Author Topic: GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE- Was 3 now 5 Deaths!  (Read 14011 times)

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE- Was 3 now 5 Deaths!
« Reply #25 on: August 14, 2007, 07:49:17 PM »
Hard to say... The amount of women protected from cervical cancer compared to the number of deaths is the factor being ignored. There are 2 vaccines at the moment. At this time I probably wouldn't let my kids get the shot.

Dina... you put any weight on yet? :)

~flower~

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3597
  • D/s
Re: GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE- Was 3 now 5 Deaths!
« Reply #26 on: August 15, 2007, 04:22:41 AM »
Hard to say... The amount of women protected from cervical cancer compared to the number of deaths is the factor being ignored. There are 2 vaccines at the moment. At this time I probably wouldn't let my kids get the shot.

Dina... you put any weight on yet? :)

 It doesn't protect all the strains known to cause cancer and it is not known whether that will affect the strains it doesn't protect for becoming more prevalent.  A lot of people get HPV and their body deals with and it doesn't become cancer.  They are using a lot of scare tactics with this vaccine and with the number of adverse reactions (some deaths, some long term problems, etc, I posted the current VAERS list) it does not seem, IMO, that the benefits outweigh the risks from something you can protect yourself from without an injection (a condom).   And to make grade school kids get the vaccine is an outrage.  That should be the parents choice and the child's choice and not done in the 6th grade.   

    This vaccine and it's studies are so flawed and lacking it is pitiful.  Another case of reading the goal, but not looking any deeper.   

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE- Was 3 now 5 Deaths!
« Reply #27 on: August 15, 2007, 04:38:51 AM »

 It doesn't protect all the strains known to cause cancer and it is not known whether that will affect the strains it doesn't protect for becoming more prevalent.  A lot of people get HPV and their body deals with and it doesn't become cancer.  They are using a lot of scare tactics with this vaccine and with the number of adverse reactions (some deaths, some long term problems, etc, I posted the current VAERS list) it does not seem, IMO, that the benefits outweigh the risks from something you can protect yourself from without an injection (a condom).   And to make grade school kids get the vaccine is an outrage.  That should be the parents choice and the child's choice and not done in the 6th grade.   

    This vaccine and it's studies are so flawed and lacking it is pitiful.  Another case of reading the goal, but not looking any deeper.   


Compared to other vaccines and most medicines it's relatively safe. A vaccine for all strains of HPV would be too expensive. One for the most pravalent strains seems pretty reasonable. The vaccine is a good tool for high risk people but everyone doesn't need it. It's america, LOL! You know someone will sue their gyno for not insisting on the shot if they get cervical cancer.

Tons of conditions would be prevented with condoms.

~flower~

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3597
  • D/s
Re: GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE- Was 3 now 5 Deaths!
« Reply #28 on: August 15, 2007, 06:02:18 AM »
Compared to other vaccines and most medicines it's relatively safe. A vaccine for all strains of HPV would be too expensive. One for the most pravalent strains seems pretty reasonable. The vaccine is a good tool for high risk people but everyone doesn't need it. It's america, LOL! You know someone will sue their gyno for not insisting on the shot if they get cervical cancer.

Tons of conditions would be prevented with condoms.

 Hmm... i guess the definition of relatively safe is different to everyone:


2,207 adverse reactions to Gardasil
have been reported. Among them:
* 5 girls died
* 31 were considered life-threatening
* 1,385 required a visit to the emergency room
* 451 of the girls have not recovered as of July 2007
* 51 of the girls were disabled
Gardasil "may be more dangerous than consumers have been led to
believe," according to one public-interest group, and an editorial in
the New England Journal of Medicine has also raised questions about
the vaccine's effectiveness.


yes, someone would sue their doctor for not recommending it, but good luck trying to get any compensation for vaccine induced problems!!!!    What bullshit!!!    >:(

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE- Was 3 now 5 Deaths!
« Reply #29 on: August 15, 2007, 06:29:43 AM »
There are about 120,000+ deaths/year due to hospital mistakes.

I agree with you that the drug is being pushed too much. My point is that there are far worse drugs on the market. The numbers just look worse because of Gardasil's popularity. In a nutshell: The statistics are higher because more people are taking the drug but it is relatively safe compared to other medical interventions.

Considering the problems reported with the vaccine this soon.. we can guess this is only the tip of the iceberg.

~flower~

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3597
  • D/s
Re: GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE- Was 3 now 5 Deaths!
« Reply #30 on: August 15, 2007, 06:38:33 AM »
lol @ relatively safe  


   To me that is a crock of shit term that doctors use WAY too often while not being forthcoming with the unsafe part of vaccines and medications, vaccines being the bigger of the 2 where information is glossed over and flat out withheld.

 Which is why it is so hard to "prove" damage caused by vaccines because most of the profession finds them "relatively safe", so nothing can be attributed to them.  It is actually a brilliant strategy from the medical profession.   ::)
     

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE- Was 3 now 5 Deaths!
« Reply #31 on: August 15, 2007, 06:54:14 AM »
lol @ relatively safe  


   To me that is a crock of shit term that doctors use WAY too often while not being forthcoming with the unsafe part of vaccines and medications, vaccines being the bigger of the 2 where information is glossed over and flat out withheld.

 Which is why it is so hard to "prove" damage caused by vaccines because most of the profession finds them "relatively safe", so nothing can be attributed to them.  It is actually a brilliant strategy from the medical proffession.   ::)
     

LOL!

You couldn't be more wrong, especially considering I agreed with you.

'Relatively safe' means just that. If someone would rather risk cervical cancer than side effects from the vaccine it should be their choice. Only problem is the same person who gets cervical cancer will turn aound and sue the doctor for not trying harder to convince them on taking the vaccine. Taking the vaccine or not taking the vaccine.. people don't have any personal responsibility. Furthermore the vaccine company can't be sued so who's caught in the middle? Your doctor. :) Why? Because Gardasil rendered cervical cancer a preventable disease and its administration has become considered the new "standard of care" . Based on my understanding of medical malpractice a doctors chances of winning a suit are much better for administering a therapy within the standard of care than if someone got a preventable diseease.

