U.K. Teen girls bribed to get Gardasil vaccine with shopping vouchers

reply to post by calstorm


That is horrible why would she do that?

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

As it stands, no study I have seen shows any correlation between individuals receiving a vaccine and an increased risk of any longterm effect. The burden of proof is on just as much as it is on me.

Here is one:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

As far as studies funded by the pharmaceutical company that makes the product goes, conflict of interest still exists whether or not the results of the trials are checked or not.

You and I both know that results can be fudged that will hold up to scrutiny.

This is the blind faith that I was talking about in an earlier post.

The reason there are none is two-fold. First, using children in medical studies is ethically dubious. Secondly, witholding treatment for a medical study is illegal when the treatment has been documented to prevent a fatal condition, or when the health of the patient is at risk.

This is a the classic straw man argument that I have heard so many times.

What about children that have not been vaccinated because of religious or philosophical reasons.

I would certainly consent to my son being used in a trail like this. I am sure that the vast majority of parent who chose not to have their children vaccinated who consent as well.

Why can't they be used?

What about testing adults now? Not only was the vaccination schedule significantly less invasive in the past but you could also get results based on no vaccination verse partial vaccination verse full vaccination after 10+ years since vaccination.

There are lots of perfectly morally acceptable subjects for these kind of studies.

My personal take on the situation is that big pharma and government don't want to do these studies.

The things you're "demanding" be done are simply not realistic in a live, medical setting.

Why not ... how did we find out that smoking was bad for us?


[edit on 3/5/10 by Horza]

Originally posted by Horza

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

As it stands, no study I have seen shows any correlation between individuals receiving a vaccine and an increased risk of any longterm effect. The burden of proof is on just as much as it is on me.

Here is one:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

If you'll read the study you cited, you'll see that even they admit the effects were rare, and did not outweigh the benefit of the vaccine in people who were at risk (health care workers, IV drug users, prison guards, etc.). The hepatits B vaccine is not on the required schedule for children, so I'm not entirely sure why you chose this example.

As far as studies funded by the pharmaceutical company that makes the product goes, conflict of interest still exists whether or not the results of the trials are checked or not.

You and I both know that results can be fudged that will hold up to scrutiny.

This is the blind faith that I was talking about in an earlier post.

Please re-read my post, as well as the FDA guidelines regarding conflict of interest. When a pharmaceutical company funds the validation work and does the work in-house, they have to supply sample to the FDA, who then has it independently tested by labs whose identity the drug company does not know.

This is a the classic straw man argument that I have heard so many times.

What about children that have not been vaccinated because of religious or philosophical reasons.

I would certainly consent to my son being used in a trail like this. I am sure that the vast majority of parent who chose not to have their children vaccinated who consent as well.

Why can't they be used?

Because it is illegal to do so. Using children in that capacity opens physicians up to malpractice suits, even if the parents waive the treatment and sign the consent forms. I'm not the person who rights medical ethics laws, take that up with your senators and representatives.

What about testing adults now? Not only was the vaccination schedule significantly less invasive in the past but you could also get results based on no vaccination verse partial vaccination verse full vaccination after 10+ years since vaccination.

*sigh* I don't know why you ignore entire swaths of my previous posts. When dealing with complex, long-term illnesses, it is very hard to pin the cause on any single event, especially when you are looking at autoimmune disorders. What you are suggesting is called a retroactive cohort, and is one of the most unreliable, unsupportive means of examining the effects of a treatment.

My personal take on the situation is that big pharma and government don't want to do these studies.

Well, you're wrong, and that's okay. The government is currently running longterm animal and adult studies at the NIH regarding several childhood vaccines. We just cannot use children, as you've suggested we do.

Why not ... how did we find out that smoking was bad for us?

Through entirely different means. Immunohistochemistry, lung biopsies, and the development of protein markers are what allowed us to tie smoking/carbon particles/tar to lung cancer.

Again, what you are suggesting would be wonderful in a perfect work where science was simply a binary, "yes or no" thing. However, those of us who are actually in the field realize that this is not how it works. I feel like I'm banging my head on a wall trying to explain to you that no one can just wave a magic science wand and have the test results you want, but you seem to think I'm just hiding the wand and not wanting to play along.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

The HPV vaccine has been shown in a few studies to retard the rate of metastasis in cervical mucosa of women who are currently HPV+, as it prevents co-infection (an event which increases the chance of developing cancer in this instance).

