Can The HPV Vaccine Actually Cause Cancer?

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Don't go around cherry picking sources and scaremongering.

Now you say I am cherry picking sources and scaremongering because I posted a medical study and Gardacil's own package insert. You can't be serious.

double post

originally posted by: gmoneystunt

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Don't go around cherry picking sources and scaremongering.

Now you say I am cherry picking sources and scaremongering because I posted a medical study and Gardacil's own package insert. You can't be serious.

Yes because you are not also acknowledging the befits of the Vaccine.

What you are doing is the equivalent of saying that taking a paracetamol for a headache is going to give people liver failure and as such nobody should really be taking paracetamol.

Its bonkers!

originally posted by: gmoneystunt

Yeah it does and accounts for the number of recent sexual partners.

About 61 percent of the women who received the vaccine were infected with another type of high-risk HPV, compared with 40 percent of women who did not receive the vaccine.

www.cbsnews.com...

Journalists wrong wording. Let's stick with the original study please.

However, vaccinated women had a higher prevalence of nonvaccine high-risk types than unvaccinated women (61.5% vs 39.7%, prevalence ratio 1.55, 95% CI 1.22-1.98). After adjusting for the number of recent sexual partners, the difference in prevalence of high-risk nonvaccine types was reduced, but remained significant.www.abstractsonline.com... 68ea3b89&mKey=19573a54-ae8f-4e00-9c23-bd6d62268424

Where does it say it's the vaccine? If it was the vaccine, why would they conclude the study with "they may benefit from newer vaccines covering additional types"?. They are suggesting they need further vaccines to cover for other HPV strains which they contract through sexual behaviour. Nowhere in the study it says the vaccine is causing it. The study proved the HPV is good at preventing cancer, read the conclusion. The conclusion doesn't say the vaccine causes cancer, the conclusion says the vaccine has been proven effective at preventing cancer.

Regarding the leaflet, do you understand the difference between 'side effects' and 'reported adverse effects'?. Side efffects like nausea, headaches etc are common and not serious, have you read the statistics/side effects of Paracetamol? (it kills 500 people in the US alone every
year).

I can explain what reported adverse effects mean, if you want.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: gmoneystunt

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Don't go around cherry picking sources and scaremongering.

Now you say I am cherry picking sources and scaremongering because I posted a medical study and Gardacil's own package insert. You can't be serious.

Yes because you are not also acknowledging the befits of the Vaccine.

What you are doing is the equivalent of saying that taking a paracetamol for a headache is going to give people liver failure and as such nobody should really be taking paracetamol.

Its bonkers!

This thread is about the risks not benefits of the vaccine. If you want the benefits find it yourself. I will not hold your hand. I did not say the vaccine was going to give people anything or the equivalent.

So far you called me an amateur and a cherry-picking scaremonger for posting a medical study and a vaccinations own package insert. Also your saying I am doing things that I did not do, like giving medical advice and vouching for the efficacy of particular medical treatments. I would consider your accusations to be childish. I hope you enjoyed my thread.

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: gmoneystunt

Yeah it does and accounts for the number of recent sexual partners.

About 61 percent of the women who received the vaccine were infected with another type of high-risk HPV, compared with 40 percent of women who did not receive the vaccine.

www.cbsnews.com...

Journalists wrong wording. Let's stick with the original study please.

However, vaccinated women had a higher prevalence of nonvaccine high-risk types than unvaccinated women (61.5% vs 39.7%, prevalence ratio 1.55, 95% CI 1.22-1.98). After adjusting for the number of recent sexual partners, the difference in prevalence of high-risk nonvaccine types was reduced, but remained significant.www.abstractsonline.com... 68ea3b89&mKey=19573a54-ae8f-4e00-9c23-bd6d62268424

Where does it say it's the vaccine? If it was the vaccine, why would they conclude the study with "they may benefit from newer vaccines covering additional types"?. They are suggesting they need further vaccines to cover for other HPV strains which they contract through sexual behaviour. Nowhere in the study it says the vaccine is causing it. The study proved the HPV is good at preventing cancer, read the conclusion. The conclusion doesn't say the vaccine causes cancer, the conclusion says the vaccine has been proven effective at preventing cancer.

Regarding the leaflet, do you understand the difference between 'side effects' and 'reported adverse effects'?. Side efffects like nausea, headaches etc are common and not serious, have you read the statistics/side effects of Paracetamol? (it kills 500 people in the US alone every
year).

I can explain what reported adverse effects mean, if you want.