Vaccine manufacturers are protected from most litigation by the govornment. I'm not sure if those administering vaccines are held harmless but that would be my best guess.

If it's that bad hopefully the vaccine is pulled off the market before too many people are affected. They're giving the shot like candy here in the carrib, cervical cancer and HPV are pretty common in this region.

~flower~

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3597
  • D/s
Re: GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE- Was 3 now 5 Deaths!
« Reply #32 on: August 15, 2007, 07:30:41 AM »
You missed my point  :P   It is very hard to prove damage from vaccines because most doctors think they don't cause any, and unless it happens 10seconds after they gave you the shot it is unrelated and a coincidence. 

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE- Was 3 now 5 Deaths!
« Reply #33 on: August 15, 2007, 08:05:21 AM »
You missed my point  :P   It is very hard to prove damage from vaccines because most doctors think they don't cause any, and unless it happens 10seconds after they gave you the shot it is unrelated and a coincidence. 

I get your point but the doctor isn't really legally responsible unless he deviates from the standard of care. They can't deviate because they are the only one who has anything to lose when things go wrong. Before you get going, LOL! I'm not saying people who suffer side effects or die aren't losing something but the doctor is the only one on the hook from a financial point of view as the vaccine companies are pretty well insulated by the govt. There is a Govt. fund that pays some parents whose children die from bad vaccines but last time I found the topic interesting what they actually paid out was kept secret.

I won't get flu shots, LOL! The risk of guillian barre is pretty small but I'm not taking any chances.

At one time I went more than two years with no meds whatsoever and finally had to take an advil cold and sinus.

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE- Was 3 now 5 Deaths!
« Reply #34 on: August 15, 2007, 10:54:50 AM »
Just my personal opinion, but we're going to see a helluva increase in Alzheimer's Disease due to force vaccinations. And the toll won't show up for another 60 years. No one has stopped to even consider the effects of the aluminum in Gardasil, and where it goes after it facilitates the drugs absorption into the body. If we thought thalidomide was a nightmare, ...wait until we start seeing the senility and Alzheimer's produced by this one. I'm sure pretty soon we'll start to see Merck investing in for-profit palliative care facilities.
w

~flower~

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3597
  • D/s
Re: GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE- Was 3 now 5 Deaths!
« Reply #35 on: August 15, 2007, 11:28:07 AM »

   With the ever increasing number of vaccinations being "required" for school children it is even more important for parents and expecting parents to do research and decide which, if any, vaccinations they want their kids to get and to realize they can get EXEMPTIONS. 
 
   I think most people are unaware that they can say NO, and they can ask for single vaccines if they do not want combos and they can even spread the vaccination schedule out farther if they want.

     I see more lawsuits in the future because FULL DISCLOSURE is not being given to people. 

 

~flower~

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3597
  • D/s
Re: GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE- Was 3 now 5 Deaths!
« Reply #36 on: August 17, 2007, 05:19:40 AM »
NVIC Analysis Shows Greater Risk of GBS Reports When HPV Vaccine Is Given
with Meningococcal and Other Vaccines

Washington, August 15, 2007 - The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)
today issued a new report on HPV vaccine (GardasilR) safety analyzing
adverse event reports to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System
(VAERS). The analysis gives evidence for a reported association in VAERS
between Gardasil and Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), with a statistically
significant increased risk of GBS and other serious adverse event reports
when Gardasil is co- administered with other vaccines, especially
meningococcal vaccine (MenactraR).

NVIC is calling on the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to issue an
Advisory and amend its March 12 policy by alerting the public that Gardasil
has been associated with 15 cases of GBS and an increased risk of GBS and
other serious adverse event reports made to VAERS when the vaccine is
administered simultaneously with Menactra and other vaccines. "The
precautionary principle dictates that good science should precede CDC
vaccine policy recommendations," said Barbara Loe Fisher, NVIC co-founder
and president. "Parents have a right to expect proof of safety and not
assumption of safety before new vaccines, like Gardasil, are given
simultaneously with other vaccines to their children.

GBS is a disorder in which the body's immune system attacks part of the
peripheral nervous system, and can cause total paralysis. "Our analysis of
Gardasil reports to VAERS indicates there was a two to 12 times greater
likelihood that serious adverse events, such as GBS, were reported when
Gardasil was given in combination with Menactra rather than given alone,"
said Vicky Debold, PhD, RN, NVIC director of patient safety. "Accepted
scientific standards indicate that these findings are statistically
significant and cannot be dismissed as coincidence. In particular, the
available VAERS data show there was a more than 1,000 percent increased risk
of GBS reports following Gardasil administration when Menactra was given at
the same time."

Reported GBS and Other Serious Adverse Events

NVIC found that, as of May 31, there have been 2,227 Gardasil adverse events
filed with VAERS, including 13 suspected or confirmed cases of GBS (two more
GBS reports were made in June for a total of 15) and 239 cases of syncope
(fainting with temporary loss of consciousness), many of which resulted in
head injuries and fractures. Seven deaths have been reported after receipt
of Gardasil. Nearly 10 percent of all Gardasil adverse event reports to
VAERS involved avoidable medical errors.

A total of 1,930 reported Gardasil adverse events involved administration of
Gardasil alone, and 135 adverse events involved co-administration of
Gardasil with Menactra. NVIC's comparative analysis of those two categories
of VAERS reports indicates that when Gardasil was given simultaneously with
Menactra rather than alone, there was a statistically significant increased
risk of reported adverse events:

-respiratory problem reports increased by 114 percent;
-cardiac problems reports increased by 118 percent;
-neuromuscular and coordination problem reports increased by 234 percent;
-convulsions and central nervous system problem reports increased by 301
percent;
-reports of injuries from falls after unconsciousness increased by 674
percent; and
-GBS reports increased by 1,130 percent.