Sources please.

And you don't feel that going from a few studies showing that the vaccine can slow metastasis to claiming that the vaccine can reduce mortality rates in patients that are have cancer is making a bit of a leap?

Slowing metastasis doesn't change the fact that they have cancer and that it can still be fatal.

Again, false. Screening alone does not make the vaccine "unnecessary". Screening is a wonderful preventative tool, but relies on the physician's interpretation of the test, the woman's adherence to a screening schedule, and clinical error.

true, true ...

An that medical mantra sounds fantastic ... but falls prey to similar problems that of the screening schedule ... the problems that money and corruption brings.

And I want to make this point again. I am in favour of safe vaccinations.

You seem experienced in the medical field so please answer me this:

Why do we have to have vaccinations that kill? Why can't the pharmaceutical produce a better product? Why do we settle for mediocrity?

They use a great deal of their money (as do their competitors) to create second (and third, and fourth, and so on) generation versions of their current vaccines and drugs.

Sources would be great on this too.

Dr. Haug is irresponsible in saying that a girl "will never get cervical cancer" if she is regularly screened. At best, he is speaking hyperbolically. At worst, he is purposefully lying out of some feeling of spite/anger.

Saying "never" maybe a bit strong, I agree, but Dr Charlotte Haug does know what she is talking about:
content.nejm.org...

By the way ... I am really enjoying this debate ... thanks!

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

If you'll read the study you cited, you'll see that even they admit the effects were rare, and did not outweigh the benefit of the vaccine in people who were at risk (health care workers, IV drug users, prison guards, etc.). The hepatits B vaccine is not on the required schedule for children, so I'm not entirely sure why you chose this example.

Hep B vaccines scheduled at Birth, 2 months, 4 months and 6 or 12 months
source

I used this example because it shows a significant increase in the chances of getting and autoimmune condition when given a vaccine.

And to show that the medical profession will give this vaccine 4 times to infants with immature immune systems, the vast majority of which are in a low or no risk category, even with this evidence.

Please re-read my post, as well as the FDA guidelines regarding conflict of interest. When a pharmaceutical company funds the validation work and does the work in-house, they have to supply sample to the FDA, who then has it independently tested by labs whose identity the drug company does not know.

Where are your sources? I don't want to have to recheck everything that you post.

What about children that have not been vaccinated because of religious or philosophical reasons. Why can't they be used?

Because it is illegal to do so. Using children in that capacity opens physicians up to malpractice suits, even if the parents waive the treatment and sign the consent forms. I'm not the person who rights medical ethics laws, take that up with your senators and representatives.

Have you got a source for this law? I have been told during conversations with MD's that using children with parental consent in studies such as these would be acceptable.

My personal take on the situation is that big pharma and government don't want to do these studies.

Well, you're wrong, and that's okay. The government is currently running longterm animal and adult studies at the NIH regarding several childhood vaccines. We just cannot use children, as you've suggested we do

Again sources? ... and so you can do long term studies using adults? What about the "retroactive cohort" issue?

Through entirely different means. Immunohistochemistry, lung biopsies, and the development of protein markers are what allowed us to tie smoking/carbon particles/tar to lung cancer.

Sorry, I was actually talking about the scope of the study. If they can put so much time and resources into such studies in the face of so much pressure, then why can't it be performed with subjects like the long term adverse effects of vaccines?

Originally posted by Horza

And you don't feel that going from a few studies showing that the vaccine can slow metastasis to claiming that the vaccine can reduce mortality rates in patients that are have cancer is making a bit of a leap?

Slowing metastasis doesn't change the fact that they have cancer and that it can still be fatal.

Slowing metastasis comes prior to cancer development. HPV infection causes dysplasia in the cerivcal mucosa, which can lead to metaplasia of the epithelium. This is how such cancers develop. If you stop metaplasia, you stop cancer, hence the need to stop viral infection and dysplasia, rather than just screening for it after the fact.

true, true ...

An that medical mantra sounds fantastic ... but falls prey to similar problems that of the screening schedule ... the problems that money and corruption brings.

