1300 Girls Harmed by HPV Vaccines in UK; Bizarre Side Effects Like Paralysis and Epilepsy

reply to post by (C2C)


I don't mind vaccines as long as they've been proven to actually work. If something is a common virus and linked to a specific type of cancer, of course I'm going to get a vaccine if it will prevent me from getting that virus.

Kind of like why I refuse to go tanning or smoke. If it gives you cancer, you should do everything you can to prevent it. I think so, anyway.

Not that im truly on this way of thinking, but wait till they start putting chemicals and "vaccines" in our water supply. Isn't it a private sector now. Or has it all been sold off yet?. The water I mean.

How do I delete this lol

[edit on 22-5-2009 by (C2C)]

reply to post by ravenshadow13

I'm with you on refusing to smoke! But im not against natural tanning in the sun. I just don't think the vaccine companys have our best welfare at heart! They are typical corporations that care more about profit then peoples well being. I'm all for preventing cancer but when you are quite possibly causing more problems then you may be preventing by taking the vaccine, it just isnt worth taking. You may not even get the cancer you are trying to prevent down the road, but just get a whole host of other problems instead. I wish there was a way I could convine you..

reply to post by ravenshadow13



Did you read the report at all?

there is no evidence of its long-term efficacy or that it actually lowers cancer rates.

You can do whatever you want, but this vaccine as many others are not helping in what they are supposed to help. IMO they are using young girls as guinea pigs, not to mention getting money from this, and in the not so distant future all the girls that have taken this vaccines will experience adverse side effects which could even impair them just as it happened to these girls in Britain.

At the end it is your choice, but you will be wrong taking this vaccine.

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by (C2C)

 

I don't mind vaccines as long as they've been proven to actually work. If something is a common virus and linked to a specific type of cancer, of course I'm going to get a vaccine if it will prevent me from getting that virus.

Kind of like why I refuse to go tanning or smoke. If it gives you cancer, you should do everything you can to prevent it. I think so, anyway.

Moderation in tanning actually PREVENTS cancer. It even prevents types of cancers beyond skin cancer. It is also an anti-viral.

Skin Cancer is directly related to the number of sun Burns you have had over your lifetime and the type of skin/complexion that you have. There are also pre-cancerous cells within your body, including skin, that may be activated by the sun.

As far as smoking........American Indians did not have lung cancer. My grandfather rolled his own non-filtered cigarettes from age 10 to age 75, and then died of stomach cancer probably related to the Korean War more than anything else.

Cancer is a bad bad disease, but IMHO the more vaccines, chemicals, preservatives, you put in your body the worse your chances are.

/Begin Rant:
Tan moderately without sunscreen and do not get burned.
Smoke organic tobacco, cigars, long leaf occasionally, but don't buy cigarettes.
Drink some alcohol (especially wine) occasionally, but don't get drunk or drive.
Eat healthy, organic food, wash your hands and body, but don't use anti-bacterial soap, bleach or other caustic household cleaners.
Go get your physicals, exercise regularly, but don't take unnecessary vaccines or antibiotics, AND,
MOST IMPORTANTLY: Manage your own healthcare!, do your research, when you go to the doctor, you tell them what you want, what tests you want, what medicines you want, ask educated questions and expect educated answers. If your doctor does not like an educated, demanding patient, get a new doctor. In my experience they love a patient like me. Their jobs are easier, their liability is lower, and they feel like they have actually done a good job and helped someone!
/End Rant

I have heard of this vaccine however I didn't know it was government mandated in the UK. For governments to mandate a vaccine without knowing the full adverse reactions or side-effects is in itself a crime.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by L.HAMILTON]

Moderate tanning in NATURAL sun is healthy. Going to salons is not. And neither is getting even one severe burn in your lifetime.

Even if the vaccine does not reduce cancer rates, which it may or may not because it is too soon to tell, it does reduce a very common STD. I honestly think it's great.

I know so many of you are anti-vaccine but I have almost all of them and I'm completely fine. I had a reaction to one dose of one as a baby, so they didn't give me the second dose and I was fine. My mother has had all her vaccines and we are both fine. I know it makes some people sick, and people have problems, but people have the same issues from taking even Aspirin or other common medications and things.

My mother is in the medical field. We just don't think that the risks outweigh the benefits. Especially vaccines like the ones to combat meningitis. I don't know why I would refuse something like that if it prevents a disease that is so awful.

*shrug* I don't need to be convinced because I'm all vaccinated and I haven't had any issues. I think that they are just as safe as your average pill, give or take getting a little infection for a few days. They all can cause problems, or even death. But so can driving a car. I'm all for prevention, I think vaccines are fine, and I'm a pretty intelligent person and so is my mother.

