Gardasil HPV vaccines found contaminated with recombinant DNA that persists in human blood

reply to post by TMG333


That's a very well-reasoned post. Yes, your IgA deficiency makes you more susceptible to respiratory infections, UTIs, and even enteric (GI tract) infections. These are the main places you find IgA. Fortunately, it sounds like you're an otherwise very healthy person. You are focusing on one thing I wish more patients would: prevention!

just listenning to the interview with dr wakefield , come here and here it is as your header

This is why im on my way to becoming a biomedical scientist, to work on secret cures to counter act major pharma drugs.
Obviously i wont release what i engineer to the public, but i might to my biomed friends.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

I will say that quitting smoking was the single best thing I ever did for my health. It's probably the main reason I was able to fight off the HPV. My doctor told me the nicotine in my body was feeding the virus and it would continue to manifest as long as I was putting it in my system. If you're not going to get your children vaccinated, I STRONGLY recommend doing whatever you can to keep them from taking up smoking. I know some kids start young, especially if their parents are smokers. I waited until I was 18, but it's NEVER too late to quit. Encourage condoms, but know that condoms do not entirely protect from HPV because it can be spread by skin-to-skin contact where condoms do not cover. I don't blame anyone for not getting their children vaccinated, but you are not being realistic if you think they aren't going to start having sex in their teens. Just talk to them, warn them of the dangers of unsafe sex. They might not act like they want to hear it but they'll listen. I wish my parents had talked to me when I was younger, it probably would have saved me from being irresponsible and getting infected in the first place.

This blatant poisoning of our children infuriates me beyond words.
Not only are we on a 'register' that informs government if our kids have been vaccinated, we are penalized if they're not.
Insult to injury is when they can't even ensure the vaccine is UNCONTAMINATED. (Though why would they as it defeats the purpose to slowly poison us all)
Now they wish to take our rights to take vitamins (Can't have us fighting back in good health, can they?)
The illusion that we have free will to make informed choices died many years ago.
I have only 'woke up' in recent months, having always been one of the sheeple that believed my government had its peoples best interests at heart.
What a freakin joke!
No more.
& I'm just one of many waking up daily.

Alex Jones has been saying it for years..

reply to post by TMG333


Standard Shill post... mention none of the article... avoid the issues... then talk about fear... of course TMG333 you have no avatar....

TMG ... Ai bot, shill, or worse... go back to where u came...

Originally posted by kokoro
Its not "dodgy" , HPV is sexually transmitted, boys are carriers and you want to vaccinate before they initiate sexual activity because a vaccine cannot help you if you already have the infection.

If the girls are vaccinated, then what is the problem?

If the vaccine works, there shouldn't even be a need to vaccinate boys.

Originally posted by NuclearPaul

If the girls are vaccinated, then what is the problem?

If the vaccine works, there shouldn't even be a need to vaccinate boys.

Some boys have sex with other boys. HPV can cause anal cancers, too.

I don't see any conspiracy other than the usual one -- the callous money-grubbing nature of corporations. Nothing will happen to this corporation, same old story, they have the money so they control the law and the media. When will people rise up and stop the corporations from destroying literally EVERYTHING?

reply to post by R_Clark

Not a bot or a shill, and I certainly don't feel like I have to set an avatar to establish myself as a regular person. I mostly lurk and never felt the need to bother with it, sorry if that's a problem for you. As I said, I'm not a big fan of vaccines, I was simply sharing MY experience with this particular vaccine and stating that at least the batch I was given caused me no problems. I'm not taking sides, and I fully support people who decide not to vaccinate their children because this is scary stuff to read. I would not have asked for it myself, my doctor INSISTED that I needed to get it. Had I not just been diagnosed and scared out of my mind of getting anything else I probably would have declined. But I know that's their job, to push as many drugs into our bodies as they can to fatten the pharmaceutical companies pockets. So sorry that I seem to have offended you. I can't prove or disprove that the vaccines are really contaminated and I have not once suggested anyone should go get it. I am just a "survivor" sharing an experience. I'm not a regular poster so perhaps I didn't use proper etiquette, and if so I apologize.

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by skitzspiricy

 

Well yeah, but I'd rather not argue semantics

I understand, but in cases such as these semantics is very important.

The sentance i quoted in my last post to you, which is said to have been quoted by officials, is very misleading.

In advertising and propaganda, certain words and phrases are used for very specific reasons.

My main concern (along with the possibilty that this vaccine may be a bit on the unsafe side) is that the general public and girls recieving these vaccines are being mislead into thinking that now they have had the shot, they are not at risk for cervical cancer. When in fact, there are many cases of non HPV related cervical cancer.

I know from my own extensive research that the HPV vaccine is to prevent most women from being able to maintain a full term pregnancy i.e. get the population down. However, I haven't seen this info before, I'll be taking a detailed look into it. Many thanks

For anyone who's new to this I'd also like to point out that the Swine Flu vaccine is to damage the developing ovaries of young girls, it does so using Polysorbate 80 (fine when you eat it, but not when you inject it)

reply to post by watchdog


Your right my friend who is a Scientist working on a cure for a common brain/immune disease was shocked when I told him about an italian doctor who was talking about possible ways to eleminate cancer using bicarbonate soda and he thought I was nuts but I assured him that I was only curious about his claims he then proceeded to check himself by conducting a simple test using toothpaste on early melanoma and moles he had.

