Vaccinations we should have a choice

[joeca1i]

BS http://www.nvic.org/

 

[bloads]

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.

 

[altimood]

Phuck big Pharma.

 

[Seamaiden]

CM, I've been chewing on this. Yes, we should have a choice, but with that choice comes a responsibility. And that responsibility is to be intelligent when making the choice. If the chance of having 3 out of 1,000 children reacting badly to a vaccine for a deadly disease like polio is the worst of it, and if, for instance, that reaction is no worse than the disease itself, I would, will and did take that chance and make that choice.

Now we have a vaccine against a deadly microbe that's passed sexually--human papilloma virus. It is known that a certain strain of this microbe IS absolutely responsible for cervical cancer. Victims of cervical cancer have an incredibly LOW survival rate. I could regale you with what happens once you get that very first abnormal PAP smear, but I have a feeling most of the people here (read: men) aren't quite so interested in reading in such detail what a woman endures once so diagnosed. So I will simply say this much--if there were ANY fucking way POSSIBLE for me to have gotten such a vaccine before being diagnosed with that God damned virus I WOULD IN A FUCKING HEARTBEAT. If I had a daughter, she would be vaccinated in a fucking heartbeat.

Because I know what it is to suffer just the initial stages of an infection, and have been spared the full consequences (read: death) it can rain upon someone so unfortunate. Now you? You can say no, your daughter gets no such vaccine. And everyone gets to live with the consequences, assuming the partner from whom she received such a gift isn't busily passing it on to others, and assuming that said daughter has been diagnosed before she's had an opportunity to pass it on to others.

I have a friend who's a chemistry professor and researcher at UC Santa Cruz, and his wife just happens to be a virologist. They both assert that in the coming days science is going to prove a definitive causal link between viral infections and cancer.

I like to put that in my pipe and smoke it. If we had a vaccine for AIDS, I would also say yes.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Our problems run far deeper and are much more widespread than whether or not we should have vaccinations. Besides, vaccinations won't save us from ourselves--how many here have antibacterial/antimicrobial soaps in their home? We do it to ourselves. 'Nuff said.

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.

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.

And I've seen the difference in that played out in the difference in absence rates of my own boys (I let them get DIRTY, seriously dirty, and exposed them to a lot of different stuff) versus one of my sister's kids, who got cleaned daily, she uses antimicrobial/antibiotic handwashes and shower products, FOR DAILY USE(!), and who've been indoctrinated into this idea of allergies. She has kept them so insulated from exposure to animals that my poor nephew doesn't even know how to hold a small dog or cat. I can't tell you how deeply sad that makes me, they're concrete kids and know nothing, feel nothing, of our natural world. Fuck, now I'm bummed out thinking about it.

So, back to the "why" of it. People don't seem to want to take responsibility for how their dollars make real votes and impact. The companies making these products would not be doing so if the market weren't there. It is truly as simple as that. Notice lately the advertising for natural pest control, natural house cleaners, hell, even sponges made from recycled materials! Why is that? Market demand.

 

[chickenman]

The Truth about HPV and Cancer
It is important to distinguish between HPV and cancer: Just because you currently have HPV, or may have had the infection in the past, does NOT mean you have cancer or will get cancer.

HPV is NOT cancer. It is a viral infection that can lead to cancer in some people if the virus does not naturally clear from your body, as it does for most people within two years.

Some high risk factors for developing chronic HPV infection are:

•Smoking
•Co-infection with herpes, Chlamydia or HIV
•Long term birth control use
•Multiple births
In the US, infection with HPV is very common, and it is estimated that about 20 million Americans have an HPV infection at any given time. In fact, HPV is so common that most sexually active people will get it at some time in their lives.

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.

Genital HPV infection that is persistent, and more likely to lead to cancer, is most common in men and women who have had multiple sex partners. According to the CDC, other contributing risk factors to HPV infection that leads to cervical cancer includes smoking, having herpes, Chlamydia or HIV (the virus associated with AIDS), or another health problem that makes it hard for your body to deal with infections.

Using birth control pills for a long time (five or more years) or having given birth to three or more children is also a risk factor.

Also, certain populations in the US are more prone to getting cervical cancer. According to CervicalCancerCampaign.org:

"Cervical cancer occurs most often in certain groups of women in the United States including African-American women, Hispanic women, white (non-Hispanic) women living in rural New York State and northern New England, American Indian women, and Vietnamese-American women.

