joeca1i
- 708
- 43
I agree with those sentiments. But after what my sister and brother-in-law have experienced, I understand much better why some don't want to take action. (See my thread on the Alameda Grand Jury report issued last week for an idea of what I'm talking about).I chose to vaccinate this plant with E20 when it was 4" tall.
Was it a good idea? Maybe. Maybe not. But I had a CHOICE. We all have choices to bitch or take action. The problem with this country is nobody takes action. We bitch about policy. We bitch about this. We bitch about that. But no one really does shit about it. It makes me laugh. Liberty? Its at your fingertips for the taking. Most people have it at their fingertips. You have to grab it if you want it. Talking about shit doesn't resolve anything. You have to do something about it.
Myself, I'm tired of seeing so many people up in arms about shit that's happening abroad while we have abusive government shitting on brothers and sisters right here in the good ol' US of A.Do I have all the answers? NOPE. But its high time folks talk about course of action instead of crying about problems. Not just for vaccinations, but for all the bullshit people are crying about up here in the land of the free. We'll see who steps up....
Where are you gonna take your stand? There's a lot (stands that is) to take these days in the name of liberty. I guess I'm taking mine with the tree in the above picture for now. Good luck with those vaccinations. Peace.
Ah, great subject! After having raised my own boys and seeing how each sister has raised their children, I am of the incredibly firm (but not dogmatic) opinion that this has much more to do with our ideas and concepts of "cleanliness" than it really does with 'big pharma' pushing us to use things we shouldn't. Antibiotics, antimicrobials, Lysol, bleach--all this SHIT, not to mention the fact that we, as a nation, won't let our kids get DIRTY, has a lot more to do with the rising rate of allergies than anything else. In fact, there is research that seems to support this, and it focused (Belgian, IIRC) on kids raised on farms or exposed to farm animals and surrounds versus children raised in what are practically sterile environments.When I hear vaccinations, I think about Pfizer. When I think about Pfizer, I think about them slowly poisoning the entire American population with the Arsenic that they've been putting into chicken feed for the last 50 years.
When I think of vaccinations and Pfizer, I think of all of the commonplace health-problems (wtf is up with kid's allergies nowadays) that were extremely rare 50 years ago.
Oh, and FYI here are the actual stats (you know, those pesky things called "facts") on how much reduction vaccines have had on preventable deaths:
Percentage of reduction of pre-vaccine era annual morbidity in the US compared to 2008 estimates:
Diphtheria: 100% reduction
Hepatitis A: 93% reduction
Measles: 99% reduction
Mumps: 99% reduction
Pertussis: 93% reduction
Polio: 100% reduction
Rubella: 99% reduction
Small Pox: 100% reduction
Tetanus: 98% reduction
Varicella: 89% reduction
I guess it must be pure coincidence that all those disease just HAPPENED to nearly vanish after the vaccines were developed according to you geniuses though....
The important thing to know about HPV is that in almost all cases, it clears up on its own without any adverse health effects within two years in most healthy people.
Official reports from the CDC and WHO estimate that between 11,000 and 12,000 women in the US are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year, and 3,800 to 4,100 die from it.
About half of these women had never had a pap smear before they discovered they had cervical cancer. The majority of the others had not had a pap smear within the previous five years.
According to Merck's package insert on Gardasil, the end-point in its clinical trials for the vaccine's efficacy, or effectiveness, was NOT cancer, but instead was the presence, or non-presence, of vaccine-relevant pre-cancerous lesions (CIN 2/3).
There is absolutely no proof, and no clinical trials that show Gardasil protects against cancer in the long-term.
Additionally, according to the manufacturer's package insert:
•Gardasil does not eliminate the necessity for pap screening
•It does not treat active infections, lesions or cancers
•And it may not result in protection for all vaccinees
A number of the girls who died during the trials were killed in car crashes. Yet, Merck did not report whether the girls were the drivers or passengers at the time of the accidents.
This could be critical information in determining the vaccine's true safety, since one of the most common post-marketing adverse events is syncope (sudden fainting) as well as dizziness, seizures, and neurological events that could have contributed to a car accident if the person had just received a Gardasil shot and was driving at the time of the accident.