On February 21, NVIC expressed concern about the safety of administering
Gardasil simultaneously with other vaccines because the manufacturer
(Merck), the FDA and the CDC had not provided evidence to the public that
co-administration was safe. (1) On March 12, the CDC published
recommendations for Gardasil use in MMWR that acknowledged there is a lack
of evidence that Gardasil can be safely administered with other vaccines,
while encouraging physicians to co- administer Menactra and other vaccines
with Gardasil based on assumption of safety. (2)

Adverse Event Reports to NVIC: Shannon Nelson

Nineteen Gardasil adverse event reports from 12 states have been made to
NVIC's Vaccine Reaction Registry involving unconsciousness and injury,
convulsions, numbness, weakness and other neuromuscular and coordination
problems and GBS.

Shannon Nelson, 18, a Chicago area athlete, musician and artist entering
college reported to NVIC that she received HPV vaccine (Gardasil),
meningococcal vaccine (Menactra) and chicken pox vaccine (Varivax R)
simultaneously on June 21. Symptoms of tingling, numbness and muscle
weakness began within a week and progressively got worse. By July 3 she
could barely walk or raise her arms. She was hospitalized, paralyzed with
GBS on July 5, and spent 22 days in the hospital.

"Before the shots, I ran six miles a day," said Nelson. "The doctors told me
that I might have been put on a respirator if I hadn't been in such good
shape," she said. "I am out of the hospital now and getting a lot of
physical therapy. I just want to go to college and do the things I did
before, like play the guitar and draw or even just be able to smile. My Mom
and I wish we had known about HPV vaccine risks, especially what could
happen if I got other vaccines at the same time."

To view a copy of NVIC's report on HPV vaccine (Gardasil) safety, go here
<http://www.nvic.org/Diseases/HPV/HPVHOME.htm>

To report a vaccine reaction, go here
<http://www.nvic.org/report/reaction.htm>

References:

1) Vaccine Safety Group Releases Gardasil Report
<http://www.nvic.org/Diseases/HPV/pr022107HPV.htm> : Calls on FDA and CDC to
Warn Doctors and Parents to Report to VAERS, February 21, 2007.

2) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Quadrivalent Human
Papillomavirus Vaccine: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on
Immunization Practices (ACIP). Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR)
Early Release 2007 <http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr56e312a1.htm>
; 56 March 12, 2007:1-24.

Learn more about vaccines, diseases and how to protect your informed consent rights at www.nvic.org <http://www.nvic.org/>

National Vaccine Information Center
204 Mill Street
Vienna, VA 22180
phone: 703-938-0342

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE- Was 3 now 5 Deaths!
« Reply #37 on: August 17, 2007, 05:31:54 AM »
At least I know what to tell people.

~flower~

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3597
  • D/s
Re: GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE- Was 3 now 5 Deaths!
« Reply #38 on: August 17, 2007, 06:24:09 AM »
At least I know what to tell people.

   ???

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE- Was 3 now 5 Deaths!
« Reply #39 on: August 17, 2007, 06:29:36 AM »
   ???

When they ask I'll say condoms and limiting partners are far safer.

~flower~

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3597
  • D/s
Re: GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE- Was 3 now 5 Deaths!
« Reply #40 on: August 17, 2007, 06:41:19 AM »
When they ask I'll say condoms and limiting partners are far safer.

ohhhhhhhhhhh    ;)

~flower~

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3597
  • D/s
Re: GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE- Was 3 now 5 Deaths!
« Reply #41 on: August 28, 2007, 06:04:02 AM »
interesting blog:

http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com/2007/05/gardasil-2.html

1. There is a controversy surrounding Gardasil in Texas.

This story has gotten a lot of press coverage so we’re not going to rehash all of the details here, but here’s a quick timeline of what happened:

~In early February, Texas Governor Rick Perry issued an executive order making Gardasil mandatory for girls entering the sixth grade. In doing so, he bypassed the state legislature and a public outcry of opposition.

~After the order was issued, it came out that Governor Perry has some ties to Merck that some people found questionable. His former chief of staff is one of Merck’s lobbyists in Texas, and the mother-in-law of his current chief of staff is the state director of Women in Government, an advocacy group that has received funds from Merck and has been a major part of Merck’s lobbying campaign for Gardasil. Merck’s political action committee also contributed to Perry’s reelection campaign.

~The situation in Texas generated a lot of discussion, debate, protest, and media coverage, which most likely contributed to Merck’s announcement in late February that it was suspending its lobbying efforts in many states to have the vaccine made mandatory for students.

~On March 14th, the Texas House of Representatives voted to overturn Governor Perry’s executive order. The bill would keep Gardasil off of the list of required vaccines for students. A similar bill is being considered by the state Senate. The issue is not just the opposition to Gardasil, but also the fact that the governor bypassed the legislature and may have overstepped his authority by issuing a binding executive order. If the bill is passed, it could still be vetoed by the governor, so lawmakers are trying to get the bill to the governor’s desk as quickly as possible so that they will have time to override a potential veto before the legislative session ends in May.

~In late April, a revised version of the bill passed both the Texas House and Senate and was sent to the governor, who then had 10 days to either sign or veto it. The legislature has enough votes to override a veto. The bill prevents state officials from requiring the vaccine for school admittance, but the ban will expire after four years so that the vaccine can be reevaluated.

~On May 8th, Governor Perry announced that he would not veto the bill. He was extremely critical of the bill and the legislature, but said that a veto would be pointless since there were enough votes to override it.