•Hispanic women have twice the rate of cervical cancer compared to non-Hispanic white women. African-American women develop this cancer about 50 percent more than non-Hispanic white women".
These disparities are due, in part, from poor access to health care. The women who are most at risk for the disease are women who do not have regular check-ups that include pap tests.

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 the CDC's report on HPV to Congress in 2004:

"Cervical cancer is an uncommon consequence of HPV infection in women, especially if they are screened for cancer regularly with pap tests and have appropriate follow-up of abnormalities.

The purpose of screening with the pap test is to detect cervical abnormalities that can be treated, thereby preventing progression to invasive cervical cancer, and also to detect invasive cervical cancer at a very early stage. If detected early and managed promptly, survival rates for cervical cancer are over 90 percent."

A study published in 2000 in the Archives of Family Medicine also showed that in the US, women who are elderly, unmarried, and uninsured are more likely to be diagnosed at a late stage of cervical cancer.

The Truth About Gardasil
According to a 2006 report to the international group Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), Gardasil and Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline's two-strain HPV vaccine) are only effective in young women and men (boys are now approved to receive HPV vaccine) who have never been infected with HPV.

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.

In fact, in clinical trials, Gardasil's protection against cell dysplasia leveled off at four years, and clinical trial participants were given a fourth dose to boost the number of antibodies measured in the blood (immunogenicity) of those who got the vaccine. This is the efficacy being reported by Merck, even though the vaccine series is marketed as three shots, not four.

And, according to Dr. Diane Harper, a lead researcher for Gardasil, its efficacy against genital warts is only two years.

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
An outstanding question is whether the mass use of Gardasil (and Cervarix) by all girls and boys will put pressure on other HPV strains not contained in the vaccines to become more dominant and perhaps more virulent in causing cervical cancer.

The "replacement" effect has happened with other infectious organisms that have developed resistance to vaccines used on a mass basis, such as pertussis (whooping cough) and pneumococcal vaccines.

The Truth about Gardasil's Clinical Trials
Only 27 percent of girls who have received the Gardasil vaccine have gotten all three shots in the vaccine's series. Merck blames it on forgetfulness, and has launched a "reminder" program that contacts vaccinees, and urges them to complete the series.

CNN Money suggests that it has to do with the vaccine's high cost – just under $400 for a three-shot series, although some private doctors charge up to $875 for a three-shot series.

But neither has considered the third possibility – that the reported reactions girls are suffering after getting one or two shots of Gardasil are so severe that they decide not to go back for more.

In any drug trial, whether it's for a vaccine or not, safety should be the top priority – and Gardasil's safety should have been thoroughly investigated before it was licensed and put on the market and recommended by public health doctors for ALL young girls to use.

But Merck used bad methodology in its pre-licensure safety studies that did NOT contain a true placebo. In reporting systemic adverse reactions to the vaccine, instead of using a true placebo that is not reactive on its own, Merck used a vaccine component (aluminum) in what they called the "placebo."

Aluminum can cause inflammation in the body and can make your blood brain barrier more permeable, allowing toxins to pass into your brain and cause damage. It is definitely not appropriate to use an aluminum-containing "placebo" to measure the reactivity of an experimental vaccine like Gardasil that will be given to children.

Researchers did use a saline placebo in one clinical trial, but only reported it in reference to injection site reactions. In those comparisons, the saline placebo had significantly fewer reactions than either the vaccine or the aluminum-containing placebo.

When it came to reporting the actual adverse, systemic events with the vaccine, Merck combined the aluminum and saline placebos, thus making the "placebo" results nearly the same as the vaccine's – and impossible to objectively judge true safety comparisons.

This encouraged the perception that the vaccine is "safe" because the adverse events associated with it were nearly the same as the aluminum containing " placebo."

Another important outcome of the clinical trials that was not properly investigated before licensure was the potential association between the deaths that occurred in the clinical trials and the Gardasil vaccine.

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.

Gardasil was a "fast tracked" vaccine and with so little active reporting of Gardasil-related health problems to VAERS, this means that Gardasil should be on the red-alert list for agencies like the CDC, the FDA, and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Yet these three federal health agencies and medical organizations urging doctors to give Gardasil to children and young women have joined Merck in insisting that Gardasil is safe, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.

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.