The Truth about Gardasil and its Thousands of Injuries and Deaths
The federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has been in place since 1986, but many experts believe that only 1 to 10 percent of all serious health problems that occur after vaccination, including hospitalizations, injuries and deaths, ever make it into the VAERS database.
Most doctors and other vaccine providers do not report vaccine-related adverse events to VAERS even though it is a requirement under federal law since 1986 with the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
For example, a rough comparison of Gardasil and Menactra (a vaccine against meningitis) adverse event reports to VAERS through November 30, 2008 revealed that:
Gardasil victims and their parents have been posting their heart breaking stories on websites.
These tragic entries posted by Gardasil casualties is stark testify to the fact that something isn't right with this vaccine – and what isn't right is that the list of Gardasil victims just keeps growing.
Hate to say, but had to point out- out of all of these...how far has general healthcare and sanitation come since most of these were even prevalent? I mean the last 20-30 years alone healthcare, awareness and sanitation have improved drastically. I would think that would knock out most of it honestly.
SM- I definitely get your sentiment behind this and wouldn't wanna go through the crap either, but agree theres no real proof other than scare tactics to show it works. "Use this and avoid HPV...which could prevent you from getting CANCER!" Sounds pretty scary to me, and I could see how that would work to most of the uninformed, unaware, and as you mentioned fairly uneducated population these days.
One thing to think about in schools, as I never understand the argument- if you vaccinate your children, and are confident that the vaccines work, why does it matter if any other kids are vaccinated? If its a fail proof then it shouldn't matter if kids are around yours are not vaccinated. If you're not so confident it works, then why would it matter in the first place? I know many hippies that refuse vaccines and have been into it with many a school district over those matters...usually the schools give up. The numbers really aren't there or "proof" if you will to keep non-vaccinated children away from others.
Just my opinion, as im not a fan of vaccines.
Chickenman- tons of info here bro, thanks for taking the time share it.
I get what you're saying, and agree that of course, awareness of how diseases are transmitted and precautions against them would have a big impact, but diseases still persist even with that knowledge and with better healthcare. There is still no cure for polio. Isn't the Hep A vaccine only about 15 years old? Even with better healthcare and safety precautions, it's hard not to see the effect of at least certain vaccines.
One unvaccinated child in a room full of vaccinated kids is nothing. If the general population begins to refuse vaccines, the trickle effect would take us back to middle ages of medicine pretty quickly. I can understand avoiding the chicken pox or whatever, but not polio or some of the others. I pasted the required list for Nevada as an example. Those all have a pretty high mortality rate, no? Or at least for the older lady you expose to it because you weren't vaccinated and she's too old to have gotten the vaccine.
(a) Diphtheria;
(b) Tetanus;
(c) Pertussis if the child is under 6 years of age;
(d) Poliomyelitis;
(e) Rubella;
(f) Rubeola; and
(g) Such other diseases as the local board of health or the state board of health may determine.
Interesting that not even measles is on the list and it can be fatal.
I can't believe we're talking about pap smears. My pops screened em' for 22 years as a cytotechnologist. Now I'm sitting here on a ganja web site reading this jizzle. You are the man Chickenman! LOL! Laughin' my ass off! If you lived in my district I'd vote for your ass for whatever you were running for. That ain't no joke brother. PM me when you're in the mile high so we can blaze your hash and my buds or vice versa. I've never met ya, but I know i love ya!:banana1sv6:
But there is proof of the following:There is absolutely no proof, and no clinical trials that show Gardasil protects against cancer in the long-term.
And this is using Google Scholar: http://www.skinandallergynews.com/index.php?id=1059&type=98&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=499&cHash=da03e20e36Here are some key findings from both of the Future I and Future II studies:
- Gardasil was nearly 100 percent effective in preventing precancerous cervical lesions caused by the the strains that Gardasil protects against. (It provides protection against two strains known to cause 70 percent of all cervical cancers and two strains known to cause 90 percent of all warts.)
- Future I studies found that Gardasil is also highly effective in preventing precancerous lesions that occur on or in the vagina, anus, and vulva.
- Gardasil's effectiveness increased when given to girls and young women before they become sexually active.
- Gardasil is less effective in preventing precancerous lesions in women already exposed to HPV strains 16 and 18, since you cannot vaccinate against an infection that is already present.
