U.K. Teen girls bribed to get Gardasil vaccine with shopping vouchers

www.naturalnews.com...

The British National Health Service (NHS) has begun bribing teenage girls between the ages of 16 and 18 to get Gardasil vaccines. Officials are giving shopping vouchers worth the equivalent of roughly $70 to girls who agree to get jabbed with the vaccine, which has been implicated in numerous cases of severe harm and death. Officials from NHS Birmingham East and North have initiated the pilot program which is costing taxpayers the equivalent of about $35,000. No parental consent is required in order for young girls to participate in the program.

As a mother my self I find this frighting even though I live in the U.S. I have already had one child who had an adverse reaction to vaccines making me against vaccines for my children, but what if they were to get one with out my knowledge, had a adverse reaction and became unconscious and I could explain to the Dr. what may have caused it. with out the Dr.s knowing that it could possibly be an adverse reaction to vaccination how would they know how to properly treat my child. This is just one of my many concerns.

this is awfully scary. it makes me wonder why they feel the need to compensate people for getting the shot...i'd be very afraid to get any vaccination period, let alone one that i was bribed to get

It costs the NHS much, much more to treat cervical cancer and genital warts than it does to give a simple vaccine. The rates of adverse reactions to this vaccine are astronomically low, and no one is forcing the girls to take the vaccine in the first place.

I see no problem with this program.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


I concur, VneZonyDostupa.

This is a non story. These girls / young women are not being forced to have the vaccine. The enticement is more about getting apathetic teenagers and young women off their bums.

All medication - including your bog standard asprin - can cause side effects. My neice has problems with paracetamol. It's life. However, the benefit of vaccination outweighs the very, very remote chance of adverse reaction, whereas cervical cancer is a killer and can adversly effect a woman's life.

The OP "as a mother" should consider the benefits of vaccination.

Regards

Why pay someone 70$ to hold down a girl to inject her when you can just use the 70$ to bribe the girls?

The long term effects of these vaccines are completely unknown.

I live in that part of the UK and gotta say that this is the first I have heard of it... I have 2 teenage girls so thanks for the heads up

Originally posted by star in a jar
Why pay someone 70$ to hold down a girl to inject her when you can just use the 70$ to bribe the girls?

The long term effects of these vaccines are completely unknown.

Nothing like a little fear-mongering to get the blood flowing, hm?

The method they are using to achieve this is what sickens me, i know exactly what type of girls this is aimed at. I would say a large portion would be pondering about their vouchers and what clothes they should buy with them rather than spend any time looking up information on the vaccine.

Originally posted by Solomons
The method they are using to achieve this is what sickens me, i know exactly what type of girls this is aimed at. I would say a large portion would be pondering about their vouchers and what clothes they should buy with them rather than spend any time looking up information on the vaccine.

Here's a good study about the risk analysis that has been (and is still being) performed on the HPV vaccine.

HPV Risk-Benefit Study w/ Placebo Control

If you'll note, the vaccine produced the same level of "adverse reactions" as did the placebo, which is dummy saline injection. This would suggest that many of the effects are purely psychosomatic and related to the placebo effect or the act of getting an injection, regardless of the contents.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Nothing like a little blind faith to ridicule someone with hmm?

“There are not a huge number of side effects here, that’s fairly certain,” said the editorial writer, Dr. Charlotte Haug, an infectious disease expert from Norway, about the vaccine. “But you are giving this to perfectly healthy young girls, so even a rare thing may be too much of a risk.
“I wouldn’t accept much risk of side effects at all in an 11-year-old girl, because if she gets screened when she’s older, she’ll never get cervical cancer,” Dr. Haug said in an interview. “You don’t have to die from cervical cancer if you have access to health care.”

bold added by me.

There have also been 32 reports of death, and only 20 of the deaths could be verified, as the others were either provided by Merck & Co. without further information or unverifiable secondhand reports.

Source

Let me ask you ... would you be happy to give your perfectly healthy daughter get this vaccine if there was a chance that she could die?




[edit on 1/5/10 by Horza]

Originally posted by Horza
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

Nothing like a little blind faith to ridicule someone with hmm?

“There are not a huge number of side effects here, that’s fairly certain,” said the editorial writer, Dr. Charlotte Haug, an infectious disease expert from Norway, about the vaccine. “But you are giving this to perfectly healthy young girls, so even a rare thing may be too much of a risk.
“I wouldn’t accept much risk of side effects at all in an 11-year-old girl, because if she gets screened when she’s older, she’ll never get cervical cancer,” Dr. Haug said in an interview. “You don’t have to die from cervical cancer if you have access to health care.”

The logical fallacy in this statement is that screening prevents cervical cancer. Once a woman contracts a strain of HPV, all the screening in the world will not prevent oncogenesis. It can certainly help catch such cancers early and reduce the damage, but it WILL NOT prevent cervical cancer.

There have also been 32 reports of death, and only 20 of the deaths could be verified, as the others were either provided by Merck & Co. without further information or unverifiable secondhand reports.

Source

Let me ask you ... would you be happy to give your perfectly healthy daughter get this vaccine if there was a chance that she could die?




[edit on 1/5/10 by Horza]

Yes, I would absolutely support my daughter having this vaccine, and I have had it myself, being a young(er), single woman who is sexually active. The Phase III and IV studies performed on the vaccine (III being prior to release and IV being during release) involved thousands of women from diverse ethnic and medical-risk groups. If, out of thouse thousands, only 20-32 have died, I call that a phenomally successful therapy for an absolutely fatal disease.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

Once a woman contracts a strain of HPV, all the screening in the world will not prevent oncogenesis. It can certainly help catch such cancers early and reduce the damage, but it WILL NOT prevent cervical cancer.

