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.

 

**The Reality of the Gardisil Eugenics Campaign** VITAL INFORMATION WITHIN

page: 4
64
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   

"...given that viral clearance rates did not differ from the placaebo and that persistent viral infection is the best established predictor of risk of progression,"it is unlikely that vaccination with Gardasil™ could have any significant beneficial impact."

"Results from our community-based study provide strong evidence that there is little, if any, therapeutic benefit from the vaccine in the population we studied. Furthermore, we see no reason to believe that there is therapeutic benefit of the vaccine elsewhere because the biological effect of vaccination among already infected women is not expected to vary by population."



These excerpts were published in the Journal Of the American Medical Association in 2007.


In a document submitted to the FDA by Merck & Co ., Inc ., it is recorded that injection of the HPV vaccine, Gardasil™, into women who are already infected increases the risk of developing pre-cancerous lesions by 44 .6%. . This petitioner urges the FDA to play a leadership role in influencing manufacturers to get an accurate test kit onto public markets, to assist the sexually active women who are still considering immunization against HPV infections without inadvertently receiving a vaccine that is not only ineffective, but may augment the risk of developing a precancerous lesion in the cervix .”
(my emphasis)

Source for this data comes from a Food and Drug Administration Background Document

Keep in mind these are extremely prevalent proteins. No requirement is made for establishing whether or not a woman or girl is infected with HPV prior to vaccination.




[edit on 20-11-2009 by illusionincarnate]




posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
Mankind survived for hundreds of thousands of years without vaccines, and now were all going to die without them?

We are not all going to die. Many of us will survive. But many--a great many--will die. That's okay with you, is it?

Here are some figures for the death-rates from past pandemics:


  • The Plague of Justinian, from 541 to 750AD, killed between 50% and 60% of Europe's population.

  • The Black Death of 1347 to 1352 killed 25 million in Europe over 5 years (estimated to be between 25 and 50% of the populations of Europe, Asia, and Africa - the world population at the time was 500 million).

  • The introduction of smallpox, measles, and typhus to the areas of Central and South America by European explorers during the 15th and 16th centuries caused pandemics among the native inhabitants. Between 1518 and 1568 disease pandemics are said to have caused the population of Mexico to fall from 20 million to 3 million.

  • The first European influenza epidemic occurred between 1556 and 1560, with an estimated mortality rate of 20%

  • Smallpox killed an estimated 60 million Europeans during the 18th century (approximately 400,000 per year). Up to 30% of those infected, including 80% of the children under 5 years of age, died from the disease, and one-third of the survivors went blind.

  • In the 19th century, tuberculosis killed an estimated one-quarter of the adult population of Europe; by 1918 one in six deaths in France were still caused by TB.

  • The Influenza Pandemic of 1918 (or the Spanish Flu) killed 25-50 million people (about 2% of world population of 1.7 billion). Today Influenza kills about 250,000 to 500,000 worldwide each year.
Source

Some authoritative sources estimate the number of victims of the Black Death to be much higher than stated above--worldwide, it could have been as many as 200 million. According to Philip Daileader, an historian,


The trend of recent research is pointing to a figure more like 45% to 50% of the European population dying during a four-year period. There is a fair amount of geographic variation. In Mediterranean Europe and Italy, the South of France and Spain, where plague ran for about four years consecutively, it was probably closer to 80% to 75% of the population. In Germany and England ... it was probably closer to 20%. - Philip Daileader, The Late Middle Ages

Do you find death-rates like this acceptable? Would you be willing to gamble that your children would be among the survivors of a future pandemic?


Who is fearmongering here?

Why, the OP is, and you are helping him.


Why would you and your children be endangered if others don't take vaccines?

  1. You and your unvaccinated children form a reservoir of vulnerability that could result in an epidemic or pandemic.

  2. In that epidemic, you and your plague-carrying children could infect mine before they are old enough to be vaccinated.

  3. My children may have adverse reactions to a vaccine that prevents them from receiving it. Thus they may die in the epidemic you helped start.

  4. Viruses mutate quickly and easily. During an epidemic or pandemic they may do so is such a way that they render existing vaccines inefficacious. That would put everybody, even the already-vaccinated, in danger. But if everyone were vaccinated, an epidemic couldn't take hold.