[edit on 5/22/2009 by ravenshadow13]

reply to post by ravenshadow13


I agree most vaccines are fine. I have all of mine also, but my wife and my baby have had severe reactions.

My wife got Guillan Barre (spelling?) Syndrome after a flu shot, and it took her years to fully recover. My baby was premature, but the NICU unit gave him several medicines not approved for infants, and especially premature infants. After finally transferring him to Shands Hospital in Gainesville he recovered in a few days and was ready to come home. At 5 months, immediately after a round of vaccines, he developed Infantile Spasms, a very rare and serious form of epilepsy. It has been linked to vaccines containing Mercury derivatives. Only 'Multi-dose" vials of certain vaccines contain this preservative, and it is mostly banned or voluntarily avoided, but his damage is already done. One of the treatments for this condition are a series of shots that cost about $70K each, or $300 each in Europe. Luckily, my insurance covered the treatment, it was caught early, we did some alternative treatments as well such as physical and cognitive therapy (not endorsed by our doctor, but prescribed none the less) to develop his brain, and he should fully recover (last MRI this week).

So, my family does not get vaccines unless they are highly researched, widely used, and come in single-dose vials. Even then, I won't give them to the children at the recommended ages, we wait until they are bigger and stronger.

I was curious about the HPV vaccine at first. It sounds great even if just to prevent the STD, but what I found was that it probably is not effective. Whatever effects you get wear off after 1-2 years, and the rate of side-effects is statistically significant.

So, if you have never had any adverse effects, and you feel it is important, and you have read the literature, and you trust your mother's opinion, and you plan to take other precautions regarding STD's in case the vaccine wears off, then I encourage you to go ahead with the vaccine.

Not that you needed my blessing.

Originally posted by (C2C)
reply to post by ravenshadow13

 

If your worried about cancer there are ways to prevent it! Take some vitimin B17, heres the link for info! video.google.com...
If I had cancer I would be getting ahold of Rife Machine one way or another! Don't take a vaccine that is just meant to make money for greedy corporations.

Unfortunately, If you live in the US you will not be able to get it. The natural form of this treatment is called Amydgalin and is made from apricot seeds. The US tried to make a synthesized version called Laetrile, which was patented, but didn't do much of anything. Since the Amydgalin seemed to be successful, mistake-ridden follow up "tests" were conducted which deemed the treatment ineffective. The multi billion dollar scam called The American Cancer Society called Laetrile "quackery" since, of course, they could not patent it and make more billions.
Cancer is a multi billion dollar per year industry for the US. According to law, you can only treat cancer with the extremely expensive treatments that they authorize such as chemo, and NOTHING in the US can legally be cured by anything but drugs. So, by law, even though Laetrile has a very effective rate of cure, it is illegal to use. And another thing, even when you are cured by this cheap treatment and pass along the benefits to others, you will be prosecuted, fined and jailed. Just ask Jason Vale.

www.armwrestling.com...

edited for spelling

[edit on 23-5-2009 by tallcool1]

reply to post by ravenshadow13


Raven - my sister in law is also in the medical field. She is one of those pretty important ones in her hospital. With the many things I have kept showing her, she is finally opening her eyes just a little bit. At first she would blow me off as not knowing what I was talking about because I was medically uneducated. Medical personnel fully believe everything that they are taught and also believe in the drug treatments that they study. But these studies are funded by the drug companies themselves and many of the drugs they prescribe are, at best worthless and at worst deadly. I have proven to her myself that many of these prescriptions are worthless by stopping the majority of my "needed" prescriptions for cholesterol and high blood pressure. She claimed that I would only be killing myself and, a year later I have proven her wrong. I'm doing better than I was then. I don't really eat any differently and, although I'm a little more active, I don't excercise every day or anything like that. The American medical "industry" survives by prescribing drugs or expensive procedures. Notice that nothing in America has been cured for decades - treated, but not cured. After all it is a business and there is no profit in cure - so you are taught in medical school the expensive treatments while the actual, inexpensive unpatentable cures are tossed aside as "quackery".

Can anyone here direct me to a scientifically accredited source that supports some of the allegations being made on this thread about this vaccine?

I'm the first to be suspicious of the influence of the pharma industries but things are a little different in the UK than the States. The NHS does not rush in to the the introduction of costly new treatments. Unfortunately, quite the opposite, and this is not a 'Mandatory' treatment.

Parents can elect not to have their daughters inoculated. It is their choice. This is similar to the choice parents have with the MMR vaccine. Which goes some way towards explaining why, after decades of public health improvement and the near eradication of Measles and Mumps we now have outbreaks of these illnesses across the UK.