Why would it be financially sound (and corruption-prone) to REDUCE the number of visits a person makes? usually, people claim either pharma or we doctors are trying to make patients see us more often, while we are actually trying to make you see us LESS.

You seem experienced in the medical field

I would hope my years of genetic research, medical degree and residency training would qualify me as "experienced".

so please answer me this:

Why do we have to have vaccinations that kill? Why can't the pharmaceutical produce a better product? Why do we settle for mediocrity?

The reason we have adverse reactions (and nice use of an emotional plea, rather than a rational one, by using "death") is due to the nature of vaccines. They use antigens, sometimes live, sometimes just components of the organism. The adverse reactions you typically see from the vaccines are due to the person's won immune system. For example, you give someone the nasal mist flu vaccine, which contains an attenuated (or weakened) strain of the virus. In the vast majority of people, the immune system will pick the weakened virus up, chew it to pieces, and develop powerful CD8 and CD4 T cells against the viral antigens. However, some people have weakened immune systems that are asymptomatic, and some people have hypersensitive immune systems. In the case of hypersensitivies, you develop a T-mediated hypersensitivity reaction, which can cause degranulation of mast cells (releasing histamine), interferon release (causing fever and joint pains) and many other cold/flu symptoms. This is just the immune system overreacting. In the case of weakened immune systems, which we have no way of detecting unless the person is symptomatic, the weakened virus can cause a similar reaction, but by a different mechanism.

The complexities of human biochemistry and immunologic reactions make ANY drug, vaccine, or other therapy a balance between risks and benefits. No treatment is 100% safe. However, this is NOT due to shoddy work or lack of research. It is due to the anture of an open biological system.

Sources would be great on this too.

You need a source to show you that drug companies use profits from one drug to develop a newer and more potent sister drug? Are you serious, or did you just misunderstand what I posted? Why do you think we have second and third generation statins? Because the older statins, while they work great, weren't as effective as we'd like, so the drug companies took their profits from first generation statins and competed to produce a more effective second generation statin. The same goes for antibiotics. When MRSA started to become a threat, companies took the profits they made from first and second generation antibiotics and developed new antibiotics that attacked a new site on the bacterium was vulnerable to. I'm not even sure how I would cite something that is so...blatantly obvious.

Saying "never" maybe a bit strong, I agree, but Dr Charlotte Haug does know what she is talking about:
content.nejm.org...

What Dr. Haug is not considering in her work (and I feel as if I've betrayed my gender by assuming she was a male in my previous post) is that the HPV vaccine is not just for cervical cancer. It is also being used to prevent anal warts in men who have sex with men, as well as genital warts in women.

Of course, I would never be one to say we shouldn't keep researching. The more data you have, the better. That being said, I still find Dr. Haug's analysis a bit lacking and premature.

By the way ... I am really enjoying this debate ... thanks!

Me too! Unfortunately, I need to be off to bed. Early morning tomorrow, followed by a late night. I'm sure I can pop on toward evening, though, and respond if you have posted again.

Originally posted by paraphi

Originally posted by harryhaller
Whose payroll are you on? Taking advantage of teenage girls for medical experimentation is morally inexusable.

Giving vaccinations is not experimenting on teenage girls and if that is what you have concluded then you are barking up the wrong tree and demonstrating a poor grasp of the whole field.

You don’t have to be “on a payroll” to actually think that vaccinations are appropriate and good and have saved countless millions – look at Smallpox if you don’t think so. Do you pass up vaccinations for diseases prevalent in some places but which you may travel to (if you travel)? Do you prevent the bog standards inoculations of you children (if you have any)?

Regards

I have 3 children, and they don't volunteer for vaccines. We don't travel.

Similar breaking story in the US: (please not the ages from 13-17) Well below age of consent. Parental permission is not even requested.

www.politicolnews.com...

This experiment includes giving young children in their early teens between the ages of 13-17 a total of 5 vaccines at once including the following:
1) H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine -aluminum, mercury, 3 viruses and squalene -damaging immunity to disease
2) The HPV Vaccine – Gardisal which has caused death in young women (given to boys and girls now).
3) The Meningococcal meningitis and for tetanus vaccine
4) Diptheria Vaccine
5) Pertussis Vaccine

Please explain how mercury, aluminium and squalene are good for my children?

