10%, only 1/2 develop cervical cancer. Of that 5% that develop cancer, 4 out of 5 are in developing countries, and that the figure for such cancer in the US is so low, vaccination and screening will not lower the current rates.
So why vaccinate? Ask Merck's accounting department for the correct answer. $$$$$$$$$
I should have said *relatively* FEW to be more precise in describing the matter. You can pick at words, but you are a very intelligent woman and you know that compared to other causes of death, cervical cancer causes FEW.
Should there be ANY deaths from vaccines? Even though (as far we know from what is reported) there are few deaths? Are these relatively few deaths from vaccines less devastating to the victim than the relatively few from cervical cancer?
Honestly, when I looked up 'deaths from cervical cancer' I expected to find 10s of thousands per year based the apparent urgent need for this vaccine for 9 year old girls, regardless of side effects and unknown effects in the future.
I think we can agree that you are FOR vaccines and that I am SKEPTICAL of vaccines.
I would not call a disease that causes 4000 deaths a year, in 1/3 of the people who are diagnosed with it, a disease with "few" deaths.
The "few deaths" from vaccines is generally about zero, not 4000 per year. This is not nitpicky. That is the difference. I would like you to provide some evidence that ONE death was caused by Gardasil. Not happened around the same time, but caused by it. I quoted you correctly. You want to think a vaccine that could help prevent some of these 4000 deaths is dangerous because zero deaths have been linked to it. It's an irrational fear.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 09-19-2011 at 09:21 PM..
Will you read? I ask because I've already posted a link to the data presented by a leading developer of HPV vaccines for Merck, so there is no reason to question their statements.
"After all, as Dr. Harper explained, 70% of HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment in one year. After two years, this rate climbs to 90%."
Another interesting excerpt which came from the Merck doctor:
"Dr. Harper further undercut the case for mass vaccination campaigns in the U.S. when she pointed out that “4 out of 5 women with cervical cancer are in developing countries.” (Harper serves as a consultant to the World Health Organization (WHO) for HPV vaccination in the developing world.) Indeed, she surprised her audience by stating that the incidence of cervical cancer in the U.S. is so low that “if we get the vaccine and continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in the US.”
So, we've got some interesting numbers ..... 15% may be infected with the HPV virus ..... which self corrects in 90% of cases. Of the remaining 10%, only 1/2 develop cervical cancer. Of that 5% that develop cancer, 4 out of 5 are in developing countries, and that the figure for such cancer in the US is so low, vaccination and screening will not lower the current rates.
So why vaccinate? Ask Merck's accounting department for the correct answer. $$$$$$$$$
Again, Harper says she was misquoted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
In regard to Dr. Diane Harper, she claims she was badly misquoted.
*** Dr Diane Harper, who was quoted as saying that HPV vaccines are more dangerous than cervical cancer, is about to sue the pin-striped pants off the always-lurid Express. Or so I hope.
This story you linked to which has Dr.Harper claiming to have been "misquoted" was not referring to the story I presented. So the age old "I was misquoted" or "taken out of context" excuses wont work.
The story I posted reported her comments on specific data and numbers ... which cannot be "misquoted". They are either accurate or false, and even at the end of your linked story ... comments point to a similar conference in which Dr. Harper made the same statements.
And ... the "I was misquoted" claim does not ONCE list a specific comment that was misquoted .... she simply rebuts the "interpretation" of her comments by the audience by saying "I didn't mean that", yada, yada, yada,
Of course she's got to make such claims .... she works for Merck for Christ sake. Nevertheless, the raw data, which cannot be "misquoted" shows that there was 1 death for every 912 participants in the Gardasil vaccine trials performed, which is approximately 40 times the death rate for cervical cancer in the United States.
To argue this point and it's clear implications is pure ignorance.
Will you read? I ask because I've already posted a link to the data presented by a leading developer of HPV vaccines for Merck, so there is no reason to question their statements.
"After all, as Dr. Harper explained, 70% of HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment in one year. After two years, this rate climbs to 90%."
Another interesting excerpt which came from the Merck doctor:
So why vaccinate? Ask Merck's accounting department for the correct answer. $$$$$$$$$
Sorry but a spin from a Catholic organization does not cut it. Their agenda is to promote abstinence through the fear of death (using cervical cancer).
Got to give Michelle a little credit for calling that idiot out on his manditory poisen plan. Suppose that nut gets elected, what's next - Manditory AIDS vaccines for all? Let's just confine that to the gay Repubs shall we?
Yep. That was the point people should have focused on, instead of fodder for the typical political deflection complete with idiocy.
Sorry but a spin from a Catholic organization does not cut it. Their agenda is to promote abstinence through the fear of death (using cervical cancer).
That's the most ridiculous assertion yet .... and last time I checked, the CDC stands for Center for Disease Control, and is not affiliated with the Catholic Church.
And it is the the CDC numbers that show the severe safety issues associated with Gardasil, even though the estimates for incident reports to the vaccine adverse reporting system accounts for only about 10%, with the vast majority going unreported. So as bad as the existing numbers show, it's likely to be exponentially worse.
That's the most ridiculous assertion yet .... and last time I checked, the CDC stands for Center for Disease Control, and is not affiliated with the Catholic Church.
And it is the the CDC numbers that show the severe safety issues associated with Gardasil, even though the estimates for incident reports to the vaccine adverse reporting system accounts for only about 10%, with the vast majority going unreported. So as bad as the existing numbers show, it's likely to be exponentially worse.
You cited a Catholic based website whose mission is to eliminate birth control.
Also, if the "vast amount of adverse effects go unreported," how does the father on your website tally them? Through god?
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.
