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.

 

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

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilishlyangelic23
this is awfully scary. it makes me wonder why they feel the need to compensate people for getting the shot...


It's not scary, it's beautiful.

TPTB are actually resorting to bribes and temptation techniques to get girls to take it. The reason they're doing so is because their agenda is failing.

A 2yr old girl died here last week after receiving the flu vaccine. It woke up a huge amount of people, such an amount that the newspapers have taken a step back from trying to make anti-vaccine people look like idiots, and instead are trying to convince them using much friendlier methods. If the reporters bag the anti-vaccine movement now, they risk becoming extremely unpopular, and maybe losing their jobs.




posted on May, 2 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by harryhaller
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?


Sixteen is the age of consent in the UK. This is a UK story.


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


Don't be a drama queen. What’s disgusting about it? No one is being forced or compelled and there is not cruelty.

Regards



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


Drama queen? That's a first. I didn't realise that the UK consent was 16. Doesn't make any more palatable.

Whose payroll are you on? Taking advantage of teenage girls for medical experimentation is morally inexusable.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by harryhaller
Whose payroll are you on? Taking advantage of teenage girls for medical experimentation is morally inexusable.


Giving vaccinations is not experimenting on teenage girls and if that is what you have concluded then you are barking up the wrong tree and demonstrating a poor grasp of the whole field.

You don’t have to be “on a payroll” to actually think that vaccinations are appropriate and good and have saved countless millions – look at Smallpox if you don’t think so. Do you pass up vaccinations for diseases prevalent in some places but which you may travel to (if you travel)? Do you prevent the bog standards inoculations of you children (if you have any)?


Regards



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   
The story come from a piece in The Daily Mail on 10th February - odd how it's taken so long to suddenly be jumped on by the conspiracy websites!

Be interesting to see a follow up piece to see if it's been sucessful or not? No mention on the NHS Birmingham Noryh & East website - so not even sure if teh scheme is still running?



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by harryhaller


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.


In most western nations, parental consent is not needed in issues of STD prevention and treatment during pregnancy. In fact, in the USA, I am legally bound NOT to tell parents if their daughter/son comes to me with an STD, seeking prophylaxis, or with a pregnancy.

It might do you some good to read up on medical law before attacking the professions with claims of "bribery", "experimentation", and such.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


The way I read that quote and look and the information about the screening program, it says to me that it has, in fact, reduced the incidence of cervical cancer and the mortality rate of cervical cancer.

Have you got a source that shows the incidence of cervical cancer has dropped because of the introduction of the vaccine?

From the CDC:

Cervical cancer used to be the leading cause of cancer death for women in the United States. However, in the past 40 years, the number of cases of cervical cancer and the number of deaths from cervical cancer have decreased significantly. This decline largely is the result of many women getting regular Pap tests, which can find cervical precancer before it turns into cancer.1


source

Cancer research UK

Cancer Council NSW



A Pap smear every two years can prevent the most common form of cervical cancer in up to 90% of cases and is the best protection against cervical cancer.



The age-standardised mortality rate from cervical cancer has more than halved since the start of the Program, from 4.0 deaths per 100,000 women in 1991 to 1.9 deaths per 100,000 women in 2006.


I don't think I am using these words incorrectly.

Of course screening won't prevent cancer


But early detection from the screening process and treatment will.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


Aaahh ... the old "ASS out of U and ME" trick ...

I support vaccines for deadly disease like smallpox and polio.

I do not support the national vaccination schedule for children especially in Australia and the US.

The vast majority of childhood diseases are preventable and treatable and if caught, will strengthen the immature immune system.

There has never been a study into the long term effects of vaccinations on humans and I will not inject my child with a substance that is completely unnecessary.

I will fully support vaccinations that are shown to be beneficial and 100% safe.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Horza
 


Again, you're missing the key meaning of the very sources you are citing. Pap smears are "the best" means of prevention of cervical cancer, but are not effective at preventing the causative agent(s). The vaccine is meant to stop one such agent, and thus is a primary protection, rather than a secondary (like Pap smears).

Yes, regular screening will reduce the chance of having an advanced cancer, but screening will NOT reduce the chances of metastasis of the cervical epithelium. It's all a game of semantics: when does something progress from "metastasis" to "neoplastic", for example, is a question that is hard to define.

So, yes, pap smears are critical for early detection, and will reduce incidence, but they will not reduce mortality rate to a great degree.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Ok, so semantics it may be ...

If the vaccinations are so successful, why aren't Cancer Councils saying that the best prevention of cervical cancer is the vaccination, instead of what they are saying which is that:

A Pap smear every two years can prevent the most common form of cervical cancer in up to 90% of cases and is the best protection against cervical cancer.


Did you read the statistic that I posted about phenomenally successful effect the screening schedule has had on the mortality rate from cervical cancer???