The unfortunate fact is Merck only studied the vaccine in fewer than 1200 girls under age 16, and most of the serious health problems and deaths in the pre-licensure clinical trials were written off as a "coincidence."

And now, since those adverse reactions aren't listed as possible warning signs that the vaccine can cause harm, health officials are still ignoring them, even while girls die and others suffer ongoing, and often permanent, injuries and disabilities from it.

For example, a rough comparison of Gardasil and Menactra (a vaccine against meningitis) adverse event reports to VAERS through November 30, 2008 revealed that:

•Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least twice as many emergency room visit reports; 4 times more death reports; 5 times more "did not recover" reports; and 7 times more "disabled" reports.
•Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with all of the reports of blood clots. All 23 reports of blood clots following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone without any other vaccines.
•Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 4 times as many cardiac arrest reports. All 9 reports of cardiac arrest following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone without any other vaccines.
•Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 6 times as many fainting reports and at least 3 times as many syncope reports.
•Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 4 times as many lupus reports. 27 reports of lupus following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone.
•Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 15 times as many stroke reports. 16 reports of stroke following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone.
•Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 3 times as many syncope reports.
•Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 33 times as many thrombosis reports. 34 reports of thrombosis following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone.
•Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 5 times as many sasculitis reports. 11 reports of vasculitis following Gardasil occurred when Gardasiil was given alone.
•Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 30 times as many rechallenge reports, which involve a worsening of symptoms experienced after previous receipt of Gardasil.
What's disturbing about this is that these reports in all likelihood are just the tip of the iceberg because most physicians are making their reports to Merck, rather than to VAERS, and Merck is forwarding such poor quality information to VAERS that the CDC and FDA can't follow up on the majority of reports that Merck makes.

As reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association in August 2009, Merck made 68 percent of the reports to VAERS and 89 percent of them had information that was too insufficient to review!

Is This a Vaccine that You Would Want?
An editorial in the August 19, 2009 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) commented specifically on the risks and benefits of vaccinating with Gardasil, Merck's marketing of it, and the safety issues that are so obvious with this drug:

"When weighing evidence about risks and benefits, it is also appropriate to ask who takes the risk, and who gets the benefit," the JAMA author said.

"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.

"The balance will also tilt if the adverse events are not calculated correctly."

The commentary is so poignant that it's a wonder that the mainstream media still hasn't' picked up on the impact of what this author is trying to say – that maybe, just maybe, people shouldn't be so quick to jump on the Gardasil bandwagon.

The JAMA commentary goes on to say that one of the core questions of all medical decisions should be: When is the available information about harmful adverse effects sufficient to conclude that the risks outweigh the potential benefits?

It's apparent that that question is in the minds of anyone who has really taken the time to study this vaccine.

What happened to Gardasil is that consumers looked at the science and lots of them made a choice to not use this vaccine.

And that, CNN Money, is why Gardasil is a flop.

What You

 

[Seamaiden]

Well, gee... hmmm... let me think about this. A choice between cancer that will kill me, or cardiac arrest that might kill me. Hmmm.... a year of having your legs up in stirrups being poked, swabbed, biopsied, etcetera, versus CPR.

Gosh, I just can't seem to decide between the two.

 

[chickenman]

There is absolutely no proof, and no clinical trials that show Gardasil protects against cancer in the long-term.

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

 

[true grit]

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....

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.

 

[chickenman]

Chickenman- tons of info here bro, thanks for taking the time share it.

Thanks Its information meant to inform. Were all free to decide for ourselfs.the more we know the more we can figure out whats best for each person...

On the Gardasil Vaccine Merick was even recommending it for boys as HPV may be spread thru oral sex. Anything and everything...

 

[amstercal]

Good link, joecal1. I honestly didn't know that other states didn't allow for a philosophical exemption since I live in California. Seems like something worth actually getting out and trying to get changed in your state if you live in one of those. At the same time, if you believe the govt is manufacturing or exaggerating info on vaccines or has some ulterior plot with them, I wonder that you would allow your kids to attend public school in the first place. If you feel so strongly, wouldn't it be worth your time to home school your kids to shield them from the rest of the government's lies? Hell, there are still school districts that don't teach evolution. Ignorance scares me a lot more than the same side effects you get from eating fast food.

Sorry, chickenman, the story you posted really irks me. It's bad science and bad reporting.

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.