The safe dosage of mercury in the human body is ZERO. Mercury is a poison. They are poisoning our children. There is no scientist in the world who can argue that mercury is in any way beneficial to the human body.

Squalene is still the major culprit for Gulf War Syndrome. Any conclusions you wish to draw from that experiment are entirely negative WRT positive effects of vaccine.

There is now an epidemic of Autism, ADD, ADHD, cancer and 19,000 reported vaccine injuries from Garidisal.

www.examiner.com...[/ur l]

More soldiers:

The Israel Medical Association (IMA) has said that the experiments were unjustifiable saying that "No scientific justification was found for the experiment, scientific background was lacking, the experiment's design and execution did not suit its goals, and no result would have justified those goals. Also, conventional guidelines were not followed, risks and possible side effects were not thoroughly investigated, and a follow-up mechanism to keep track of participating soldiers was not set up."

Medical arguments:

[url=http://medicalvoices.org/vaccination/articles/smallpox-vaccine-origins-of-vaccine-madness.html]http://medicalvoices.org/vaccination/articles/smal lpox-vaccine-origins-of-vaccine-madness.html

Vaccination campaigns began. It didn’t take long before cases of smallpox among the vaccinated were reported. The first response was denial but when the vaccinated were obviously afflicted, Jenner and his supporters said that the disease was milder in form. But when the vaccinated caught the disease and died, they had to come up with another explanation. Re-naming the disease did the trick – they didn’t die of smallpox, they died of the re-named disease: spurious cowpox Despite increasing evidence that vaccination with cowpox pus did not prevent smallpox, the practice continued. Physicians, for the first time, attended the healthy; 100% of their catchment areas could now be treated instead of the 10% who had contracted smallpox. As Dr. Hadwen so aptly remarked in 1896, “What Jenner discovered, though hardly original in its general principle, was that it pays far better to scare 100% of the fools in the world – the vast majority – into buying vaccine than it does to treat the small minority who really get smallpox and who cannot afford to pay anything. It was indeed a very great discovery – worth thousands of millions. That is why this kind of blackmail is still kept going.”26 Over a century later his words still ring true.

Please keep your insults and degoratory remarks. I understand this subject as much as i need to. And what i see tell me that not only are the successes difficult to quantify, and more often than not misleading, but the possible negative side effect are numerous, well documented, and in many cases fatal.

While your perspective may have worth, certainly it is an extreme bias that compares significantly to that of the pharmaceutical propaganda on this subject.

Until you accept that vaccinations are too often deadly or permanently disabilitating, then you are not accepting the whole truth.

[edit on 3-5-2010 by harryhaller]

Hep B vaccines scheduled at Birth, 2 months, 4 months and 6 or 12 months
source

I used this example because it shows a significant increase in the chances of getting and autoimmune condition when given a vaccine.

And to show that the medical profession will give this vaccine 4 times to infants with immature immune systems, the vast majority of which are in a low or no risk category, even with this evidence.

"Scheduled" is not the same as "highly recommended". I've seen very few infants in the hospital who have received hepatitis B vacciniations. I never even received one until I was entering medical school. Also, having a poor immune response is actually one of the best times to give a vaccine if you are trying to avoid autoimmune complications, as this prevents improper presentation and keeps inflammation (one of the key steps in development of autoimmune conditions like rheumatic heart disease) to a minimum. Having a fully developed array of immune responses makes you more prone to autoimmune development, though I've yet to see this causally linked to vaccines.

Please re-read my post, as well as the FDA guidelines regarding conflict of interest. When a pharmaceutical company funds the validation work and does the work in-house, they have to supply sample to the FDA, who then has it independently tested by labs whose identity the drug company does not know.

Here's a good description of the process, who pays for what, and what sort of regulations are in play by the Mayo Clinic, one of the leaders in clinical research:

Clinical Trials - Mayo

Teaching hospitals (like Mayo) are the main places I was referring to when I said other labs/groups test the therapies without the pharmaceutical company being involved. The pharmaceutical company is more than able to perform their own trials, but while they are on provisional phase IV trials (meaning they can market to a limited degree pending verified results), groups like Mayo are also able to independently run a trial on the therapy. Again, these are available on pubmed.

Have you got a source for this law? I have been told during conversations with MD's that using children with parental consent in studies such as these would be acceptable.