See what I bolded above? The same year I had to have my cervical conization, I had to have a tumor of the parathyroid removed. The parathyroid happens to reside in the neck. Coincidence...? :hiSAN FRANCISCO — A multinational study of 11,502 young women showed for the first time that a vaccine for the treatment of human papillomavirus can prevent precancerous cervical lesions and early in situ cervical cancers, Laura A. Koutsky, Ph.D., reported.
The recombinant vaccine against HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18 was 100% effective in preventing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grades 2 and 3 and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) related to HPV 16 or 18 in 5,301 women who completed a three-shot vaccination regimen and were negative for the HPV types at the start and end of vaccinations. HPV 16 and 18 cause approximately 70% of invasive cervical cancers worldwide.
Among 5,258 females who received a total of three placebo shots, 1 developed AIS, 15 developed CIN3, and 5 developed CIN2 during an average 17-month follow-up, Dr. Koutsky explained at the annual meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
The data came from a planned interim analysis of the ongoing Females United to Unilaterally Reduce Endo-Ectocervical Disease study (FUTURE II), a randomized, double-blind, phase III clinical trial of the vaccine made by Merck & Co., said Dr. Koutsky, professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington, Seattle. Dr. Koutsky has received grants and research funding from Merck, which funded the trial.
The company plans to apply by the end of this year for Food and Drug Administration approval to market the vaccine, which has been given the trade name Gardasil.
A secondary analysis intended to reflect more real-world conditions found the vaccine was 97% effective in preventing CIN2/CIN3 and AIS in women who received at least one of the three intended vaccinations.
In this secondary analysis, 1 of 5,736 women in the vaccine group became infected with HPV 16 and developed CIN2. Among 5,766 women in the placebo group, 4 developed AIS, 23 developed CIN3, and 9 developed CIN2 related to HPV 16 or 18 over a 2-year follow-up starting 30 days after the first vaccination.
CIN2/CIN3 and AIS are accepted as surrogates for invasive cervical cancer for research purposes by regulatory agencies.
Study participants averaged 16–26 years of age and resided in 13 countries. HPV infection most commonly occurs in the late teens and early 20s. The vaccine is likely to be targeted to females before they become sexually active.
"Cervical cancer kills at a relatively early age," Dr. Koutsky noted. Among U.S. women, the median age of death from cervical cancer is age 57, compared with a median age of death of 72 for all other cancer patients.
Low-grade cervical lesions take between 10 and 20 years to progress to cervical cancer, so a vaccine's effects on cancer incidence would not be felt for decades.
The interim data do not indicate how long immunity from Gardasil might last. An earlier phase II clinical trial of a monovalent HPV 16 vaccine showed that antibody titers decreased initially but then stabilized and were maintained out to 48 months, she said.
Women in the current trial underwent a Pap test and collection of cervical specimens for HPV DNA testing on the first visit. These tests were to be repeated at months 6, 12, 24, and 36; a 48-month follow-up lies ahead. The three-shot regimen of vaccine or placebo was to be given on day 1 and during months 2 and 6.
In addition to causing most invasive cervical cancers worldwide, HPV 16 and 18 cause a portion of cancers of the vagina, vulva, anus, penis, and head and neck.
HPV 6 and 11 cause about 90% of anogenital warts. Investigators are analyzing the interim data to assess the vaccine's effectiveness against genital warts and its effects on the overall burden of HPV-related clinical disease, Dr. Koutsky said.
Approximately 20 million U.S. women and men are infected with HPV, which causes an estimated 10,400 cases of cervical cancer and 3,700 deaths from cervical cancer each year in the United States. Worldwide, approximately 290,000 women die each year from cervical cancer.
HPV also can cause anal cancer in men and especially is a problem in men who have immunosuppression from HIV infection.
Gardasil is one of two HPV vaccines currently in phase III clinical trials.
The other, called Cervarix, immunizes against HPV 16 and 18 and uses a novel adjuvant that may boost the immune response and provide some cross-coverage against other types of cancer-causing HPV. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., which makes Cervarix, is likely to seek approval for its vaccine in 2006.