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Horza


There has never been a study into the long term effects of vaccinations on humans


Absolutely, 100% false. Perhaps you should do some research before making specious claims.

Cohort study of 1976 flu vaccine

5-year cohort study on HPV vaccine

Cohort study for Hepatitis B vaccine indicates need for booster in late teens

Cohort study of new HepB vaccine shows long term immunity

So...within just a few minutes, I was able to find longterm studies for some of the more common vaccines. Meanwhile, you claim "none have been performed".

Pubmed.gov is a wonderful research tool, as it catalogues all published research across many fields. If you poke around there, I'm sure you'll find more answers to burning questions about medical science than you think.



I will fully support vaccinations that are shown to be beneficial and 100% safe.


Nothing in nature is 100% safe. You need oxygen to live, but that very same oxygen causes free radical damage throughout your body. You need water, but that same water can carry parasites, bacteria, and viruses. Similarly, modern medicine is necessary in order to treat some preventable conditions. The risks that come along with vaccines are no different than the risks of driving a car, flying in a plane, or living in a city with less than top-notch air quality. In fact, the advent of vaccines and modern medicine have only INCREASED our lifespans.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Horza
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Ok, so semantics it may be ...

If the vaccinations are so successful, why aren't Cancer Councils saying that the best prevention of cervical cancer is the vaccination, instead of what they are saying which is that:

A Pap smear every two years can prevent the most common form of cervical cancer in up to 90% of cases and is the best protection against cervical cancer.



They say this because the HPV vaccine was released in Q4 of 2006, the last year that most government agencies have complete health statistics for. It would be irresponsible to pre-emptively shift our entire protocols toward vaccination just yet. Though, given another 5 years or so, once more data has been compiled, I'm sure we'll see a marked decrease, even moreso when the teen girls of today are in their 50s.


Did you read the statistic that I posted about phenomenally successful effect the screening schedule has had on the mortality rate from cervical cancer???


Yes, and I don't buy it. Mortality rate and mortality are two entirely different figures. Pap smears have certainly decreased the mortality to due cerivcal cancer a great deal, but not the mortality rate. Mortality suggests an overall death rate for the population at large, while mortality rate suggests the death rate for all individuals who have been diagnosed. The mortality rate has certainly decreased in the last two decades, but not as much as mortality has.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Sorry, I got lazy ... because I have written it so many times.

There has never been a double blind, placebo controlled study into the long term adverse effect of vaccinations on humans.

These studies you have shown are about only studies about efficiency and length of immunity.

These studies do nothing to show the safety of vaccinations.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


So where are your stats to show the effects of this vaccination?

You must have some source to be so confident in it.

If the websites I posted as sources say that the mortality rate from cervical cancer has been reduced because of the screening program, then I will go with that.

Unless you have a source that show otherwise.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Horza
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 

There has never been a double blind, placebo controlled study into the long term adverse effect of vaccinations on humans.


It takes, on average, 7-8 years to progress from phase II trials to general marketing. These studies are filed with the FDA, and are buried in the annals of Pubmed. As I said before, you should use that as a powerful research tool.

Placebo-controlled study for herpes zoster vaccine

Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of H1N1 vaccine

6-year placebo study of HPV vaccine

Rotavirus vaccine safety study


These studies you have shown are about only studies about efficiency and length of immunity.

These studies do nothing to show the safety of vaccinations.


See, this is why I was being to crass with you earlier about not bandying these words about. You don't even realise that rate of adverse reactions and immunotoxicity ARE INCLUDED IN EFFICACY.

I'm reminded of a quote by the late Dr. Carl Sagan: "We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.”



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Horza
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


So where are your stats to show the effects of this vaccination?

You must have some source to be so confident in it.

If the websites I posted as sources say that the mortality rate from cervical cancer has been reduced because of the screening program, then I will go with that.

Unless you have a source that show otherwise.


Again, you need to fully understand what certain epidemiologic terms mean in order to decide if your source is playing the "statistics game" or giving you genuine sata. SEER is a source that most physicians use to look at raw data that is collected and parsed by different variables. When you look at 5-year survival of women diagnosed with cervical cancer, with the stages averaged to reduce influence by early and late stage cancers, over the span of 1975-2002, yousee that the 5-year survival rate is actually about the same in 2002 as it was in 1975 for all age groups, with the 5-year survival rate being lower for ages 75+ and 50-64.

So, as I said before, mortality in the general population has certainly decreased, meaning a lower percent of the overall population is dying of cervical cancer. HOWEVER, there has been little chance in survival rates for those who DO develop cervical cancers.

And here is the data:

5-year survival, 1975-2002, cervical cancer by age cohort



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


I don't think you are using this powerful tool properly.

None of these studies are long term.

In fact the herpes zoster study only checked for adverse reactions for up to 8 weeks.