Where does it say its the vaccine? The link is only about the vaccine. The vaccine only stops 9 out of 80 strains of HPV. You may benefit from the vaccination only by not getting those strains. It only prevents cancer from the strains of HPV it prevents. I NEVER SAID IT CAUSES CANCER!!!

Yes, i know the difference between side effects and reported adverse effects. No need to explain but you did anyways. Your comparing a vaccine that gets injected directly into your bloodstream and bypasses your immune system then goes directly to your heart and brain to a drug that you ingest.

Actually, why are you and OtherSideOfTheCoin both comparing this vaccine to Paracetamol. The two drugs are not even close to each other. Not nearly the same ingredients or the say way its administered. Stop with the horrible comparisons please.

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
I NEVER SAID IT CAUSES CANCER!!!

You actually said in pg 1:

It increased the risk of other types of HPV strains.

Ant I repeat: that's not true. The vaccine does not increase the risk of other strains, as that is impossible. The study shows that older women who get vaccinated already have different strains of HPV in their body, which cannot be caused by the vaccine.

Yes, i know the difference between side effects and reported adverse effects. No need to explain but you did anyways. Your comparing a vaccine that gets injected directly into your bloodstream and bypasses your immune system then goes directly to your heart and brain to a drug that you ingest.

Vaccines do not bypass the immune system: the entire point of vaccines is to stimulate the immune system.
I can explain why vaccines are injected into a muscle instead of oral administration (although some new oral vaccines are being developed as we speak), if you want.

Actually, why are you and OtherSideOfTheCoin both comparing this vaccine to Paracetamol. The two drugs are not even close to each other. Not nearly the same ingredients or the say way its administered. Stop with the horrible comparisons please.

We are just trying to make you understand all medication have side effects, even the most common ones that you can buy over the counter... hence I chose Paracetamol.

a reply to: Agartha

No i did not say it causes cancer! Increasing risk is not saying it will happen. "Can/may" and "will" have two different meanings. I already explained that it does say in the study that it increases the risk but your in denial. It does bypass the immune system when it is administered and it attempts to stimulate the immune system after it already went to your heart and brain first. I don't know why you two are trying to make me understand that all medications have side effects. I already know that. That is an awful comparison tho.

Vaccine Can Wreck Your Immune System

This article (link above) says it can wreck your immune system. I would appreciate it if you try not to spin it and say that I said vaccines will wreck your immune system.

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: Agartha

No i did not say it causes cancer! Increasing risk is not saying it will happen. "Can/may" and "will" have two different meanings. I already explained that it does say in the study that it increases the risk but your in denial. It does bypass the immune system when it is administered and it attempts to stimulate the immune system after it already went to your heart and brain first. I don't know why you two are trying to make me understand that all medications have side effects. I already know that. That is an awful comparison tho.

Vaccine Can Wreck Your Immune System

This article (link above) says it can wreck your immune system. I would appreciate it if you try not to spin it and say that I said vaccines will wreck your immune system.

An article from Mercola? Mercola is a fraud who has become a millionaire selling lies to gullible people. Show me a real scientific study that says it 'wrecks the immune system' and we can discuss it.

Vaccines do not go straight to the heart and brain and it does not bypasses the immune system, anybody with a minimal knowledge of biology knows that. The pathophysiology of immunization is actually quite simple, I would suggest you study real science and not pseudoscientific sites like Mercola or Natural News.

And no: the article does NOT say the vaccine increases the risk, you just fail at reading it properly. It's a ridiculous thing to say when the conclusion praises how effective the vaccine is. Can't you see it would actually be a contradiction? The study praises the benefits of the vaccine and it suggest women would actually benefit from a newer vaccines covering other strains.

This is what the study says:

However, vaccinated women had a higher prevalence of nonvaccine high-risk types than unvaccinated women

Nothing to do with the vaccine.

a reply to: Agartha

However, vaccinated women had a higher prevalence of nonvaccine high-risk types than unvaccinated women

Not to give Big Pharma any more credit than I absolutely have to... what could account for this?

For example, could the vaccine-covered strains be more aggressive, so more predominant in nonvaccinated women, but once vaccinated against those, the other strains become more dominant? (Someone could probably drive a Mack truck thru the holes in my example... but that's the best I can do for now! I'm just trying to understand the physiologic processes that could explain it.)

Or, conversely, is it possible that the strains in the vaccine could somehow morph after innocculation into these strains?

The HPV vaccine has been proven to reduce the risk of various genital cancers in both females and males.
It's also been shown shown to be extremely safe,

My duaghter's had it as neither her nor me are stupid.


