Confirmed: Your Daughter Is Merck's Guinea Pig

What does this virus do in regards to men?
can men be carriers?Can men get some form of this disease?(i realize its different plumbing were talking about.....but what if it turned into some form of warts or ther type presentation in men?
Would they then be contageous?
If condoms dont protect partners then what besides total abstinence will stop the eventual spread of this thing?
Where the he%% was it in the last thousand or two years of human history?What are the ramifications of it?Sterility in the end?(the only effective treatment at some stage....i know!)What does this bode as far as population in the future?
I fail to get the part where this has been going around since forever, and just now iuts a problem???What did we do about this before ?
Let the women just die?or suffer horribly till they did?
Seems like this is just plain wierd....why arent we all a little more concerned with the details?
If we dont vaccinate, then how will this affect the spread of it to the rest of uninfected womankind?
And come to think of it how many remain untouched by this disease already?
It seems to me that universal infection is inevitable if the men play ant signifigant role in its spread.....
Just a few pannicked thoughts ....................

From what my Dr. told me, men only cary it. They experience no symptoms of this at all. Which makes another good point. If the men are the carriers, and they suffer no symptoms, why not vaccinate them? That would be the logical thing to do. HOWEVER, if that really was the case, then like I said before, I would continue to have problems for the rest of my life. 5 years later....still nothing.

For all I know this showed up about 10 years ago or so. Does anyone here know for sure?

[edit on 17-3-2007 by mrsdudara]

here is the HPV info page from the CDC, I will look for more on the history and post back later.

Genital HPV Infection - CDC Fact Sheet

What is genital HPV infection?
How common is HPV?
How do people get genital HPV infections?
What are the signs and symptoms of genital HPV infection?
How is genital HPV infection diagnosed?
Is there a cure for HPV?
What is the connection between HPV infection and cervical cancer?
How can people reduce their risk for genital HPV infection?
Where can I get more information?

see source for the answers..

Here is a link to a very good powerpoint presentation on HPV at this link

History of HPV Detection

WARNING : There are a few images which could be considered offensive to some.

I will keep lookiing for more info....

you will find a million hit's on google cause they market the shannanagans out of this stuff and also manipulate people based on fear (worst case scenario's)

bottom line higher risk strain is a MISLEADING TERM

i will find and post a link with a doctor who works in (lower income areas) and says that the "high risk strains" is a relative term and misleading because the risk of cervical cancer from the higher risk hpv strain increases alot COMPARED to the other strains but it is still very very low of leading to this cancer ( this cancer develops very very slowly)

the doctor says that most that have the "higher risk strain still clear it without progressing to the C.C)

bottom line higher risk strain is a MISLEADING TERM

and research cancer prevention from non DRUG SOURCES and tell me what you find about cures that sloan and kattering discovered but were discouraged because the b-17 rich apricot seeds out preformed any drug they were currently testing, and as a business (no fault of there own) they are to make money and they can't trademark something like a apricot seed so they decided to study different drugs.

the problem comes in when people make the misconception that because our hospitals have the best care and drugs to give when we have a physical injury or trauma that they (fda and pharmacutical companies) MUST have the best cures with drugs for diseases, they dont and they would be crazy to tell u that, they are a business trying to make money.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by cpdaman]

Originally posted by cpdaman
the risk of cervical cancer from the higher risk hpv strain increases alot COMPARED to the other strains but it is still very very low of leading to this cancer ( this cancer develops very very slowly)

when I mentioned the higher risk strain I think I did mention that it is still very very rare cases that get cancer.

Big Pharma has drug out the fear-mongering big guns with their campaign...

One less...

It is NOT like Merck REALLY cares about people... Its all about the cash and if the going rate $400 a pop... You do the math.

>'...her second child the cancer cells came back she was advised to have a hysterectomy and she did.

>'That is the last measure to save a life.'

MDs with regards to internal medicine/degenerative diseases are still absolutely stuck in the dark ages...

That's very similar to one of the treatments for 'diabetics'.

Let's amputate his foot... (Make sure you take the correct one off this time)
Because they are simply too inept to provide a real treatment.