And 6 year (is 6 years long term??) on Cervarix study, only 2 thirds of the subjects were followed for up to 6 years and the study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.

I am inclined to dismiss this on the basis of conflict of interest alone.

Where are the studies that study unvaccinated children against vaccinated children for up to 20 years checking for incidence of autoimmunity, diabetes, asthma etc and are funded and checked independently?

There are none.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Ok, I see what your saying about mortality rates. Still, that's how my sources are wording it and arguing about it is, as you said earlier, arguing over semantics.

So lets get to the crux of the matter.

We are not talking about those that have developed cancer.

The vaccination will not reduce the mortality rate of those that develop cancer either.

I am presenting evidence that shows that if a women gets screened regularly then the chances of her getting cervical cancer and/or dying from cervical and significantly reduced, making the risk involved with using Gardisil unnecessary.

And in addition, Merck should be pressed into using the 1.5 billion dollars in profit they make each year from the vaccination to produce a safer product.

Which was my original point.

My initial quote:

“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.





[edit on 2/5/10 by Horza]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Horza
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 



I don't think you are using this powerful tool properly.

None of these studies are long term.

In fact the herpes zoster study only checked for adverse reactions for up to 8 weeks.


When you can find a reliable, medically/scientifically sound way to discriminate between effects due to the vaccine or other confounders beyond 6 months, you should let the medical community know. As it stands, no study I have seen shows any correlation between individuals receiving a vaccine and an increased risk of any longterm effect. The burden of proof is on just as much as it is on me.


And 6 year (is 6 years long term??)


See my point above.


on Cervarix study, only 2 thirds of the subjects were followed for up to 6 years and the study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.

I am inclined to dismiss this on the basis of conflict of interest alone.


In instance where a drug company funds it's own clinical trials, it is required to submit the drug/therapy/vaccination to a study by groups unknown to them until publication. I just pulled the first study I could find on that vaccine forgive me.


Where are the studies that study unvaccinated children against vaccinated children for up to 20 years checking for incidence of autoimmunity, diabetes, asthma etc and are funded and checked independently?

There are none.


The reason there are none is two-fold. First, using children in medical studies is ethically dubious. Secondly, witholding treatment for a medical study is illegal when the treatment has been documented to prevent a fatal condition, or when the health of the patient is at risk. This is why most vaccination studies are performed in adults who are either outside the "risk zone" for such diseases, or who can give informed consent to having a treatment withheld. Additionally, as per my point above, giving a vaccine and then following a cohort for 20 years introduces the confounders of environment, diet, location, heritage, and ethnicity.

Again, you are showing a profound misunderstanding of the reality of medical science. I encourage you, as you seem genuinely interested in the topic, purchase a few textbooks on medical epidemiology and medical ethics. The things you're "demanding" be done are simply not realistic in a live, medical setting.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Horza
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Ok, I see what your saying about mortality rates. Still, that's how my sources are wording it and arguing about it is, as you said earlier, arguing over semantics.


I said you were arguing about semantics. Your source, however, was just flat out incorrect.


So lets get to the crux of the matter.

We are not talking about those that have developed cancer.

The vaccination will not reduce the mortality rate of those that develop cancer either.


Again, not true. The HPV vaccine has been shown in a few studies to retard the rate of metastasis in cervical mucosa of women who are currently HPV+, as it prevents co-infection (an event which increases the chance of developing cancer in this instance).


I am presenting evidence that shows that if a women gets screened regularly then the chances of her getting cervical cancer and/or dying from cervical and significantly reduced, making the risk involved with using Gardisil unnecessary.


Again, false. Screening alone does not make the vaccine "unnecessary". Screening is a wonderful preventative tool, but relies on the physician's interpretation of the test, the woman's adherence to a screening schedule, and clinical error.

In medicine, we have a mantra that if you have two possible treatment options for a patient that are equally effective, you should opt for the treatment that requires the least responsibility in the patient. If you tell a women she needs to come for annual or biannual pap smears (an experience that is actually quite unpleasant, let me remind you) from the age of 15 - 60, it has been shown that many will miss appointments, stretch two years into four, or just stop all together. If, on the other hand, we develop a vaccine that is a one or two shot therapy that can eventually (after more research and development) provide a similar level of protection, especially for women who regularly miss appointments, then that is wonderful.

In short, no, the vaccine is no unnecessary.


And in addition, Merck should be pressed into using the 1.5 billion dollars in profit they make each year from the vaccination to produce a safer product.


They use a great deal of their money (as do their competitors) to create second (and third, and fourth, and so on) generation versions of their current vaccines and drugs.


Which was my original point.

My initial quote:

“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.


Dr. Haug is irresponsible in saying that a girl "will never get cervical cancer" if she is regularly screened. At best, he is speaking hyperbolically. At worst, he is purposefully lying out of some feeling of spite/anger.




[edit on 2/5/10 by Horza]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join