I think that you are incorrect here

Human papillomaviruses (HPVs) are a large group of small, nonenveloped, double-stranded DNA viruses. Infection with HPV typically leads to benign epithelial proliferations; however, a growing number of viral subsets has been associated with epithelial cancers. However, most cases do not progress to cancer, even in patients infected with these oncogenic, 'high-risk' subsets. Malignant transformation, if it occurs, tends to occur only after a long latency period, reflecting that infection with HPV is necessary but not sufficient for the development of HPV-associated cancers.[1]

source


Regular pap smears have significantly reduced the incidence and mortality rate of cervical cancer
source

The experts don't agree that this vaccine is phenomenally successful:

www.nytimes.com...

reply to post by Horza


Please read my post, and then read your quote. I stated that screening will not prevent a strain from progressing to cancer, which your quote supported. Additionally, the mortality rate has certainly decreased due to screening and early detection, but the INCIDENCE of cervical cancer was rising until the vaccine was introduced. That was the whole reason for the vaccine's introduction.

You need to be very careful when you are bandying epidemiologic terms about. Mortality rate, mortality, incidence, and prevalence are all radically different concepts, and you seem to think they are all similar.

[edit on 5/1/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

To me no vaccine is worth the risk when they can't prove it is 100% safe. The far better preventive is called practicing safe sex. That's my personal opinion and I know its not shared by all, but even if you disagree, shouldn't the parents at least be informed? What if the girl had already gotten the shot having been taken in by her parents? What if she lies and gets it again so she can get her voucher? Whats to stop her from doing this multiple times under her friends names? Honestly this would have been something I would have tried to do as a teenager.

reply to post by calstorm


Safe sex is only applicable when combined with sexual education. HPV is commonly spread during safe sex, as condoms do not cover the sores.

This is why HPV spreads, because people ignorantly assume a condom is a catch-all.

www.youtube.com...


Gardasil HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed - man claims study approved and supported by the fda state cleary the vaccine has zero success rate and a much higher death rate then just placebo studies indicate.


[edit on 2-5-2010 by pryingopen3rdeye]

Maybe the health department will sterilize the girls without a voucher.

Maybe they let them keep the voucher and buy new shoes anyway.

It is odd the way the money is coming from the government no matter how you look at it.

The government could pay the police to round up the girls, and pay the health department to sterilize them, or the government could give the money to the girls and let them volunteer to be sterilized.

Originally posted by Horza
Let me ask you ... would you be happy to give your perfectly healthy daughter get this vaccine if there was a chance that she could die?

Well, yes. That's the point. There is a vastly greater risk of your perfectly healthy daughter getting cervical cancer - the fifth most deadly cancer that effects women at slightly less that 20 per 100,000.

The arguable / hypothetical risk of and adverse (fatal) reaction to the vaccination is tiny.

The haters and mistrusters of vaccinations are lost in their own world and have an irrational fear. Bring back Smallpox and give them a dose.

As for giving a financial inducement - there's nothing wrong with that. Not too long ago my Government was offering cash to trade in your own car and no one complained.

Regards

Originally posted by calstorm
www.naturalnews.com...

The British National Health Service (NHS) has begun bribing teenage girls between the ages of 16 and 18 to get Gardasil vaccines. Officials are giving shopping vouchers worth the equivalent of roughly $70 to girls who agree to get jabbed with the vaccine, which has been implicated in numerous cases of severe harm and death. Officials from NHS Birmingham East and North have initiated the pilot program which is costing taxpayers the equivalent of about $35,000. No parental consent is required in order for young girls to participate in the program.

As a mother my self I find this frighting even though I live in the U.S. I have already had one child who had an adverse reaction to vaccines making me against vaccines for my children, but what if they were to get one with out my knowledge, had a adverse reaction and became unconscious and I could explain to the Dr. what may have caused it. with out the Dr.s knowing that it could possibly be an adverse reaction to vaccination how would they know how to properly treat my child. This is just one of my many concerns.

I had a position with multi-national Pharma for twelve years...
...I was suspicious of Gardisil from the outset because of the haste with which it was introduced...
...and after reviewing the literature I presented the risks benefits and anomalies to both my daughters and they decided to delay having it, at least until a clearer picture emerged.

This much is clear the vaccine does not cover for all strains of HPV.

Although up to 70% of women test positive for a strain of the HPV virus...
...only a small % develop warts or cancer...
...and it is certainly not yet clear that HPV even causes cancer.

My gut tells me that there is an ulterior motive here greater than just profit.



[edit on 2/5/10 by troubleshooter]

There are a few things wrong with this.

The story specifies 16-18 year old girls. Since when is 16 legally the age of consent? I thought that until 18, parents are legally responsible for their childrens actions? If i gave 16 year olds girls 70pound vouchers for stripping nude for pics i'd be crucified! What's the difference? I'd even venture that the jab would be more likely to do the girls harm.

And whatever medical reports exist either for or against it, it is clear that there is no consensus. ERGO it may be a big mistake, we're not sure yet??? Let's try anyway, and if the sh!t hits the fan we can just claim that the victims were volunteers? (ie accepted any risk? and were adequately compensated!)

Gawds i thought we had done with medical cruelty to animals, no problem just here, use my daughter. This really is disgusting.