This is crap. They didn't quote their source and they can't possibly be talking about genital HPV in women. If your doctor finds that you have genital HPV, you will be subject to freezing (like the kind they give for regular warts, only imagine how that must feel on your genitals) or my favorite and one a friend was just telling me she had to endure today, LEEP. They take a round wire that cauterizes as it cuts and remove part of your cervix. Since your cervix grows back (supposedly), no problem, right? Oh, except there's a rising number of women with "incompetent cervix" who can't carry their babies to full term because of this procedure. So how would they know if it clears up on its own since women are treated for it as a matter of course (just like dermatologists freeze off your moles if they are precancerous)? I know lots of women affected by this. In not one case did the dr leave it to clear up on its own. Probably the non-genital variety does, but so what? It isn't the subject of the cancer scrutiny anyway.

So add miscarriage to list of things you might be able to avoid if you get the vaccine since the treatment for HPV can lead to it.

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.

It's like they're arguing for getting it. So if you have a 30% chance of dying from cervical cancer if you get it, you're willing to risk that for the sake of some possible side effects that I'll go into in a sec? And the second paragraph, EXACTLY! If you could ensure that women who don't get regular paps due to lack of insurance or whatever could be protected, isn't that the ideal for people getting vaccines?

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).

Yeah, um duh. That's like bagging on an HIV vaccine because its trials focused on who got HIV rather than who got AIDS. If the vaccine is for HPV, then of course they'd focus on the HPV lesions that can cause cancer, not the cancer itself.

There is absolutely no proof, and no clinical trials that show Gardasil protects against cancer in the long-term.

Has there been time for that? And see the previous comment. Crazy vague.

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

1: This is the part that just irks me. Yeah, duh, you get a pap for a lot more reasons than HPV, so even the most effective and risk-free HPV vaccine wouldn't help with that.

2: Does any VACCINE treat the results of the disease it's trying to prevent? A polio vaccine isn't going to help you once you have polio. Of course they have to point this out to users. How stupid to call it up as if it's a problem.

3: I don't even know what that sentence means. Maybe instead of "vaccinees" they meant strains of HPV? Well, some is better than none.

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.

What propaganda! Try having PMS. Some of those same symptoms.

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:

After the colon, the list goes on about how Gardasil was X number of times more likely to cause whatever. First, you can't bag on a reporting system for not being accurate, then use its numbers in your favor. That's super hypocritical and bad science. Also, without knowing how many more times Gardasil was administered than Menactra, what a worthless stat. Of course if it was given more, there would be more reports. Any time you get an injection, of anything, there's a risk of reaction. I run a fever after any injection of anything.

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.

Do you know how many parents posted their heartbreaking stories about autism coming from the MMR vaccine? Dr Phil had a whole show on parents who were diehard believers. I posted some links above if you're wondering if there is any science behind them. Parents want an answer for why their kid is sick. It's understandable. Doesn't make it science, Jenny.

I'm not actually advocating Gardasil. I can't say whether it's good, but I hate bad science and bad reporting propaganda. Using stats to try to confuse people seems unworthy of someone supposedly trying to get the truth out there (I mean the writer, not you, Chickenman). I know a lot of women that would trade all those side effects and more for not enduring HPV treatments, not having miscarriages due to treatments for HPV and not facing cervical cancer.

If you still think you are against it, let me use some freezing compound on your genitals and ask again. ;-)

 

[amstercal]

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.

 

[altimood]

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:

 

[true grit]

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.

Indeed, but you also have look at other contributing factors for numbers, etc... Lets be realistic, we are now in an age of information, more precise record keeping etc...frankly I doubt much of these are necessarily increasing anymore than ever, but perhaps attention is actually being applied and records are actually being kept. Yes there is a rise of Pertussis cases in the last 15-20 years, but there is also a higher recognition and proper diagnosis of pertussis than ever in the past. Along with proper diagnosis of adults whichs adds to the rise- you don't necessarily see a rise in mortality rates, but you see a rise in diagnosis. Of course even though a higher rate of recognition and proper diagnosis is acknowledged- the first to be blame or questioned is lack of vaccination or adult vaccination. Just some food for thought being in the information/track everything age.

 

[amstercal]

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:

Sorry, that was awfully graphic. I just think if boys are gonna talk about what girls should do, they should know what girls really do. Sorry for the ick factor.