This is thanks to those parents who simply can't be bothered to get their kids inoculated and middle class parents who ignore the triumphs of medicine and choose to place their faith in wind chimes,a discredited quack and the sort of unsupported BS that appears on threads like this. As a result of this selfishness and stupidity children are threatened with diseases which had been close to eradication.

reply to post by Fang

This is thanks to those parents who simply can't be bothered to get their kids inoculated and middle class parents who ignore the triumphs of medicine and choose to place their faith in wind chimes,a discredited quack and the sort of unsupported BS that appears on threads like this. As a result of this selfishness and stupidity children are threatened with diseases which had been close to eradication.

Can't be bothered? You think some just "can't be bothered?" Yeah, that's it friend. Why don't you show us documentation of this claim that some parents "can't be bothered." Why don't you do that for us?

Wind chimes and quacks? Parents who choose no to have their children vaccinated have done plenty of research to come to that decision. Perhaps the fact that 1 in 150 children in the US are autistic makes people want to rethink vaccines. Source: www.washingtonpost.com...

Maybe if the manufacturers of vaccines could be trusted, then maybe your argument would hold water, but right now Fang, your argument is much like swiss cheese. Maybe if the maufacturers of vaccines weren't so greedy that they use mercury as a preservative so their vaccines can last longer...maybe then, more people would trust their children to the poisons carried by vaccines.

How was that 1918 flu vaccine? You know the one, the vaccine that caused the pandemic that killed between 20-40 million people. That was a good vaccine. We should trust vaccines.

At the risk of spoiling the view from your ivory tower, there are parents who 'Can't be bothered' to have their kids vaccinated. Just as there are parents who 'Can't be bothered' to send their kids to school, provide them with a decent diet or a secure home environment (and I'm not talking about those who for social or economic reasons are unable to provide for their kids.)
Then there are the parents who decide against vaccination based on gut instinct, hearsay and often a need (in the case of the MMR/Autisim debate) to find an external culprit or cause of their childs autisim. The MMR/Autisim issue has been so comprehensively investigated and the proponents of a link between the two, so comprehensively discredited, that anyone still banging on about this has wilfully chosen to ignore the evidence.
As for the HPV vaccines in the UK, the majority of those objecting to its introduction are not motivated by concerns of vaccine safety. Many of them feel that teenagers having sex outside marriage is not a good idea and the threat of contracting a life threatening disease is a welcome disincentive. I'm sure that some of them feel that cervical cancer is an appropriate punishment for such behaviour!
Whist parents have the right to not have their children vaccinated, don't pretend that their decision doesn't have consequences that go beyond the health of their own children. And whilst I'm suspicious of the big pharama companies, to ignore the role of vaccination in saving the lives of hundreds of millions of people is delusional.

[edit on 07/21/06 by Fang]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the reason that people aren't sure of certain effect / long term efficiency due to the fact that this vaccine wasn't ''invented'' that long ago? At least I think I remember that this vaccine was pretty new.

Any conjecture about long term efficency would be theoretical in that case due to the simple fact that it's a new vaccine, and as such, they can't make any promises until they actually know.

And how are they supposed to find out if noone wants to take the vaccine because they haven't found out yet? They'd have to do years / decades of testing on mice or pigs or whatever and hope that there's something they can get out of it, and the more testing they have to do, the less people that could potentially benefit from the vaccine.

In a certain sense the girls are being used as guinea pigs yes, but only if they agree with the vaccine. I actually know a 16-year old girl that had the vaccine, but as far as I know she's doing fine at the moment.

Personally I'm fine with this vaccine, because it's *optional*. Now the only thing that should be happening is a more precise description of the vaccinebeing promoted, rather than the current ''this is against hpv, take it'' campaign.

No girls in Scotland are having the same reactions as those in the UK, with more than 150 suffering adverse reactions.

Published Date: 01 June 2009
By Marisa de Andrade
MORE than 150 girls in Scotland have suffered adverse reactions after receiving the cervical cancer vaccine introduced last autumn, The Scotsman can reveal.
Campaigners are calling for the vaccination programme to be suspended, claiming there are unanswered questions about the long-term effectiveness and safety of Cervarix. They are concerned that official information refers to mild side-effects, when some girls have reported serious reactions to the jab.

The families of six girls in England are suing GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the maker of Cervarix, after the girls suffered severe reactions resulting in partial paralysis, seizures and chronic fatigue. The Scotsman has learned two more have contacted the same solicitor after suffering severe painful swelling of joints.

news.scotsman.com...

As for the claim of the member saying that families who decide not to give these vaccines, he/she must really be deluded if he/she thinks this is because families are not informing themselves when it is obvious this member wants to dismiss facts.

These reports are not made up, they are happening and are being caused by these vaccines.