Hi bsl4doc.
This vaccine has been in testing for over 7 years, as per clinical testing protocol.
That is what I understood, but we only have results for 3 years down the line.
Will it be a life time shot or will they require the shot again in 4 years? Don't know. That's what I mean about more testing. Will there be any
lifetime consequences? Don't know.
What if we find that 8 years down the line there are consequences? Just when these girls would be ready to start having their kids.
It's a vaccine for a virus which has been proven to lead to cancer, and which nearly all women will be exposed to at some point in their
lives.
25% according to the stats. Which have really changed in the last 10-15 years.
Pap smears test for cervical cancers, not viruses. Cervical cancer has many possible causes, thus it is obviously necessary for women to
continue regular pap smears. Use common sense.
Common sense tells me in the society we have today, that this might lead to woman not going in for the yearly pap and thinking that they have a cure
all for cervical cancer. Early detection via pap smears has been the number one reason that this has been caught in times past. This false sense of
security might change behaviours.
www.mayoclinic.com...
If you get regular Pap smears, you substantially decrease your chances of getting cervical cancer. But even if you develop cervical cancer, the
chances of a cure are as high as 90 percent — if discovered early. The Pap smear is the best tool to detect cervical cancer in its earliest
stage.
Worldnetdaily has been proven to be a bad source.
I don't have any prior reference point for them, but they do quote the source as a doctor who worked on this drug, and we can check if the article or
her words are quoted by any other source. If she really did express these concerns then I think that is worth looking into.
Hi Jazzerman.
Kind of like when they claimed in Dec. of '06 that Drinking Soy products as a child contributes to the childs amount of homosexuality later in
life.
That would certainly bring their credibility into question, if it's true. It would not render everything they have to say in the future as none
credible, but it sounds like a source that I will be more careful when using in the future. Still I would like to see if the person quoted in the
article has expressed her concerns elsewhere.