Guess what it worked took them away and he said now he seen this his mind is far more open and he even admitted what we all know about big pharma he said its money making they want.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000


My dad was forced to take the swine flu vaccine when that crap hit the fan because he was a correctional officer and it was mandatory. Now he has parkinsons disease and can't stop shaking, He got parkinsons 6 months after taking the swine flu vaccine and we have no family history of anyone with neurological disorders.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Right, let that be your epitaph.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

I did.

Perhaps you did not.

Perhaps you should check again.

Just to clear it up. You provided two links. I explained that the two links you provided were in accordance with the theme of the thread, that vaccines can be harmful. You denied this and said your links do not indicate this and to check them again. I have checked them again. Please pay attention.

Your first link is brings us to an online library. The article in question is about Aluminum. We have already established aluminum is bad for us. Please tell us where you were going with this and what I am looking for. I am not sure what point you are trying to make. It seems you are trying to debate against me yet the evidence you bring forth supports my side of the story. Am I in the twilight zone?

Your second link brings us to a Wikipedia page discussing Recombinant DNA. Your own source lists the dangers. Here let me show you.

Controversy Scientists associated with the initial development of recombinant DNA methods recognized that the potential existed for organisms containing recombinant DNA to have undesirable or dangerous properties. At the 1975 Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA, these concerns were discussed and a voluntary moratorium on recombinant DNA research was initiated for experiments that were thought to be particularly risky. This moratorium was widely observed until the National Institutes of Health (USA) developed and issued formal guidelines for rDNA work. Today, recombinant DNA molecules and recombinant proteins are usually not regarded as dangerous. However, concerns remain about some organisms that express recombinant DNA, particularly when they leave the laboratory and are introduced into the environment or food chain. These concerns are discussed in the articles on genetically-modified organisms and genetically-modified food controversies.

So your sources help prove my point, yet you still seem to try and debate against me. Your links don't touch on the use of aluminum in vaccines, and barely mention Gardasil and rDNA together. You make no connection. I bet you can't keep a straight face next time you ask me to check your links again.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

Total of 69 deaths in the USA alone. Isn't that enough reason right there? Where did you get your link. Mine is from CDC.gov.

If you bothered to read my posts, you would see I linked to the same page. The only difference is, I bothered to READ the page. It very clearly stated in the "DEATHS" section that, to date, not a single death has been linked to the vaccine, but rather were reported (as is required) because the vaccine was given at some point near the person's time of death.

It looks like a double edged sword to me. Safe sex and a healthy lifestyle certainly outweighs the risks of the vaccine. To each their own I guess.

PLEASE READ MY FIRST POST.

SAFE SEX DOES NOT PREVENT HPV.

People like you are the reason I still see so many HPV-infected patients. How can I take you seriously in this thread if you won't do even one iota of research into the rates of HPV infection with safe sex?

So 68 people die in the USA from the shot after getting the shot, and since the CDC says they couldn't link them all then it can't be the shots killing these kids?Read the last part where it says "and some reports indicated a cause of death unrelated to vaccination." What about the reports that indicated the cause of death was related, those got buried.

Get a grip please. Open your mind.

Let's not forget Rick Perry and company Lobbied for Merck, and Rick Perry alone signed law in Texas that FORCED teenagers to receive the HPV vaccine EVEN IF PARENTS SAID NO.

Merck and Rick Perry your judgement day will soon come..

youtubedoubler.com...

The problem with vaccines is purely monetary, as all evils are. You can't patent a disease, and a vaccine is just a small dose of a disease, so they throw in seemingly arbitrary chemical compounds to make it patentable and presto! 600% markup later you've got yourself a vaccine to be released in small portions to increase the demand and drive the price up.

Why am I not even remotely surprised that a current frontrunner of the GOP (Perry) is pushing this vaccine like it's part of his religion?

reply to post by kokoro

No its not an epic fail., mainly because its more evidence having only 29 people than anything you have provided in this entire thread thus far. Second, mild tenderness is considered a "reaction" but is far less than deadly , don't you agree? Third, this is only a snippet of things I found in about 5 minutes, of course I cannot list the entirely of the literature. My point was to show a snapshot and it clearly shows that the vaccine is safe and has been properly tested. Why don't you show me some real studies that show otherwise?

Okay, I read your sources, again.

Link one is the study with 29 people which was inconclusive because of those 29 people, some got sick, just not "seriously".

Your second link is a study done by Merck, and GlaxoSmithKline. Do you know who they are? They are two huge corporations who make billions of vaccines. They have been busted before falsifying their data and covering up dangerous symptoms. All this link even does is say that Gardasil is a slight improvement over the Cervarix vaccine that is used for the same reason.

Your third link is epic fail Did you even read it? It's not about Gardasil. It's about Cervarix, which is a different vaccine.

Your fourth link was another comparison between Gardasil and Cervarix by Merck, and GlaxoSmithKline. It focuses mostly on the actual treatment of HPV, and how whether or not the rDNA from the vaccine is still present. It also explains both vaccines were generally tolerated. This link is the only one you put forth that actually has any substance, if you want to call it that.

You also say I have not submitted any proof in this thread. First of all I have submitted the source in my OP, information directly from the CDC, member testimony on their personal experiences, and many other random links people have provided through out the discussion. I have also managed to dissect your counter argument and use it to prove support in my favor.

If you have anything to disagree about this, please respond with specific statements and direct me exactly where to look. It was a waste of my time to dissect those 4 links of yours.