Dangers of not vaccinating


You think vaccines should be mandatory, for all people?

For all who are old enough, and who don't test positive for potential adverse reactions, yes indeed I do. Such mandatory immunization was and remains the practice in my own country, which is why, in spite of being a poor and largely underdeveloped one, it has rich-world-type infant and child mortality figures, as well as an unusually good epidemiological record.


Anyways, the "mind firmly closed" in your avatar, illustrates nicely your inability to see a bigger picture.

Clearly you don't do irony. Understandable; a sense of irony is, in fact, a kind of vaccination. The disease it protects from is called stupidity.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Using statistics from the dark ages when people were wallowing in their own filth is not really comparable to the risks of our current living conditions.

Personally I do not do any vaccines. I trust my body is completely capable of using it's amazing immune system to build antibodies against foreign antigens. I believe that the toxins in vaccines confuse our immune systems and turn them against us, causing auto-immune diseases.

Gardasil is supposed to prevent HPV. Safe sex practices will also prevent HPV. Since safe sex practices do not include neurotoxins and carcinogens, I think I will use that method as opposed to injecting poison directly into my body... or my child's body.

I am still looking for fertility rates on women who received this vaccine. I am aware that many women have fertility issues... I am just wondering how many women who received this particular vaccine are now procreating without any issues.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by siouxm
 


Using statistics from the dark ages when people were wallowing in their own filth is not really comparable to the risks of our current living conditions.

Do you think soap and water are going to protect you against smallpox? Polio? Rabies? HIV?

Get real: they won't even protect you against the 'flu.

Of the examples I quote, all but two were from the modern era. Would you like some more?



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Smallpox killed an estimated 60 million Europeans during the 18th century (approximately 400,000 per year). Up to 30% of those infected, including 80% of the children under 5 years of age, died from the disease, and one-third of the survivors went blind.

Just FYI - the Europeans of this time utilized a primitive "vaccine" to combat the smallpox, that was frequently mandatory (for example, England required in 1752 that all children be inoculated prior to entry into school). Inoculation consisted of administering mercury to a fasting subject for weeks at a time (symptoms of mercury poisoning include blindness, deafness, brain damage, and other systemic deficiencies) prior to the subdermal implantation of matter collected from the running sore of a smallpox infected individua.


In the 19th century, tuberculosis killed an estimated one-quarter of the adult population of Europe; by 1918 one in six deaths in France were still caused by TB.

In 1895 Walter Reed decried the vaccine farms for their "intolerable sanitary disorder" - never mind the fact that the shots contained deadly substances such as ricin, abrin, and tetanus... also of consideration is the excipients needed to "disable" the toxicity of these highly injurious substances - including thimerosol, iodine chloride, potassium bichromate, phenol, and glycerin. Reed examined needles from the six largest pharmaceutical companies and found colonies of pathogenic bacteria in all of them. Such dangerous contaminations were frequent.

Martin Friedrich, chief vaccination officer in Cleveland in the late 19th century reported that 27% of inoculated children developed severe infections. "Some arms swellered clear down to the wrist joint, with pieces of flesh as big as a silver dollar and twice as thick dropping right off, leaving ugly, suppurating wounds which took up to three months to heal," he said of the matter, "no one can doubt that there is a connection between tetanus (nervous system damage) and vaccination".

More to the point you mentioned however, ignoring the evidence of contamination issues from these anecdotes; In the summer of 1924 in Lubeck, 240 infants were vaccinated in the first 10 days of life;almost all developed tuberculosis and 72 infants died. It was subsequently discovered that the French BCG vaccine (consisting of live tuberculosis attenuated with ox bile) was contaminated with a virulent strain that was being stored in the incorrect incubator, which led to legal action being taken against the manufacturers of BCG resulting in the imprisonment of the top brass. Though it was made a regular part of vaccine schedules worldwide, it was not accepted by the American public due to safety concerns.

"The Surgeon-General of the United States Army innocently recorded in the 1918-1919 report that ‘for all officers and enlisted men, Americans and native troops in all countries where U.S. troops were serving, tuberculosis of the lungs was the leading cause for discharge; and among American troops at home and abroad there were 31,106 hospital admissions for pulmonary tuberculosis with 1,114 deaths, in the period of this country’s participation in the First World War.’" It should be noted that vaccination was compulsory for all U.S. Military enlistees.