In contrast to the Texas drama, New Hampshire has largely avoided controversy by choosing not to make Gardasil mandatory, but instead to make it available free of charge to girls ages 11 to 18 through a state program for immunization of minors. One of the stated reasons for making a vaccine (especially a very expensive one like Gardasil) mandatory is that it levels the playing field, allowing people at all income levels to have the same access to the treatment. The New Hampshire approach isn't perfect either--there are waiting lists and some reports of doctors running out of the vaccine and having to wait for more--but it does provide equal access while also allowing parents more freedom to decide if and when their children should be vaccinated.

2. A variety of adverse reactions to Gardasil have been reported.

Merck has released a list of the side effects that someone could experience from Gardasil: pain, swelling, itching and redness at the injection site, fever, nausea, and dizziness.

However, the list of adverse reactions from the first dose of Gardasil that has been reported so far is more extensive. It includes:

    * loss of consciousness and syncope
    * seizures
    * dizziness, shakiness,"feeling faint"
    * loss of vision, decrease in quality of vision, dryness of eyes
    * abnormal speech
    * nausea, vomiting
    * headache
    * pallor, purple coloration of the lips
    * fever, chills
    * dyskinesia (difficulty or distortion in performing voluntary movements)
    * hypokinesia (slow or diminished movement of the body musculature)
    * difficulty swallowing
    * joint pain
    * Guillain-Barre Syndrome (an immune disorder which effects the peripheral nervous system and in extreme cases can cause paralysis)
    * hives, itching, rashes, blisters, vesicles, and skin ulcers
    * swelling of the arms, swelling of the lower extremities, swelling of the lymph nodes
    * severe pain at the site of injection.

The information on these reactions comes from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is a program co-sponsored by the FDA and the CDC.

The National Vaccine Information Center has released two reports analyzing the reactions that have been reported so far: 1st Report, 2nd Report. Just to clarify—the National Vaccine Information Center is a nonprofit organization that advocates “the institution of vaccine safety and informed consent protections in the mass vaccination system”. So they’re not an objective source and their agenda has to be taken into consideration when you read their reports. But they are drawing their information on negative reactions straight from the VAERS database, which as we said above is an FDA/CDC program, making it a part of the federal Department of Health and Human Services.

One of the interesting things about this information is that quite a few of the negative reactions that were reported, including most of the cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome, occurred in patients that had received another vaccine at the same time as Gardasil. (The meningococcal vaccine Menactra, which appears in several of the Gardasil reports, has been previously associated with Guillain-Barre warnings) As we mentioned in our first Ten Things, Gardasil was only tested for safety when administered at the same time as the Hepatitis B vaccine. No other combinations of vaccines were tested, so it is difficult to say if some of these negative reactions were caused by Gardasil, by the other vaccine involved, by the combination of the two vaccines, or by some other factors.

3. Anyone who is allergic to the ingredients of Gardasil should not receive the vaccine.

Gardasil is fermented in giant vats of yeast paste, which means that anyone with a yeast allergy should not get the vaccine. The CDC’s Vaccine Information Statement lists yeast allergy as a reason to avoid the vaccine, but the Patient Product Information on gardasil.com does not specifically mention yeast.

The listed ingredients are: “purified inactive proteins that come from HPV Types 6, 11, 16, and 18…amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate, sodium chloride, L-histidine, polysorbate 80, sodium borate, and water for injection.”

If you or your child have ever had even a mild negative reaction to a vaccine, or you have any allergies at all, even ones that you may not think could possibly be relevant, you should talk to your doctor and make sure you're aware of any potential complications. (Merck also recommends that you tell your doctor if you or your child have any type of bleeding disorder that would make injections difficult, a weakened immune system, a fever or other mild illness, or are taking any prescription or over-the-counter medications.)

Maybe in some circles it's common knowledge that yeast is sometimes used to develop vaccines, but we didn't know it and many of our friends didn't either. You may have a condition like a yeast allergy and not be aware of it, or your doctor may not be aware of it, and it could cause a negative reaction that you never even knew you should be looking out for. So seek out as much information as you can and talk everything through with your doctor until you feel comfortable. It's your health, so be as cautious as you want to be.

4. Women who may be pregnant, women who are breast-feeding, and women who have already been exposed to HPV should approach Gardasil with caution.

Women who may be pregnant and women who are breast-feeding should be cautious, because there are some questions about whether Gardasil could potentially affect fertility or cause harm to a fetus or a nursing infant. Full information about the testing that was conducted on pregnant and breast-feeding women can be found on the FDA's website, but we have pulled out some of the relevant quotes.

    “…it is not known whether GARDASIL can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or if it can affect reproductive capacity. GARDASIL should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed.”

    “The effect of GARDASIL on male fertility has not been studied.”

    “Overall, the proportions of pregnancies with an adverse outcome were comparable in subjects who received GARDASIL and subjects who received placebo.” (One note here—both Gardasil and the placebo contained aluminum, so if you are concerned about the potential harmful effects of aluminum, it’s not possible to tell whether aluminum could have been a factor in any of the complications that were experienced).

    “It is not known whether vaccine antigens or antibodies induced by the vaccine are excreted in human milk. Because many drugs are excreted in human milk, caution should be exercised when GARDASIL is administered to a nursing woman.”

Also, a small number of women who used the vaccine near the time of conception gave birth to children suffering from birth defects, although there is no specific evidence that Gardasil was the cause.

Merck claims that Gardasil may still be beneficial for women who have already been exposed to HPV, since the vaccine protects against four HPV strains and it is unlikely that a woman would be exposed to all four, so the vaccine could still provide protection against the remaining strains. But it is worth noting that after reviewing the clinical trials of Gardasil last summer, the FDA did raise a concern about the potential for the vaccine to lead to "an increased number of cases of a cancer precursor" among patients already infected with one of the strains of HPV affected by Gardasil. It's important to remember that most cases of HPV show no symptoms at all and that the virus can remain in your body for months or even years.