Both Gardasil and Cervarix are subunit vaccines that contain just one protein of the virus and induce antibodies that protect against infection.
HPV infection is very common, so abnormal Pap results are common, Dr. Koutsky said.
In the United States, about one in five women with abnormal Pap results will have biopsy-confirmed CIN that requires additional management and, often, treatment.
About 1 in 135 women in countries with Pap screening and 1 in 20–30 women in countries without Pap screening will develop cervical cancer, Dr. Koutsky said.
"This is why a vaccine that could prevent HPV 16- and 18-related intraepithelial lesions and early invasive cancer would be a major advance in the control of anogenital cancers," Dr. Koutsky said at the meeting.
Serious adverse events were rare and relatively evenly divided between the vaccine group (three events) and placebo group (two events).
None led to discontinuation from the study. Two of the patients in the vaccine group died, but the deaths were deemed unrelated to the vaccine, Dr. Koutsky said.
There you go, throwing the baby out with the bathwater again. The proof that demonstrates efficacy is there, but it's only available to those who will see it. Seek and ye shall find and all of that, right? I'm just gonna call it like I see it--you've closed off your mind entirely on this subject. You can't just pick and choose which science you'll accept based only on whether or not it fits into what appear to be rather dogmatic assumptions and beliefs, bordering on a type of religion, if you will. I refuse to keep my mind so closed off for so long as I am able to think for myself.Patients and the public logically expect that only medical and scientific evidence is put on the balance. If other matters weigh in, such as profit for a company or financial or professional gains for physicians or groups of physicians, the balance is easily skewed.
Big money no matter what
Well, pertussis is on the rise in my county, as is tuberculosis.Hate to say, but had to point out- out of all of these...how far has general healthcare and sanitation come since most of these were even prevalent? I mean the last 20-30 years alone healthcare, awareness and sanitation have improved drastically. I would think that would knock out most of it honestly.
No, that's what people aren't getting. Just having HPV is not a guarantee of cancer, but if you have this one particular strain, you are damn near guaranteed not just cancer, but cervical cancer, with everything that comes with it, including those spectacularly LOW survival rates. It's right up there with ovarian cancer in terms of survivability. The proof is there, it's just not long term, as CM asserts. But with cervical cancer, just not getting it while sexually active, which as I've since learned, means not being diagnosed with HPV in the first place, can be construed as a guarantee that the means of your death won't be via cervical cancer (or the other cancers associated with HPV infection).SM- I definitely get your sentiment behind this and wouldn't wanna go through the crap either, but agree theres no real proof other than scare tactics to show it works. "Use this and avoid HPV...which could prevent you from getting CANCER!" Sounds pretty scary to me, and I could see how that would work to most of the uninformed, unaware, and as you mentioned fairly uneducated population these days.
Vaccinated children can infect non-vaccinated. In fact, if you, as an adult, have never had chicken pox and your kid is vaccinated then you must take extra care. Chicken pox can be deadly for adults. That's just a for instance, of course.One thing to think about in schools, as I never understand the argument- if you vaccinate your children, and are confident that the vaccines work, why does it matter if any other kids are vaccinated? If its a fail proof then it shouldn't matter if kids are around yours are not vaccinated. If you're not so confident it works, then why would it matter in the first place? I know many hippies that refuse vaccines and have been into it with many a school district over those matters...usually the schools give up. The numbers really aren't there or "proof" if you will to keep non-vaccinated children away from others.
Just my opinion, as im not a fan of vaccines.
Chickenman- tons of info here bro, thanks for taking the time share it.
The whole medical "practice" is a farce. Just do some research on Dr. Wakefield. This is what happens to Dr's who come out and start talking about the truth. They attack you, The media attacks you, they make false accusations and revoke your license. Its a scam folks. The CDC, AMA the FDA is a joke. Why is it that there are so many new drugs being advertised on TV. Then a year later you see commercials for law suits against these company's? I thought the FDA said it was safe? LOL. Why is it the FDA passed a law stating that companys DO NOT have to list if their food is GM? THEY DONT CARE ABOUT US! Immunizations is a cover for eugenics and population control. They are sterilizing people. Bill Gates is huge on this. There is videos with him saying in his own words that they can reduce the earth's population through vaccines.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?