It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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
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
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.
HPV has been found to increase the risk of developing high-grade precancerous lesions by 44.6%, according to an FDA VRBPAC Background Document
The FDA has, for four years, known that HPV was not the cause of cervical cancer.
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
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.
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"
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).
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.