I most certainly do have the source. Here you go:

FDA IRB Subpart D - Using Children

As I stated before, you are prohibited from using children in trials ethically and legally if giving them a placebo or withholding treatment would cause risk, which withholding a vaccine like MMR, Polio, or Tetanus would qualify for, given the mortality rate of such illnesses.

Again sources? ... and so you can do long term studies using adults?What about the "retroactive cohort" issue?

Yes, you can perform longterm studies with adults, but you run into the same confounders I explained before: trying to pick out effects of the vaccine among all the other factors a patient experiences in a non-controlled environment during normal life.

A "retroactive cohort" is a group of studied individuals who you examine after the event you are studying has occured. For example, going into a population and asking to talk to everyone who has had the MMR vaccine in the past ten years. The problem with this, again, is that you're looking at a person who most likely will give inaccurate or inadequate data regarding past medical history, drug use, alcohol use, smoking, and most other factors, so now you have a relatively unsupported group of data, which makes any correlative analysis between vaccines and disease unlikely.

As for linsk to NIH studies, poke around the NIH Vaccine Research Center site( VRC ). They are responsible both for testing new vaccines, as well as re-testing old vaccines and developing new methods of delivery.

Sorry, I was actually talking about the scope of the study. If they can put so much time and resources into such studies in the face of so much pressure, then why can't it be performed with subjects like the long term adverse effects of vaccines?

Again, the same reasons I've explained twice in this post and at least once above. Trying to link an amorphous, unknown "autoimmune disease" to a specific vaccine is difficult due to the fact that the vaccine is often a once in a lifetime event, followed by millions of environmental events, all of which are uncontrolled and can also contribute to developing an autoimmune disease. The reason we were able to do such a study for smoking and lung cancer is that smoking causes unique changes in the lung tissue that no other environmental event has been documented to cause. This makes it very, very easy to look at smoker versus non-smoker lung tissue and make a clear correlation.

Fair trade off, you get a ticket worth of 70 credits and they get to pump their weird goo into you and look over the general area after where they distributed it. nice field exam

reply to post by harryhaller


Sorry, Harry, but most vaccines do not contain thimerosal anymore, and those that do have thimerosal-free versions that you can request, sometimes for less cost. Here is a handy-dandy list for you to use in the future if you want to avoid the few vaccines that do still use it:

Vaccine components

As for squalene, you seem to have missed the mark on that one. The human liver produces squalene everyday, and it is naturally present in nearly every oil on/in your body, such as on your hair and in your fingerprints. Additionally, the vaccines the Gulf War veterans received were shown to have no squalene in them. Squalene was also shown not to cause any sort of illness, as about 10% of the population has naturally-occuring antibodies to squalene.

No squalene found in Gulf War vaccines

Naturally-occuring squalene antibodies

Vaccines do not cause squalene antibodies

From your link

Over the past several years, because of an increasing awareness of the theoretical potential for neurotoxicity of even low levels of organomercurials and because of the increased number of thimerosal containing vaccines that had been added to the infant immunization schedule, concerns about the use of thimerosal in vaccines and other products have been raised. Indeed, because of these concerns, the Food and Drug Administration has worked with, and continues to work with, vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate thimerosal from vaccines. Thimerosal has been removed from or reduced to trace amounts in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and younger, with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine (see Table 1). A preservative-free version of the inactivated influenza vaccine (contains trace amounts of thimerosal) is available in limited supply at this time for use in infants, children and pregnant women. Some vaccines such as Td, which is indicated for older children (≥ 7 years of age) and adults, are also now available in formulations that are free of thimerosal or contain only trace amounts. Vaccines with trace amounts of thimerosal contain 1 microgram or less of mercury per dose.

:

So Thimerosal is is a neuro-toxin.

Thimerosal is "widely used as a preservative in a number of biological and drug products, including many vaccines"

I'm sorry, "only trace amounts" ... oh, so it's NOT free then?

Limited supply for women and children ... oh so i get the the neurotoxins?

Here is a list of vaccine side effects you can claim compensation for in the US:

www.hrsa.gov...

Death is listed as a possible side effect 8 times in a row. Nice.

Squalene, natural yes. But you should also include that the method of entry to the body. Injecting it is NOT the same as taking it orally.