So if you're considering Gardasil but think there's a chance you may have HPV, you may want to consider your HPV testing options before you go ahead with the vaccine.


5. A new study published by JAMA shows that only about 3.4% of women have one of the four strains of HPV that Gardasil protects against.

A study published in the February 28th issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association has found that about 26% of women aged 14 to 59 in the U.S. have HPV. According to the study, HPV is most prevalent among women aged 20-24. About two percent have types 16 or 18, which are the types believed to cause about 70% of cervical cancer cases, and are two of the strains of HPV that Gardasil protects against. When HPV types 6 and 11 are included, it brings the number up to 3.4% of women infected with one of the four strains of HPV that Gardasil targets. Of course, this isn’t a total number of women who will ever be affected by one of these four strains, since the study included a wide age range of women and it is possible that some of the younger women will be exposed to more strains of HPV over their lifetimes. But the numbers still help to provide some perspective about the prevalence of these particular strains versus the prevalence of HPV overall.

With all of the statistics being thrown around in the media about how common HPV is and how many millions of people will get it in their lifetimes, that perspective is important. There are dozens of strains of HPV. A few of them are linked to genital warts and a few of them are linked to cervical cancer. The majority of cases of HPV will eventually clear on their own. Getting HPV does not mean you will get cancer. Gardasil protects against four specific strains of HPV. Getting vaccinated with Gardasil does not mean that you’ll never get HPV, or that you’ll never be at risk for genital warts or cervical cancer. Your risk will be greatly reduced, but not eliminated.


6. Questions have been raised about several of the ingredients in Gardasil.

Gardasil is made with genetically engineered materials. Being genetically engineered doesn't automatically make Gardasil evil and harmful, but it's interesting that while many people say that the idea of genetically engineered food seems unnatural and makes them uncomfortable, a lot of those same people are putting a genetically engineered vaccine into their (or their children's) bodies without a second thought. Products made with genetically modified organisms are still controversial, and many people feel that such products should be studied more thoroughly, labeled more clearly, or even banned altogether, while others believe that they are safe and that the potential benefits of genetically engineered products outweigh the potential risks. [Nutrition Action HealthLetter] [ScienceDaily] [Greenpeace] [BBC News]

Polysorbate-80, another Gardasil ingredient, has also been linked to possible negative effects. There are some claims that polysorbate is potentially carcinogenic, and polysorbate-80 has also been linked to infertility in mice, although the amount of polysorbate in the three doses of Gardasil is thought to be too low to cause harm in humans.
Here is what the medical encyclopedia of the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the NIH has to say about sodium borate, another ingredient in Gardasil:

    Sodium borate is the main ingredient in boric acid. (Powdered boric acid is often used to kill cockroaches.)

    Sodium borate poisoning can be acute or chronic. Acute, accidental sodium borate poisoning usually occurs when someone swallows powdered roach-killing products that contain the chemical.

    Poisoning may also occur in those who are repeatedly exposed to sodium borate. In the past, boric acid was used to disinfect and treat wounds. Patients who received such treatment over and over again got sick, and some died. Because boric acid is now known to be a dangerous poison, it is no longer commonly used in medical preparations. However, boric acid is contained in some vaginal suppositories used for yeast infections, although this is NOT a standard treatment.

Some of the symptoms listed for sodium borate poisoning are similar to those that have been reported by patients who have suffered negative effects from Gardasil.
Of course, we're not saying that every single claim about any of these ingredients being harmful is automatically 100% accurate. And we're not claiming that Gardasil equals certain doom because there are concerns. We don't think it's impossible for the benefits to outweigh the risks in some cases. We just think it's important for people to have as much information as possible about what those risks and benefits are so that they can make good decisions, and that they have the freedom to make those decisions for themselves and their families.

7. A researcher who participated in studies of Gardasil has expressed her concerns about making the vaccine mandatory.

    Researcher blasts HPV marketing BY CINDY BEVINGTON Wednesday, March 14, 2007

    LEBANON, N.H. - A lead researcher who spent 20 years developing the vaccine for humanpapilloma virus says the HPV vaccine is not for younger girls, and that it is "silly" for states to be mandating it for them.

    Not only that, she says it's not been tested for effectiveness in younger girls, and administering the vaccine to girls as young as 9 may not even protect them at all. And, in the worst-case scenario, instead of serving to reduce the numbers of cervical cancers within 25 years, such a vaccination crusade actually could cause the numbers to go up.

    "Giving it to 11-year-olds is a great big public health experiment," said Diane M. Harper, who is a scientist, physician, professor and the director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth Medical School in New Hampshire. "It is silly to mandate vaccination of 11- to 12-year-old girls There also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue."

    Internationally recognized as a pioneer in the field, Harper has been studying HPV and a possible vaccine for several of the more than 100 strains of HPV for 20 years - most of her adult life. All of her trials have been with subjects ages 15 to 25. In her own practice, Harper believes the ideal way of administering the new vaccine is to offer it to women ages 18 and up. At the time of their first inoculation, they should be tested for the presence of HPV in their system. If the test comes back negative, then schedule the follow-up series of the three-part shots. But if it comes back positive? "Then we don't know squat, because medically we don't know how to respond to that," Harper said.

    Harper is an independent researcher whose vaccine work is funded through Dartmouth in part by both Merck & Co. and GlaxoSmithKline, which means she is an employee of the university, not the drug companies. Merck's vaccine, Gardasil, protects against four strains of HPV, two of which cause genital warts, Nos. 6 and 11. The other two, HPV 16 and 18, are cancer-causing viruses.

    Merck's vaccine was approved last year by the Food and Drug Administration, and recommended in June for females ages 9 to 26 by the Centers for Disease Control's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Glaxo has stated publicly that its vaccine, Cervarix, which protects against the two cancer-causing strains, should be on the market by 2008.