"Dr. E. C. Rosenow, an experimentalist at the Mayo Clinic, recorded in the Mayo Collected Papers (Vol. II, p. 92) that he found "the vaccine serums injected into guinea pigs tended to localize in the lungs.""



[edit on 21-11-2009 by illusionincarnate]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
"In Baron’s Life of Jenner, (Vol. II, p. 304) we learn that, "On the 14th of May, 1796 . . . Jenner inoculated James Phipps, a boy about eight years old, with the matter taken from the hand of a dairymaid infected with casual cow-pox..."

Later, in the same text it is recounted:

"While walking with a friend one day they passed young Phipps, when Jenner exclaimed, ‘Oh, there is poor Phipps; I wish you could see him; he has been very unwell lately and I am afraid he has got tuberculosis on his lungs. He was recently inoculated for smallpox, I believe for the 20th time, and all without effect.’"

In the Encyclopedia Britannica (9th edition), under the title of VACCINATION, by Dr. Charles Chreighton, we find some carefully authenticated statistics showing that vaccination has caused a great many cases of syphilis, cancer, tumors, scrofula, eczema, tuberculosis, etc.



The Influenza Pandemic of 1918 (or the Spanish Flu) killed 25-50 million people (about 2% of world population of 1.7 billion). Today Influenza kills about 250,000 to 500,000 worldwide each year.[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infectious_disease#Historic_pandemics]Source[/url

..............

The Report of the Surgeon General of the Army, (1918) gives the number of admissions to hospitals during the year 1917, on account of vaccinia and vaccinal-typhoid combined as 19,608. During the year 1918, hospital admissions on account of vaccinia (vaccination disease) were 10,830.

Here we find that in only two years of the war and in only one army there were over 30,000 soldiers hospitalized by vaccination. This does not take into consideration the thousands who were seriously ill but not critical enough to be hospitalized, nor the 45,000 troops who died following the war and the countless cases of chronic disease that developed as a result of the cumulative effects of poisons from vaccines and drugs.

_________________________________________

Interesting history, don't you think?



[edit on 21-11-2009 by illusionincarnate]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Anyway, nice detour, ……but to bring things back to the 21st Century:

• JAMA article quoted by OP: this refers to a study looking at Gardasil vaccination in women who already have HPV. Not surprisingly, Gardasil didn’t make any difference to their condition. A clear case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Gardasil never claimed to cure HPV infection in those that already had it; Gardasil claims to PREVENT HPV infection in those that DO NOT have it

• FDA item linked by OP: I couldn’t find the quote within the FDA document, although I did find the study (013) to which (I guess) the quote referred. Again – this was a study of those who already had HPV. As a result of (013) a further study was carried out (015) which proved that the initial results of (013) were anomalous and due to statistical perturbations within the relatively small subgroups studied. The FDA was satisfied by the results of this. I’m not sure where the OP’s quote came from, but it seems disingenuous to refer to (013) without taking into account (015). (NB: I’m not suggesting that the OP is disingenuous – but the OP might want to check the source of the quote)

I really don’t like big pharma, but I just can’t see the logic in them killing their future cash-cows (er, I mean ‘customers’).



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by siouxm
 


I can’t find proof of any link between Gardasil and infertility, although there's plenty of hearsay (i.e. people printing toxicity/overdose data of chemical constituents of Gardasil without saying how this is relevant to their arguments).

Animal trials: these seem to suggest that Gardasil is as safe as placebo with regard to fertility: Ref: Birth Defects Res B Dev Reprod Toxicol. 2008 Dec;83(6):561-72: Lack of effects on fertility and developmental toxicity of a quadrivalent HPV vaccine in Sprague-Dawley rats. Wise LD, Wolf JJ, Kaplanski CV, Pauley CJ, Ledwith BJ.

Human trials: about 10% of the participants became pregnant over the course of the studies (over 2,000 births). The rate of pregnancy was the same in the Gardasil and placebo arms. The trials are a matter of public record and the OP has posted them in the FDA link above.