WRT GWS: Somebody is missing the boat, you or me?

From: articles.me... rcola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/08/04/Squalene-The-Swine-Flu-Vaccines-Dirty-Little-Secret-Exposed.aspx

The difference between “good” and “bad” squalene is the route by which it enters your body. Injection is an abnormal route of entry which incites your immune system to attack all the squalene in your body, not just the vaccine adjuvant. Your immune system will attempt to destroy the molecule wherever it finds it, including in places where it occurs naturally, and where it is vital to the health of your nervous system.[viii] Gulf War veterans with Gulf War Syndrome (GWS) received anthrax vaccines which contained squalene.[ix] MF59 (the Novartis squalene adjuvant) was an unapproved ingredient in experimental anthrax vaccines and has since been linked to the devastating autoimmune diseases suffered by countless Gulf War vets.[x] The Department of Defense made every attempt to deny that squalene was indeed an added contaminant in the anthrax vaccine administered to Persian Gulf war military personnel – deployed and non-deployed – as well as participants in the more recent Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP). However, the FDA discovered the presence of squalene in certain lots of AVIP product. A test was developed to detect anti-squalene antibodies in GWS patients, and a clear link was established between the contaminated product and all the GWS sufferers who had been injected with the vaccine containing squalene. A study conducted at Tulane Medical School and published in the February 2000 issue of Experimental Molecular Pathology included these stunning statistics: “ … the substantial majority (95%) of overtly ill deployed GWS patients had antibodies to squalene. All (100%) GWS patients immunized for service in Desert Shield/Desert Storm who did not deploy, but had the same signs and symptoms as those who did deploy, had antibodies to squalene. In contrast, none (0%) of the deployed Persian Gulf veterans not showing signs and symptoms of GWS have antibodies to squalene. Neither patients with idiopathic autoimmune disease nor healthy controls had detectable serum antibodies to squalene. The majority of symptomatic GWS patients had serum antibodies to squalene.”[xi] According to Dr. Viera Scheibner, Ph.D., a former principle research scientist for the government of Australia: “… this adjuvant [squalene] contributed to the cascade of reactions called "Gulf War Syndrome," documented in the soldiers involved in the Gulf War.

Sorry, when you need to dig this deep into state of the art medicine, i can confirm a number of things:

1: no long term studies
2: no consensus
3: no "objective" observer (the only researchers are corporate)
4: definitely no good enough reason to give it to my family.

And the H1N1 vaccine? Well thanks to WHO's over reaction, all normal safeguards were put on hold. There was squalene in some H1N1 vaccines.




You know what i don't get? Every single study ever performed has shown that a healthy diet is the best way to combat disease. PERIOD.

But instead of giving kids an apple a day, they give them a potentially toxic chemical whose effectiveness is dubious at best? There is no up side to that scenario. Except to pharma execs who now sell more vaccines than before. These same pharma companies pay the people on the board of WHO. There is no middle ground here.

I'm not any kind of expert. I'm just a guy. But when the medicine people can't agree except to say here have some, it's new and improved, then i'll just decline, thanks.

And when they start bribing teenagers, to take drugs, for which no long term studies exist ..... no. Seriously, i'll just refuse all of it. And whats with this search for immortal health and life anyway?

Get sick, it's good for you.

I was found to have cervical dysplasia back in '76, and told that, untreated, it would lead to cervical cancer. So I went through a 30 minute procedure using a local anaesthetic which fixed the situation, and never had a problem with it since.

That's what happens if you are unlucky enough to contract this problem and get a pap smear regularly.

To have a self avowed doctor in this thread imply screening does nothing more than tell you you're going to die of cancer is laughable.

By the way, the proportion of women dying of cervical cancer is extremely low. Giving a vaccine which kills some people to prevent a disease hardly anyone is dying from is ridiculous. Would people use seatbelts if putting one on could kill you?

Originally posted by Kailassa


To have a self avowed doctor in this thread imply screening does nothing more than tell you you're going to die of cancer is laughable.

I don't recall anyone making that claim. I do recall explaining that having a Pap smear doesn't reduce your survival should you already have cancer, and that such smears also don't eliminate the cause of the original (and recurrent) dysplasias. Perhaps, if you looked into the rates and severity of recurrence, you would have noticed that once an individual's particular strain of HPV has led to dysplasia, the rate of recurrence and eventual metaplasia is much higher.