   

~flower~

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3597
  • D/s
Re: GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE- Was 3 now 5 Deaths!
« Reply #42 on: August 28, 2007, 06:04:37 AM »
As the director of an international clinical trial for these vaccines, and as author of lead articles about the vaccines' effectiveness, Harper has been quoted widely as saying this vaccine could have enormous potential to eradicate the great majority of cervical cancers. Picking up on this, but before the trials were even completed, major news media and women's advocacy groups began trumpeting the vaccine as an answer to cancer of the cervix.

    Once it was approved by the FDA and ACIP, Women In Government (WIG), a non-profit organization comprised of female state and federal legislators, began championing Merck's vaccine in their home states, with many of the ladies introducing legislation that would mandate the vaccine for 11- and 12-year-olds. In Indiana, Sen. Connie Lawson, R-Danville, introduced such a bill in this year's General Assembly, but in the face of strong opposition, it was reduced to an education/information-only bill that requires data collection on any Hoosier girls who do get the vaccine. The bill is now awaiting a hearing in the Indiana House. So far at least 26 states are reported to be considering some form of legislation requiring the new vaccine for younger girls. In February, Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry bypassed his legislature and mandated it for all 11- and 12-year-old girls in his state. Monday, The Associated Press reported that New Mexico's governor, Democratic presidential contender Bill Richardson, is set to sign a bill requiring sixth grade girls in his state to get the vaccine.

    The idea is to inoculate them before they become sexually active, since HPV can be spread through sexual intercourse. But that idea, no matter how good the intentions behind it, is not the right thinking, Harper said. The zealousness to inoculate all these younger girls may very well backfire at the very time they need protection most, she said.

    "This vaccine should not be mandated for 11-year-old girls," she reiterated. "It's not been tested in little girls for efficacy. At 11, these girls don't get cervical cancer - they won't know for 25 years if they will get cervical cancer.

    "Also, the public needs to know that with vaccinated women and women who still get Pap smears (which test for abnormal cells that can lead to cancer), some of them will still get cervical cancer."

    The reason, she said, is because the vaccine does not protect against all HPV viruses that cause cancer - it's only effective against two that cause about 70 percent of cervical cancers.

    For months, Harper said, she's been trying to convince major television and print media to listen to her and tell the facts about the usefulness and effectiveness of this vaccine. "But no one will print it," she said.

    According to Harper, the facts about the HPV vaccine are:

        * It is not a cancer vaccine or cure. It is a prophylactic - preventative -vaccine for a virus that can cause cancer. "Merck has proven it has zero percent effectiveness for curing cancer," Harper said. "But it is a very, very good vaccine that prevents types of HPV responsible for half of the high-grade cervical lesions that cause about 70 percent of cervical cancers. For the U.S. what that means is the vaccine will prevent about half of high-grade precursors of cancer but half will still occur, so hundreds of thousands of women who are vaccinated with Gardasil and get yearly Pap testing will still get a high-grade dysplasia (cell abnormality)."
        * It is not 100 percent effective against all HPVs. It is 100 percent effective against two types that cause 70 percent of cervical cancers.
        * The vaccine only works if the woman/girl does not have a current vaccine type related infection (in other words, the vaccine only works when the woman/girl does not have HPV 6, 11, 16 or 18 - the viruses that Gardasil targets when she receives her first vaccine shot).
        * The vaccine doesn't care if the girl/woman has been sexually active, Harper said. "HPV is a skin-to-skin infection. Although the only way to get cervical dysplasia is through an HPV infection, and HPV is most often associated with sexual activity, HPV is not just spread through sex. We have multiple papers where that's documented. We know that 3-year-olds, 5-year-olds, 10-year-olds, and women who have never had sex have been found to be positive for the cancer-causing HPV types."
        * Therefore, for example, if a girl is positive for HPV 16 when she is inoculated with the vaccine at any age, she will not be protected against it later, Harper said. "That means it's a failure and those people are at risk for getting the HPV 16 and 18 cancers later."
        * The only way to test for the presence of HPV is through a vaginal swab -which is inappropriate for young girls, she said.
        * So what happens if the girls are vaccinated anyway, not knowing whether they were carrying the virus at the time of their inoculation? "They will not be protected if they were positive for the virus at the time they are vaccinated," Harper said.
        * That is why it is important to note that the vaccine has not been tested for efficacy (effectiveness) in younger girls, she said. Instead, the effectiveness was "bridged" from the older girls to the younger ones -meaning that Merck assumed that because it proved effective in the older girls, it also would be effective in the younger ones. The actual tests on the younger girls, ages 9 to 15, were only for safety and immune response, Harper said, and then only as a shot by itself, or in combination with only one other vaccine, Hepatitis B. It has not been tested in conjunction with any other shots a girl receives at about age 11, Harper said.
        * So far more than 40 cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome - a dangerous immune disorder that causes tingling, numbness and even paralysis of the muscles have been reported in girls who have received the HPV vaccine in combination with the meningitis vaccine. Scientists already know that sometimes a vaccine can trigger the syndrome in a subject. "With the HPV vaccine, it is a small number but higher than is expected, and we don't know if it's the combination of the two, or the meningitis alone," Harper said.
        * In the end, inoculating young girls may backfire because it will give them a false sense of protection. And, for both young girls and women, because the vaccine's purpose has been so misinterpreted - and mis-marketed - Harper feels that too many girls and women who have had the vaccine will develop a false sense of security, believing they are immune to cancer when they are not, and failing to continue with their annual Pap exams, are crucial to diagnosing dysplasia before it can develop into cancer.

    The message to consumers, Harper said, is don't stop getting Pap smears just because you've gotten the HPV vaccine. "This vaccine is good, and it will save a huge number of lives around the world," Harper said. "But an important point is that, if women get the vaccine and then not get their Pap smears, or decide to get them infrequently, what will happen in the U.S. is that we will have an increase in cervical cancer, because the Pap screening does a very good job.