WHEN is it time to admit how flawed and hopeless the so called 'disease' model of medicine is...

I came across an interesting tidbit that directly contradicted Merck's claim and also the CDC and NIH who are supporting the vaccine. On the Gardasil.com website they state the vaccine protects against two strains that cause 70% of cervical cancers, and two that cause 90% of genital warts. Yet a recent article at CNN refutes this by citing data from a 2004 study of 1,921 women. Out of 1,921 women only 3.4% were infected with a form of HPV that the vaccine protects against. Statistically that doesn't add up to the high rate of HPV infection that they tout. More over only 3.4 percent of the women were infected with a strain that the vaccine allegedly protects against. Now the same article stated that 1 out of 4 women are infected in the U.S. Somebody isn't telling the truth. If two strains cause 90% of genital warts, and two other strains cause 70% of cervical cancers then all together for those 4 strains more then 3.4% of 1,921 women should have been infected with one of those 4 strains. By the way the article cited fuzzy math as well being that 3.4 % of 1,921 doesn't even come out to a whole number.

Bottom line don't trust it, and also at 400 dollars a pop, should you be forced to pay for it when they don't know that it protects beyond 3 years as it was not studied that long.

One more thing. Simply because they sometimes find HPV with cancerous cells in a womans genitals, does not mean that the HPV was the cause of it. It is a known scientific fact that cancerous cells are far more succeptible to infection then healthy normal cells.

www.cnn.com...

Originally posted by mrsdudara
From what my Dr. told me, men only cary it. They experience no symptoms of this at all. Which makes another good point. If the men are the carriers, and they suffer no symptoms, why not vaccinate them? That would be the logical thing to do. HOWEVER, if that really was the case, then like I said before, I would continue to have problems for the rest of my life. 5 years later....still nothing.

For all I know this showed up about 10 years ago or so. Does anyone here know for sure?

[edit on 17-3-2007 by mrsdudara]

Oh man that your Dr. even told you that is ridiculous. Men can carry it and have symptoms. Many don't have symtoms though, and many men claim they don't have symptoms because of the stigma of having an STD period. Now depending on each individuals immune system, their body may fight it off and they will never have symptoms, or they may have constant or reoccuring symptoms, it depends on the person.

There is no motivation whatsoever for any medical industry, group or drug company to tell people the truth about human health. In other words, an executive working at a pharmaceutical company that's making billions of dollars a year from the sale of drugs cannot psychologically accept the idea that most current diseases could easily be prevented or reversed. The thought doesn't even penetrate that person's belief system. To them, there is no profit in curing something.

Furthermore, we put WAY too much trust in what these companies tell us when there bottom line isn't saving lives, but making profits.

Someone once asked me, "But what if the CEO's mother had cancer...wouldn't he want to find a cure?". Would he? Or is there more profit in keeping her sick?

Additionally, Merck may not be responsible or liable if anything happens due to the "Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005" where Americans were stripped of "the right to a trial by jury if harmed by an experimental or licensed drug or vaccine that they are forced by government" to take.

[edit on 3-19-2007 by elderban]

Originally posted by elderban

Additionally, Merck may not be responsible or liable if anything happens due to the "Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005" where Americans were stripped of "the right to a trial by jury if harmed by an experimental or licensed drug or vaccine that they are forced by government" to take.

[edit on 3-19-2007 by elderban]

In rapid decline. I still see ads from lawyers wanting to teeth on the drug companies. Very profitable, too.

Not to mention the things that are winding through court now, concerning ill-application and its rapid acceptance.


[edit on 3/20/2007 by bothered]

Originally posted by mrsdudara
If the men are the carriers, and they suffer no symptoms, why not vaccinate them? That would be the logical thing to do.

Wow , I like this thought a lot. Unfortunately mrsdudara, logic has no place in megacorps, government, and many circles of collective thinkings.

Profit-logic says, if we only identify the problem and fix it with those carriers of the virus, then we only make little x in dollars. But if we use it for the opposite sex in preventative measures we make BIG Y in dollars. Here's the math problem. If you want a big house, big car, and big vacations, do you take little x money or BIG Y money?

[edit on 20-3-2007 by saint4God]