It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How the HPV vaccine will cause cancer.

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by beefeater
take the mmr vaccine for example, it contains..


hydrolized gelatin, chick embryonic fluid, and human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue


Just to be clear, it does not contain aborted fetal tissue. Some MMR vaccines are cultured, or grown, on cells descended from two fetuses aborted in 1963.

Edit: oh, and "chick embryonic fluid" = egg white

[edit on 9/11/08 by americandingbat]




posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mandrake
 


I agree and it seems the vaccine was only partialy tested on over 18 year olds, so the effects on 11 + are not known.
Mabie using a iridologist's data is not nearly proof in peoples eyes ( no pun intended) but there is plenty of more evidence regarding the bad effects of vaccines and I am sure this gardasil will be no different. I will say it again BORAX!!!!

If anyone is thinking about any vaccine for your child please watch the above video i posted.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Just to add there have been 3 reported deaths from the Gardasil vaccine.

www.americanchronicle.com...


The FDA has found three deaths of young girls after injection of Merck’s highly touted Gardasil vaccine. Add the three cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome and we have another vaccine that may not have received enough testing


AND

uk.youtube.com...

www.naturalnews.com...


Archived documents discovered at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s website reveal the agency knew in 2003 that HPV infections did not cause cervical cancer. Despite that knowledge, the FDA has continued to support the use of the Gardasil vaccine in compulsory vaccinations programs like the one announced in Texas earlier this year.

The FDA’s own press release from 2003 admits that, “Most women who become infected with HPV are able to eradicate the virus [without intervention] and suffer no apparent long-term consequences to their health… most infections are short-lived and not associated with cervical cancer.” (Source: “FDA Approves Expanded Use of HPV Test,” March 31, 2003, www.FDA.


perhaps my thread title should of been the HPV hoax.

Oh look more info on possible cancerous effects of HPV


HPV has been found to increase the risk of developing high-grade precancerous lesions by 44.6%, according to an FDA VRBPAC Background Document



Mabie that will satisfy the people who did not believe the iridologist claims of cancer.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by beefeater]

[edit on 11-9-2008 by beefeater]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:35 AM
link   
I'm confused by your last post, beefeater.

You seem to want to have it both ways: HPV doesn't cause cancer so we don't need the vaccine and HPV does cause cancer so we shouldn't let them vaccinate us with it.
Which is it?

My understanding is that out of many strains of HPV, including quite a number associated with genital warts, only three or four strains are responsible for something like 70% of all cervical cancers diagnosed in the U.S. These are the strains that the vaccinations are targeting.

The other strains may cause warts but are usually fought off by our bodies alone.

I have a question. Would you support an HPV vaccine that was shown to be
1) effective against the strains of HPV which lead to cancer
2) safe for anyone not allergic to the specific ingredients
3) offered as an optional treatment to girls starting around puberty?

Or are you just anti-vaccines, in which case all the argument about ingredients etc is moot?

Edit: typo

[edit on 9/12/08 by americandingbat]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


I am not anti vaccines, I believe some are good. I dont like the way the are pushed on people without been tested. it's all about making money.

The way I am reading it is the hpv virus does not cause cancer, the vaccine does, in some cases.

Sorry I should of researched this more before posting as its all a bit jumbled up as I add what I find.


The FDA has, for four years, known that HPV was not the cause of cervical cancer.


and


The reclassification petition cited above also reveals that Gardasil vaccines may increase the risk of developing precancerous lesions by 44.6 percent in some groups of women


from

www.naturalnews.com...



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


and in repley to your questions..

"Would you support an HPV vaccine that was shown to be
1) effective against the strains of HPV which lead to cancer
2) safe for anyone not allergic to the specific ingredients
3) offered as an optional treatment to girls starting around puberty? "

1, possibly if shown to be well tested, but which types do and do not cause cancer, I do not think this has been properly researched atall.

2, no ,because how do you know what all these substances do, they are not seperatley injected and tested that way, unless the additional substances are proven to be non toxic when injected directly in to the bloodstream.

3, Yes with the key work been Optional, and with proper data for and against not just "you need this because we say you do"



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Worldwide, cervical cancer is the fifth most deadly cancer in women.There are an estimated 470,000 new cases of cervical cancer, and 233,000 deaths per year.

Oh lets just discount all that hey for some eye reading?