    "That's my main diatribe. We don't need mandatory vaccinations for little girls. What we do need to ask, though, is how long does it last, and when do you need a booster?"

    For the governors of the states in this country, Harper has another message. One has to do with the fact that vaccinating little girls now is not going to protect them later. Since it can take a decade or more to even manifest itself as dysplasia, the HPVs against which this vaccine works may infect a little girl at the age she needs the vaccine most - meaning she will have to have a booster at the right point in time or she will not be protected. And, remember, it won't work at all if she was positive for the virus when she was inoculated in the first place.

    Merck knows this, Harper said. "To mandate now is simply to Merck's benefit, and only to Merck's benefit," she said. Merck was required to put together a database on the efficacy in children before Gardasil was approved, Harper said. But instead, the company put together four study sites that "are not necessarily representative, and may not even have enough numbers to determine what they need to know."

    Since she doesn't personally have access to the money Merck and GlaxoSmithKline pay for her HPV vaccine research, Harper doesn't know exactly how much either has paid Dartmouth for her work. The trials are expensive, between $4,000 and $5,000 for each patient, she said. With over 100 patients in her study, some big bucks could be in the balance, should Merck or Glaxo become upset with her for making these comments.

    Why, then, would she risk speaking out like this - at a time when her words very well could influence legislation across the country, and prompt legislators to drop the mandates? Isn't she afraid of losing her funding?

    "I want to be able to sleep with myself when I go to bed at night," Harper said. "My concern is still, let's get women's health better. It is still a good vaccine. But let's be honest. Don't over-promise."


8. Men are increasingly seeking out information about HPV and Gardasil, especially in the gay community.
In our first 10 Things we wrote about the fact that Gardasil was initially approved only for women (in the U.S.), and that most of the initial testing focused on women and girls and was only expanded later to begin to include more boys and men. We found this a little concerning considering that men can get and give HPV just like women can, and men can also (to a lesser degree than women) be at risk for genital warts and certain types of cancer as a result of HPV infection.

One of the biggest problems is the fact that there is no FDA-approved HPV test for men (and the CDC claims that such a test is unnecessary, which we ranted on in our first top ten), and there have been fewer studies done on HPV in men than there have been with women. So even if a man wanted to be as responsible as possible about STD testing, his options are limited where HPV is concerned. Many men probably don't even realize that even though they are getting tested for other STDs regularly, they are still at risk for HPV and may be putting their partners at risk as well.

Some research being done now has shown that HPV may be more prevalent in men than in women, and little is known about whether transmission rates differ from men to women, women to men, men to other men, etc. This information could be critical in determining who really should be getting the vaccine, what the cost benefits are, and what the best methods of preventing HPV infection are in general.

HPV is of particular concern to gay men, because rates of anal cancer have been rising.

    While rates of anal cancer are low in the general population -- and more women than men get anal cancer every year -- they're disproportionately high among gay men and people who are HIV-positive or have other immune-suppressive conditions. Part of the explanation for increased cases of anal cancer is better reporting of the disease, but Bay Area doctors say it also could be tied to HIV rates.

    Studies have shown rates of anal cancer as high as 35 cases for every 100,000 people among gay men -- a figure comparable to rates of cervical cancer in women before Pap tests were introduced as a screening tool 60 years ago. Since then, rates of cervical cancer have fallen 70 percent.

Some doctors are recommending anal Pap tests for gay men as a way of catching precancerous lesions before they become anal cancer, similar to the screening process for cervical cancer. And a growing number of men are choosing to go ahead and be vaccinated with Gardasil now as a way to potentially protect themselves and their partners from any strains of HPV that they have not already been exposed to. This is an "off license" use for Gardasil since the FDA has yet to approve it for adult men, but many men and some doctors feel that the potential benefits make it worthwhile.

We don't understand why Merck hasn't incorporated this angle into their marketing campaigns. We can't think of anything that would get the conservative abstinence-only crowd on board with mandatory vaccination faster than saying ''hey, guess what? the two groups of people who benefit most from our vaccine are your precious young daughters and...gay men!'' This must have simply been an oversight that we're sure Merck is working to remedy. Expect the PSA featuring Hilary Duff and Lance Bass any day now.

9. There is a product called carrageenan that may be effective at preventing HPV infection.

Some early research has shown that carrageenan, a thickening agent derived from algae, is a powerful HPV inhibitor.

    In laboratory tests, carrageenan, a compound derived from red algae, prevented HPV infection by both genital wart and cancer-causing types. "We were floored by how much better it worked than anything else we have tested. It's effective at 100-fold lower concentration than the next best inhibitor we've found," said Dr. John Schiller, senior investigator at the National Cancer Institute.

    Normally, HPV attacks cells by attaching to proteins on their surface and then chemically manipulating access to the cells. Carrageenan thwarts this process by attaching to HPV and preventing its entry into cells. [Medical News Today][CBS News]

Carrageenan has also been studied for its ability to prevent herpes and HIV transmission, but it was found to be much more powerful at inhibiting HPV transmission. Carrageenan is used in a variety of commercial products, including some sexual lubricants and lubricated condoms.
Clinical trials could determine whether carrageenan could be successfully and safely used as a topical microbicide to prevent the spread of HPV. Since carageenan is already used in a variety of food, cosmetics, and sex-related products, it seems possible that a product like this could be developed. If so, it would be a powerful and relatively inexpensive tool in the fight against HPV, which would be especially beneficial in lower income countries around the world where women have limited access to health care and cervical cancer is a significant problem.

10. There is another HPV vaccine in development, which works differently than Gardasil.

GlaxoSmithKline is currently in the final stages of testing its own HPV vaccine, called Cervarix, which could be on the market as early as the end of the year. Like Gardasil, Cervarix protects against HPV types 16 and 18, which are said to cause most cases of cervical cancer. Unlike Gardasil, Cervarix does not protect against the types of HPV that cause most cases of genital warts.