Registry: since launch the manufacturer has also maintained a pregnancy registry. 40m doses have been distributed so we can assume that the registry has a very large number of patients.

Therefore, the short term evidence suggests that Gardasil has no more effect on fertility than placebo. The bad news is that no one can be 100% sure about the long term, even if the short term results are good. As they say, ask a health care professional if you are worried.

Right. That's enough Gardasil. I'm going to the pub.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by illusionincarnate
 


Europeans of this time utilized a primitive "vaccine" to combat the smallpox, that was frequently mandatory (for example, England required in 1752 that all children be inoculated prior to entry into school). Inoculation consisted of administering mercury to a fasting subject for weeks at a time.

Inoculation with matter taken from smallpox scabs was first introduced to Europe in the early 1700s but the practice did not begin to spread beyond a handful of early adopters until the 1760s, and even then against considerable (and understandable) resistance. Inoculation was rare and had little official support--never mind its being made mandatory for school admission!--until 1796, when Jenner began his successful campaign for its widespread adoption.

The material used in the vaccine was serum from cow-pox blisters, not mercury. It was not contemporary medical practice to administer mercury as a prophylaxis against smallpox.

You are posting false information.

The condition of Victorian 'vaccine farms' bears no relation whatsoever to the prevalence of tuberculosis throughout human history, nor does the widespread adoption of vaccination have anything to do with European death-rates from TB in the nineteenth century. Your attempts to connect the two are typical conspiracy-theorist operating procedure--'there's no smoke without fire,' you say, having set off the smoke-pots yourself in the first place.

You are attempting to influence our views by creating false connections between mutually irrelevant data, a typical disinformationist's technique.

The rest of your post doesn't even bear commenting upon. The points you make are anachronistic, tendentious distortions of history. The connection you try to draw between the practice of vaccination and the prevalence of epidemics is futile; the most cursory glance at history shows us this.

It is clear you have no historical insight, and are simply mapping the customs, institutions and attitudes of today onto eras to which they are utterly inappropriate. This betrays a want of education.

I will offer just one example of the violence your arguments do to history: highly-developed, integrated and bureauctratized nation-states that could conceive of, plan and execute an effective campaign of vaccination didn't exist until the nineteenth century. The nearest equivalent to such a thing in the eighteenth was Louis XIV's France, but no order for a campaign of universal immunization ever emerged from within the urine-soaked, sewage-redolent halls of Versailles.

To you, who were so quick to deride my English comprehension skills, I say: acquire some real learning. And, if you can, a little integrity at the same time.

* * *


Now, for those interested, here is some truth:

Real dates and historical data for the introduction and acceptance of vaccination.

Details of the UK Vaccination Act of 1853, which illusionincarnate has conveniently moved back 101 years to support his propagandizing.

Information about variolation, the practice of inoculation against smallpox by more primitive methods before vaccination became widely adopted.

All about smallpox vaccine and its historical development. Not one mention of the word mercury on the entire page.

And here are the facts about smallpox and its eradication through vaccination.


In the early 1950s--150 years after the introduction of vaccination--an estimated 50 million cases of smallpox occurred in the world each year, a figure which fell to around 10–15 million by 1967 because of vaccination.

In 1967, when WHO launched an intensified plan to eradicate smallpox, the "ancient scourge" threatened 60% of the world's population, killed every fourth victim, scarred or blinded most survivors, and eluded any form of treatment.

Through the success of the global eradication campaign, smallpox was finally pushed back to the horn of Africa and then to a single last natural case, which occurred in Somalia in 1977. A fatal laboratory-acquired case occurred in the United Kingdom in 1978. The global eradication of smallpox was certified, based on intense verification activities in countries, by a commission of eminent scientists in December 1979 and subsequently endorsed by the World Health Assembly in 1980.

* * *


Despite the huge volume of verbiage you have posted on this thread, illusionincarnate, you have yet to show even one piece of evidence to indicate, nay, even to hint at, let alone prove, an eugenics conspiracy associated with Gardasil, or with vaccination programmes in general. Your facts are false to dubious, your arguments anachronistic and selective, and you demonstrate little or no understanding of the scientific material you quote.

All in all, your effort to terrify us back into the Dark Ages has been a sorry failure.

[edit on 23/11/09 by Astyanax]



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join