Though most American women infected with genital HPV will not suffer complications from the virus, it is the case that each year between 250,000 and 1 million US women are diagnosed with cervical dysplasia.Cervical Dysplasia is caused by HPV and is a condition that can lead to cancer.Most dysplasia will heal without treatment; high-grade dysplasia is treated with electrocauterization (LEEP), cryosurgery, cryocauterization, laser vaporization or ablation, or cone biopsy.No data is kept by the U.S. government on genital wart infection rates, however it is estimated that 20 million people are presently infected with genital warts, and there are six million new cases of genital warts every year in the United States.

Oh well of course HPV is unimportant isn't it we should go back to some eye reading nd take some herbs??

As of 30 June 2008, out of over 16 million doses of Gardasil distributed in the United States. There have been 9,749 reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following Gardasil vaccination.
Gardasil has less than half the average percentage of serious reports. "It is important to note that a report to VAERS does not mean there is a connection between the vaccine and the event.
It means the event took place following vaccination.
"The FDA and CDC said that with millions of vaccinations “by chance alone some serious adverse effects and deaths” will occur in the time period following vaccination, but have nothing to do with the vacine.Although at least 20 women who received the Gardasil vaccine have died, there is no evidence that deaths or serious outcomes were connected to the shot.
Where information was available, the cause of death was explained by other factors.
Likewise, although a small number of cases of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) have been reported following vaccination with Gardasil, there is no evidence linking GBS to the vaccine.

WOW!
16 million doses and only 20 people out of that 16 MILLION people have died from unrelated causes.
Its such a bad vaccine we should all just go to a faith healer and get our eyes read??



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by beefeater
and in repley to your questions..

"Would you support an HPV vaccine that was shown to be
1) effective against the strains of HPV which lead to cancer
2) safe for anyone not allergic to the specific ingredients
3) offered as an optional treatment to girls starting around puberty? "

but which types do and do not cause cancer, I do not think this has been properly researched atall.


They do know that of the approximately 13 "high-risk" strains of HPV the two strains targeted by Gardasil (16 and 18) are responsible for 70% of cervical cancers. source


2, no ,because how do you know what all these substances do, they are not seperatley injected and tested that way, unless the additional substances are proven to be non toxic when injected directly in to the bloodstream.


But assuming the ingredients had been tested and shown to be safe, you would be okay with them? Can we agree that a genuinely safe vaccine would be a benefit to society?


3, Yes with the key work been Optional, and with proper data for and against not just "you need this because we say you do"


I absolutely agree that proper data should be available, and that doctors who treat their patients like morons who don't deserve to have things explained in a way that an intelligent but untrained person can understand. I think this is a huge problem in medicine today -- doctors don't have time or patience to provide the information that any responsible patient (or parent of one) should demand.

As far as whether they should be required by schools or other institutions, I don't have much interest in that argument so I'll leave it to others.

I just feel sometimes when I see these threads that there is no sense in talking about the issue because so few people on the "anti-vaccine" side seem to have any interest in trying to improve what is available, they just want to complain about the problems.

[edit on 9/12/08 by americandingbat]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 02:17 AM
link   
I love how I quote a faith healer and get slated, the FDA evidence should of been my primary source, I admit ,but you seem to forget that little bit of data.
Which the FDA has removed from their site, how fortunate.

I agree americandingbat about the people for and against vaccines, we could quote sections of the internet to each other all day and not agree.

"But assuming the ingredients had been tested and shown to be safe, you would be okay with them? Can we agree that a genuinely safe vaccine would be a benefit to society?"

for sure I can agree with that and I as have said I am not against all vaccines. I do believe there are some nasty diseases that need to be prevented.

A little common sense regarding what vaccines to be given when should be used, not a blanket policy regargless.
Personaly I think giving a new born baby a hep B vaccine is so wrong.

This HPV has been rolled out without proper testing, its all about money, health comes second.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 02:21 AM
link   
IMO the young girls need to keep their pants on, this will avoid getting HPV that may lead to cervical cancer, it will prevent any unwanted pregnancy, and also prevent many of the other diseases spread by todays wanton youth. Teach your children well, and they will live happy healthy lives.

These drugs are for women who are older, not teenagers. A more mature woman can make an informed desicion based on facts, the teen girls are looking for something to stop them from having a period and allow them to be as sexually active as they want to be.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by space cadet]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Here are reasons why iridologists like the ones who conducted this tom foolery are criminals, praying on the desperate and uneducated. Not my personal opinions, not what some guys says, but hard studies and nothing but. They speak for themselves. Deny ignorance folks.