But, you know, you've probably "read stuff on the internet", so what would I know?

By the way, the proportion of women dying of cervical cancer is extremely low.

Nearly 300,000 women die annually from cervical cancer worldwide, with about 4,000 being from the United States. I don't know your personal views, but I know I personally would like to avoid losing 4,000 mothers, sisters, or daughters if possible.

Giving a vaccine which kills some people to prevent a disease hardly anyone is dying from is ridiculous. Would people use seatbelts if putting one on could kill you?

I haven't seen any reports that link the vaccine to any deaths. Of the entire population known to have received the vaccine, 28 have been confirmed to have died, and further probing showed no link between their deaths and the vaccine.

HPV Vaccine VAERS


[edit on 5/3/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

reply to post by harryhaller


Harry, I provided you with a resource showing that thimerosal is used only in a handful of vaccines, and that thimerosal-free versions are available. I also provided you with several resources that showed no correlation between squalene and anti-squalene antibodies, and demonstrated that no squalene was found in the injection given to Gulf War veterans. If you can't even be bothered to read the links I've provided, then I certainly can't be bothered to reiterate my arguments. You are inching closer to being the premier member of my ignore list.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Slowing metastasis comes prior to cancer development. HPV infection causes dysplasia in the cerivcal mucosa, which can lead to metaplasia of the epithelium. This is how such cancers develop. If you stop metaplasia, you stop cancer, hence the need to stop viral infection and dysplasia, rather than just screening for it after the fact.

I am confused.

I thought that metastasis was the movement of cancerous cells from one area of a organ to another or from one organ to another organ.

So, in my understanding, metastasis is post cancer terminology. You said that you know of studies that show the vaccine can stop metastasis not metaplasia as you mentioned above.

Isn't metaplasia a pre-cancerous terminology.

This is a much different scenario. If the vaccine can stop the stimuli causing metaplasia then it isn't showing the vaccines effect on the mortality rate of patients that have already developed cancer, it is showing that it effects the rates of those developing cancer, which is what the screening program is doing.

Why would it be financially sound (and corruption-prone) to REDUCE the number of visits a person makes? usually, people claim either pharma or we doctors are trying to make patients see us more often, while we are actually trying to make you see us LESS.

The complexities of human biochemistry and immunologic reactions make ANY drug, vaccine, or other therapy a balance between risks and benefits. No treatment is 100% safe. However, this is NOT due to shoddy work or lack of research. It is due to the anture of an open biological system.

And this is where the conspiracy is ... we are on ATS after all ...

It's not shoddy work I am worried about. It's corporate negligence that worries me the most.

I don't think that the general MD community are in on this, but I do think that there is an argument to suggest that pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in keeping us sick ... if we were a society based upon the principals of wellness, then Big Pharma would be out of a job.

This is not an industry with our best interests in mind. The CEO's and boards are not medical practitioners who have taken the Hippocratic Oath. They are business people and economists. They are not interest in genuine prevention or cure. They need us to be sick to stay in business. As publicly listed companies, their shareholders and their profits are the companies first priority.

I know this makes people in the medical profession role their eyes and make comments about quackery but when you look at what I have said pragmatically, you know it is the truth.

Let me ask you:
What gives you so much faith that Big Pharma has our best interests in mind? What makes you so sure that they wouldn't risk collateral damage if it meant bigger profits, even when a safer, yet more expensive, option is available.

You need a source to show you that drug companies use profits from one drug to develop a newer and more potent sister drug?

I do when I see the incidence of whooping cough is on the rise in infants since the 80's, despite having a 90% + vaccination spread and when I see out breaks of the mumps in predominantly vaccinated populations and the vaccine producer saying they haven no plan to change a vaccine that has been changed since 1967.
source

Of course, I would never be one to say we shouldn't keep researching. The more data you have, the better. That being said, I still find Dr. Haug's analysis a bit lacking and premature.

Yes, I agree, but it is not incorrect either ... Some of her caution is well founded even if it is not sufficiently supported ... as yet.

[edit on 4/5/10 by Horza]

Originally posted by Horza


I am confused.

I thought that metastasis was the movement of cancerous cells from one area of a organ to another or from one organ to another organ.