Just as an aside, one of the most prevalent tropes of the anti-health brigade is that Big Pharma have found a cure for cancer but are suppressing it as they would lose too much money.
The HPV vaccine prevents cancer and it's made by big Pharma.
Work that one out,

originally posted by: Boadicea
Not to give Big Pharma any more credit than I absolutely have to... what could account for this?

For example, could the vaccine-covered strains be more aggressive, so more predominant in nonvaccinated women, but once vaccinated against those, the other strains become more dominant? (Someone could probably drive a Mack truck thru the holes in my example... but that's the best I can do for now! I'm just trying to understand the physiologic processes that could explain it.)

Or, conversely, is it possible that the strains in the vaccine could somehow morph after innocculation into these strains?

Great question! I am not a virologist but I am positive one strain of HPV cannot mutate into another strain, you just acquire new/different strains trough sexual contact. So no, that's not the answer and the answer lies somewhere in the sample chosen for the study, that's my guess. In fact new studies will be conducted to see if the same results are replicated, but probably with a bigger number of women in different regions too (this was a small study).We just have to wait.

The vaccine is safe and it has been proven so by hundreds of studies.

This study included almost 1 million girls and the conclusion was:

This large cohort study found no evidence supporting associations between exposure to qHPV vaccine and autoimmune, neurological, and venous thromboembolic adverse events.

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: Boadicea
Not to give Big Pharma any more credit than I absolutely have to... what could account for this?

For example, could the vaccine-covered strains be more aggressive, so more predominant in nonvaccinated women, but once vaccinated against those, the other strains become more dominant? (Someone could probably drive a Mack truck thru the holes in my example... but that's the best I can do for now! I'm just trying to understand the physiologic processes that could explain it.)

Or, conversely, is it possible that the strains in the vaccine could somehow morph after innocculation into these strains?

Great question! I am not a virologist but I am positive one strain of HPV cannot mutate into another strain, you just acquire new/different strains trough sexual contact. So no, that's not the answer and the answer lies somewhere in the sample chosen for the study, that's my guess. In fact new studies will be conducted to see if the same results are replicated, but probably with a bigger number of women in different regions too (this was a small study).We just have to wait.

The vaccine is safe and it has been proven so by hundreds of studies.

This study included almost 1 million girls and the conclusion was:

This large cohort study found no evidence supporting associations between exposure to qHPV vaccine and autoimmune, neurological, and venous thromboembolic adverse events.

Also, the HPV vaccine strains are attenuated i.e. they're not live viruses therefore they cannot replicate nor mutate.

There are lots of members on the UN World Health Council that have made statements praising world population reduction which might lead one to think that perhaps they would approve of more people perhaps, getting cancer rather than being cured from it. It's easier to rule the world when there's less people to govern, it all breaks down into the purity of numbers the further you keep chasing after the answer. Words can only do so much.

a reply to: Agartha

Great question! I am not a virologist but I am positive one strain of HPV cannot mutate into another strain, you just acquire new/different strains trough sexual contact. So no, that's not the answer...

Thank you. I didn't know if that was possible or not.

... and the answer lies somewhere in the sample chosen for the study, that's my guess.

I'm wondering now if it could be a matter of some women having a false sense of security from the vaccination, and being a little more promiscuous than others? I know you don't know... just wondering out loud here.

In fact new studies will be conducted to see if the same results are replicated, but probably with a bigger number of women in different regions too (this was a small study).We just have to wait.

I hope you're right and that more studies are done.

originally posted by: Pardon?
Also, the HPV vaccine strains are attenuated i.e. they're not live viruses therefore they cannot replicate nor mutate.

And that too, thank you for adding.

originally posted by: Boadicea
I'm wondering now if it could be a matter of some women having a false sense of security from the vaccination, and being a little more promiscuous than others? I know you don't know... just wondering out loud here.

Perhaps you are corrrect, we just can't tell right now, not until they have done more tests.

I hope you're right and that more studies are done.

It says so even in the news article the OP posted. They always do more trials and studies to replicate the results.

originally posted by: gmoneystunt

This thread is about the risks not benefits of the vaccine. If you want the benefits find it yourself. I will not hold your hand. I did not say the vaccine was going to give people anything or the equivalent.

gmoneystunt, good thread. But it looks like people from pharma have hijacked your thread and they seem to be using it to try to sell gardasil. So far they claim the vaccine is safe, but have not offered any evidence to prove their case.