Oh and definitely agree, TG. Again, back to autism. Better diagnosis is definitely why autism is on the rise. And again back to polio, even with better diagnosis, the effect of the vaccine on contracted cases is pretty irrefutable.

 

[spinkus]

Somewhat off topic, but interesting nonetheless

US ran fake vaccine project in hunt for bin Laden: report

 

[Seamaiden]

!!!Long post alert!!! Just so you can't say you weren't warned

Altimood, my dad is a retired radiologist. His specialty was mammograms, but he also worked with many oncologists. He and my mother (a registered dietitian) 1call them 'chemotherapy victims' instead of patients. In fact, the prospect of chemotherapy is why my mother chose a radical mastectomy instead of a lumpectomy with chemo and radiation "therapy" (what a euphemism, eh?).

A needle stick versus being cut, irradiated, injected full of chemicals, and then we have this....

There is absolutely no proof, and no clinical trials that show Gardasil protects against cancer in the long-term.

But there is proof of the following:
HPV (can't remember the exact strain) causes over 80% of cervical cancers, direct causal link has been proven. Gardasil has been proven to prevent infection well.

Where do you go with that? Again, I'm still stuck on which way is the best way to die, and frankly, with my legs up in the air and someone all up in my junk, unless I'm being fucked silly, isn't the best way, IMO. I feel that I speak from a position of rather direct knowledge of this very specific subject, too. The 'go visit the doctor every three months for over a year before they decide to cut into you' kind of direct knowledge. And mine is a fortunate story!

It actually only takes a few minutes to determine that your argument against protection is specious, CM. There is indeed proof, and plenty of it. And since cervical cancer can kill so quickly, what does it matter "long term," in the grand scheme of things?
This is just using plain old Google:

Here 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.

And this is using Google Scholar: http://www.skinandallergynews.com/index.php?id=1059&type=98&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=499&cHash=da03e20e36

SAN 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.

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...? :hi

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

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.

Here's another article: =48592&cHash=da03e20e36"]HPV Vaccine is Effective in Males

I still stand by what I said previously--if I had a choice (and I was given no such choice as to whether or not to become infected with HPV, my friend, such is the case with almost all infections, no?) I would take my chances with the vaccine instead of the disease. Given the death rate alone, if we accept a direct causal link, via Gardasil, I will take my chances.

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.

Well, pertussis is on the rise in my county, as is tuberculosis.

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.

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).

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.

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.

I've never seen a school give up that fight, they'll kick the kids out and then, if their parents don't take up the schooling reins, will nail them for truancy if at all possible.

It's clear that many people here are not 'fans of vaccines' but I find myself wondering about people in 3rd world countries, what they might think. I find myself mostly wondering about my great-grandparents and the children they lost to common childhood illnesses and the fact that only 100 years ago the childhood mortality rate was close to 1 in 4 or 5. That's 20%-25% of all children born dying before reaching adulthood. And then I find myself wondering why anyone would want to go back to that UNLESS their aim/goal is to reduce the overall population.

 

[Seamaiden]

A quick question for all of you who are so automatically dead set against vaccinations (which is automatically making a choice, if you'll take a moment to note): How do you feel about Jehovah's Witnesses? How do you feel about people who refuse medical treatment for their children? Should they also have a choice?

How do you feel about polygamy?

 

[paperplane]

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.

 

[amstercal]

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.

I don't think you get how medicine works or FDA trials. You do a trial on a relatively very small group of people and the trials have end dates. It's only with the larger population being exposed and more time that the problems with drugs are truly revealed. Sure, like all government agencies, politics and money are going to play a role in the FDA's approval, but at least we have an FDA. You very much hold dr's and the FDA up to some kind of standard of perfection. These are real people who can make honest mistakes just like any of us. I'm never an advocate for taking things without question, but not everything is a sinister plot either. Sometimes complications really don't show up until time goes by or the differences in people make the problems with the drug apparent.
Oh and damn Bill Gates for donating his own money to groups like Planned Parenthood. Please do post a link where Bill says he's trying to participate in eugenics. Do you mean the quote below? It's obvious to me that he means controlling the population boom by providing birth control and other options for women (like Planned Parenthood does), but people who want to believe bad things of people in power will believe what they want. This is not proof that he's participating in eugenics though, just that you and others have your own agenda, and his speech writer should group things more carefully.

“First we got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

 

[vancerz]

“First we got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

you will notice hes talking about all these services being used to help kill off the population, not helping it.