So, in my understanding, metastasis is post cancer terminology. You said that you know of studies that show the vaccine can stop metastasis not metaplasia as you mentioned above.

Isn't metaplasia a pre-cancerous terminology.

This is a much different scenario. If the vaccine can stop the stimuli causing metaplasia then it isn't showing the vaccines effect on the mortality rate of patients that have already developed cancer, it is showing that it effects the rates of those developing cancer, which is what the screening program is doing.

I absolutely apologize. I was thinking about a previous point I had made and typed metastasis rather than metaplasia. To the best of my knowledge, the vaccine has no mechanism of action against metastasis. It's main goal is to prevent viral infection that causes metaPLASIA.

Again, I apologize. I blame my exhaustion and tendency to type a few steps ahead of my thought process.

And this is where the conspiracy is ... we are on ATS after all ...

It's not shoddy work I am worried about. It's corporate negligence that worries me the most.

I don't think that the general MD community are in on this, but I do think that there is an argument to suggest that pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in keeping us sick ... if we were a society based upon the principals of wellness, then Big Pharma would be out of a job.

And yet, they have produced cures for small pox, polio, most bacteria, effective antivirals, and we have a continually increasing survival rate for most cancers, with breast cancer's 5-year prognosis reaching about 90%.

If they were so determined to keep us sick, why would they continue to produce drugs that increase survival? Why would they continue to produce vaccines that are consistently lowering disease incidence worldwide?

Also, you say the MD community isn't "in on it", but the MD community is who performs the clinical trials on these treatments. I work at a teaching hospital, and WE are the ones who recruit patients for new drug trials, apply the therapy, and record our results. If there is some conspiracy to "keep people sick" with new drugs and vaccines, then the MD community would, be necessity, HAVE to be "in on it". As it stands, there is no proof (and no logical means) that the MD community is conspiring to keep people sick. We are barely able to meet demand as it is, with most areas reporting shortages of physicians. Why would we want to increase a patient population that we can't see? We don't get any extra money for patients we don't see, and the pharmaceutical companies don't get any money for prescriptions we DON'T write for patients we DON'T see.

I know this makes people in the medical profession role their eyes and make comments about quackery but when you look at what I have said pragmatically, you know it is the truth.

Not really. Companies only survive by competition. If you make an inferior product, i.e, a drug that doesn't relieve symptoms or cure disease, then your competitor will, and doctors will prescribe the more effective drug. There is no financial gain in making an inferior drug or therapy, as you will quickly be out-competed by a rival drug company.

Let me ask you:
What gives you so much faith that Big Pharma has our best interests in mind? What makes you so sure that they wouldn't risk collateral damage if it meant bigger profits, even when a safer, yet more expensive, option is available.

I don't think big pharma has our best interests at heart. However, that is MUCH, MUCH different than saying they want to keep people sick. I think pharmaceutical companies charge far too much for the drugs they make (because they know they won't get repeat customers for some of the drugs, like antimicrobials). I also think they too often skirt patent law. This doesn't mean they are creating ineffective drugs, though. That's quite a leap in logic, considering the safe-guards in place.

I do when I see the incidence of whooping cough is on the rise in infants since the 80's, despite having a 90% + vaccination spread and when I see out breaks of the mumps in predominantly vaccinated populations and the vaccine producer saying they haven no plan to change a vaccine that has been changed since 1967.
source

The mumps outbreak was due to poor predictions by epidemiologists regarding cross-reactivity between strains, as well as the length of immunity. It has little to nothign to do with a purposefully ineffective drug. I've been immunized for mumps twice, as recommended, and when I go to Russia for volunteer work, I'm exposed to mumps regularly, as are my colleagues. We've yet to have a single case among us. This demonstrates the variability, both in individual immune systems and in strains of mumps. The strains most likely present in Russia have more cross-reactivity with the antibodies the MMR vaccine created in my immune system. The strains in the UK (which you article is about) obviously have a lower rate of cross-reactivity.

As for whooping cough, the majority of cases are in children too young to have been immunized, or in teens whose DTaP has begun to wear off. Like any vaccine, it needs to be boosted in some individuals. Some people will never require a booster, some may need it every decade or so. That's just the reality of human diversity and biochemistry.

[