No. Gardasil is not safe. It is a vaccine for a sexually transmitted virus, and where do you think they got the HPV to make the vaccine? That's right, they obtained the HPV to make the vaccine from sexually promiscuous humans who potentially may have been coinfected with other STIs in addition to HPV.


Gardasil is put out by Merck and one of Merck's own scientists Dr. Maurice Hilleman admitted that the vaccine was tainted. That when he tested the vaccine for other diseases it was coinfected with other viruses, including SV-40 which is a simian virus known to cause cancer.

Merck Scientist Dr. Hilleman admits Gardasil tainted with SV-40: You Tube

I've always considered gardasil to be one of the most dangerous vaccines out there because it is IMPOSSIBLE to fully screen out other sexually transmitted viruses in an attempt to isolate HPV. Some sexually transmiited viruses are stealth viruses and thus can't be seen under a microscope. And some sexually transmitted viruses that are stealth in nature, do NOT have a screening test on the market. So basically Gardasil was an attempt to isolate HPV from sexually promiscuous people who may have been coinfected with other diseases.

If someone opened a briefcase with a million dollars cash and told me that all I had to do was get a Gardasil vaccine and they'd give me million, I'd tell them to shove the briefcase where the sun don't shine. I wouldnt get that vaccine if offered a million dollars to do it.

originally posted by: MapMistress
gmoneystunt, good thread. But it looks like people from pharma have hijacked your thread and they seem to be using it to try to sell gardasil. So far they claim the vaccine is safe, but have not offered any evidence to prove their case.

People from pharma? LOL
Luckily for you I never resort to cheap name calling, I only post real science.

Here, I will re-share some of the evidence in my previous posts, even though you only posted a youtube video which is not evidence:

This study included almost 1 million girls and the conclusion:

This large cohort study found no evidence supporting associations between exposure to qHPV vaccine and autoimmune, neurological, and venous thromboembolic adverse events.

This study included almost 200,000 girls and the conclusion indicated it is safe.

originally posted by: MapMistress

originally posted by: gmoneystunt

This thread is about the risks not benefits of the vaccine. If you want the benefits find it yourself. I will not hold your hand. I did not say the vaccine was going to give people anything or the equivalent.

gmoneystunt, good thread. But it looks like people from pharma have hijacked your thread and they seem to be using it to try to sell gardasil. So far they claim the vaccine is safe, but have not offered any evidence to prove their case.

No. Gardasil is not safe. It is a vaccine for a sexually transmitted virus, and where do you think they got the HPV to make the vaccine? That's right, they obtained the HPV to make the vaccine from sexually promiscuous humans who potentially may have been coinfected with other STIs in addition to HPV.


Gardasil is put out by Merck and one of Merck's own scientists Dr. Maurice Hilleman admitted that the vaccine was tainted. That when he tested the vaccine for other diseases it was coinfected with other viruses, including SV-40 which is a simian virus known to cause cancer.

Merck Scientist Dr. Hilleman admits Gardasil tainted with SV-40: You Tube

I've always considered gardasil to be one of the most dangerous vaccines out there because it is IMPOSSIBLE to fully screen out other sexually transmitted viruses in an attempt to isolate HPV. Some sexually transmiited viruses are stealth viruses and thus can't be seen under a microscope. And some sexually transmitted viruses that are stealth in nature, do NOT have a screening test on the market. So basically Gardasil was an attempt to isolate HPV from sexually promiscuous people who may have been coinfected with other diseases.

If someone opened a briefcase with a million dollars cash and told me that all I had to do was get a Gardasil vaccine and they'd give me million, I'd tell them to shove the briefcase where the sun don't shine. I wouldnt get that vaccine if offered a million dollars to do it.

Oh noes, the agents of Big Placebo are on to the thread.

Maurice Hilleman died in 2005.
Gardasil wasn't released until 2006.
Did he record the video from his grave?

As for they got the virus from "sexually promiscuous people", you do realise that to catch it you only need to have sex once, right?
And why would these people be infected with other diseases?
That's immaterial anyway as to produce the vaccine they don't use the virus itself, they culture the virus' protein which is specific to that particular strain. There's no possibility of their processing a different protein from another type of virus as serologically it wouldn't fit.

"Stealth viruses...can't be seen under a microscope"...erm, most viruses can't be seen under a microscope (unless you're using an electron microscope which are freely available in most labs [sarcasm].
Which STVs don't have a screening test? Please give us a citation.

MapMistress's post shows you two things;
How scientifically illiterate and gullible the average anti-vaxxer is.
How low they will stoop to prevent people from receiving potentially life saving therapy.