Simon et al10 studied patients suffering from kidney disease as defined by a creatinine level higher than 106 µmol/L (1.2 mg/dL); the controls were free of kidney disease. Patients were assessed as a total group as well as 2 separate subgroups, one with moderately high creatinine levels (up to 433 µmol/L [4.9 mg/dL]) and one with markedly high creatinine levels (557-1414 µmol/L [6.3-16.0 mg/dL]). Kidney disease was chosen for convenience and because iridologists felt comfortable with it (and with the study outline). Photographs were taken of both irides of all 146 study participants, coded, and shown to 3 experienced iridologists and 3 ophthalmologists. They were asked to categorize the photographs according to patients (kidney disease) and controls (no kidney disease). The resulting frequency of false-positive and false-negative diagnoses was not significantly different from that expected by chance. Simon and coauthors concluded that "none of the 6 observers in this study derived data of clinical importance or significance."10

Knipschild11 conducted another investigator-masked case-control study. His 39 patients had inflamed gallbladder disease as confirmed by subsequent surgery. Patients with jaundice were excluded. Controls were matched for age and sex and had no signs or symptoms of gallbladder disease. Gallbladder disease was chosen because the participating 6 iridologists, all leading experts in their field, had previously indicated that this condition was impossible to overlook. Stereo color slides were taken of the right iris of each patient, coded, randomized, and shown to the iridologists. Validity, sensitivity, specificity, and consistency were not significantly different from that expected by pure chance. Knipschild concluded that "iridology is not a useful diagnostic tool."11

Buchanan and coworkers12 took color photographs of the irides of 4 different patient populations—ulcerative colitis (n=30), coronary heart disease (n=25), asthma (n=30), and psoriasis (n=30)—and 1 control group. Controls were matched for age and sex. These photographs were coded and analyzed by an investigator, both manually and by a computer program according to criteria generated by reputed iridologists.1-2 Using either method, discrimination between cases and controls was not different from that expected by chance. The authors concluded that "diagnosis of these diseases cannot be aided by an iridological-style analysis."12

Source
archopht.ama-assn.org...

If you want to try and discredit a highly proven and evaluated vaccine, an iridologist is the last person that will help you acquire credibility.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ANoNyMiKE
 


You are right, using that was probably a bad illistration, although i tend to keep an open mind about alternative medicine because there are cases where it works.

Although I possibly used a bad source for my inital post I have provided more substantial data.
Cheers for that link



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Most of the HPV infections will clear on their own. I had cervical dysplasia and a high risk strain of HPV, and it cleared with in two years, with out the LEEP procedure. As long as you are reasonably healthy, with a strong immune system, then you will be fine. And don't need to put yourself at an unnecessary risk by taking a vaccine that could cause paralysis or death. Also, if you get yearly pap exams, then you will catch the abnormality early, and can have a LEEP procedure to remove all of the infected cells before it turns into cancer. Cervical cancer is preventable with out the vaccination.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Here's another addition to the worldwide HPV vaccine campaign currently underway...


In July, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services quietly amended its list of required vaccinations for immigrants applying to become citizens. One of the newest requirements? Gardasil, which vaccinates against the human papillomavirus (HPV).



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   
I find that particularly disturbing considering that the mainstream medical community is far from unanimous in supporting such programs!


From an editorial by Charlotte J. Haug, M.D., Ph.D. in the August 21, 2008 New England Journal of Medicine:
In the meantime, there has been pressure on policymakers worldwide to introduce the HPV vaccine in national or statewide vaccination programs. How can policymakers make rational choices about the introduction of medical interventions that might do good in the future, but for which evidence is insufficient, especially since we will not know for many years whether the intervention will work or — in the worst case — do harm?
...
With so many essential questions still unanswered, there is good reason to be cautious about introducing large-scale vaccination programs. Instead, we should concentrate on finding more solid answers through research rather than base consequential and costly decisions on yet unproven assumptions.


I'd link the source, but it's not freely available online. If anyone wants more information, u2u me. Note that the issue also includes a cost-effectiveness analysis which concludes that vaccination would be cost-effective for 13-year-olds, but that a catch-up program for older girls and women would not be. I have other issues with the idea of making medical decisions based on cost-effectiveness, but that's another story




top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join