Based on the information that has been released so far and the testing that is currently being done, it seems that Glaxo will try to market Cervarix as being better than Gardasil for two reasons. First, it may also protect against HPV types 45 and 31, which have also been linked to cervical cancer. Tests are underway now to determine whether this is definitely the case. And second, because Glaxo is using a special type of adjuvant that is different from the basic aluminum adjuvant used in Gardasil, they are claiming that Cervarix will provide better and longer-lasting immunity to HPV than Gardasil does, especially among girls aged 10-14.

Cervarix has also been tested on women as old as 55, which seems to indicate that Glaxo will target a wider market of women than Merck has with Gardasil. Earlier this year, Glaxo launched a study designed to directly compare the effectiveness of Cervarix and Gardasil and it will be interesting to see what the results are. Cervarix was also just recently approved for women ages 10-45 in Australia. We’ll keep researching and writing about Cervarix as it gets closer to approval in the U.S.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Our conclusion now is still the same as it was when we wrote our first 10 Things. This is a complicated issue but it also comes down to a personal choice, and everyone should be able to make that choice for themselves or for their children with as much research and information and as little guilt and manipulation as possible.
As always, we'd love to know what you think, so keep the comments and emails coming.


   


trab

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4950
Re: GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE- Was 3 now 5 Deaths!
« Reply #43 on: August 28, 2007, 06:38:02 AM »
I dont like the way they tried to force it on the public.
I never want myself or my family to be the first public users of ANY new drug.

BUT, That said - People can refuse to have their child vaccinated with it.

As far as the long list of side effect and adverse reactions, thats similar for many/ most drugs.

But -Flower, Your blowing the risks of this drug WAY out of proportion.
As Doc pointed out, theres a lot of Meds w/ bad side effects.

The Pharma Corps and all connected, including Politicians thought that they had scored a big fat barrel of MONEY!  Well I hope they didnt count it before they got it, because its not going to play out the way they hoped.

I suspect the drug is safer for most. As safe as anything else that makes it thru the FDA approvals.

~flower~

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3597
  • D/s
Re: GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE- Was 3 now 5 Deaths!
« Reply #44 on: August 28, 2007, 05:55:24 PM »
I didn't make up those adverse affects. The drug has not been proven that it will cut down on cervical cancer or what long term affects are.

 They have downplayed the side affects and overblown what they THINK it will do.

 If you just saw an ad on TV you would think it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.  This is just information that you have to look for yourself to find, which is not the way it should be. People are not being given all the information, the ads are very deceptive IMO.

Alex23

  • Guest
Re: GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE- Was 3 now 5 Deaths!
« Reply #45 on: August 28, 2007, 05:58:27 PM »
Eliminating HPV is the bigger picture.

Those who fell were  pharmaceutical heros  ::)

trab

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4950
Re: GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE- Was 3 now 5 Deaths!
« Reply #46 on: August 28, 2007, 05:58:58 PM »
I didn't make up those adverse affects. The drug has not been proven that it will cut down on cervical cancer or what long term affects are.

 They have downplayed the side affects and overblown what they THINK it will do.

 If you just saw an ad on TV you would think it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.


I know you didnt make them up, but EVERY drug in PDR or Phy Gen Rx has a similar long list of various bad side-effects.

All drugs have sides and they also vary person to person.
Of course they  Promote their product to the hilt, everone does.

~flower~

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3597
  • D/s
Re: GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE- Was 3 now 5 Deaths!
« Reply #47 on: August 28, 2007, 06:03:50 PM »
it's no secret I am not a fan of vaccines in general, this one is no exception

 I see nothing wrong with putting info out there for people to read or not (you don't read my posts anyways  8) )

trab

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4950
Re: GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE- Was 3 now 5 Deaths!
« Reply #48 on: August 28, 2007, 06:12:46 PM »
it's no secret I am not a fan of vaccines in general, this one is no exception

 I see nothing wrong with putting info out there for people to read or not (you don't read my posts anyways  8) )


I read your posts about Humans, I'm surprised you are worried about Humans at all?  ???
After all they are the destructor's of the Planet. Lets turn it over to the Rats and Roaches and let them live in peace... ;D

But, regardless, No Way my Daughter gets that shot till its been used many years. I never use ANY new medications.
I refuse them. Im not their test subject.

~flower~

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3597
  • D/s
Re: GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE- Was 3 now 5 Deaths!
« Reply #49 on: August 30, 2007, 06:24:40 AM »
http://www.newstarget.com/021999.html


Absurd vaccine marketing calls for cervical cancer vaccinations for young boys!
by Mike Adams

The headline for this story is not a typo. The push to sell more vaccines and pharmaceuticals has now reached a level of absurdity that should astonish any intelligent person. The mainstream media is now reporting -- and I'm not kidding -- that young boys should be vaccinated with Gardasil (the drug now being pushed onto teenage girls to supposedly prevent cervical cancer) based on the idea that if they have oral sex with girls who carry HPV, they might get throat cancer!

This is an incredible stretch of scientific credibility, and it's such a preposterous marketing campaign that only Big Pharma could have come up with it. It's obviously nothing more than a massive scare campaign to try to dream up some way to market this high-profit vaccine to a whole new group of customers who don't need it: teenage boys!

Even the idea of mandatory vaccinations for teenage girls is little more than desperate disease mongering designed to sell vaccines. Carrying HPV doesn't automatically lead to cervical cancer any more than carrying chicken pox turns you into a walking biological weapon. Most people who carry the virus show no symptoms at all, and girls with healthy immune systems and healthy lifestyles (diet, nutrition, etc.) have a near-zero risk of ever developing cervical cancer, even if they're exposed to HPV on a repeated basis. The virus isn't the disease: It's the terrain of the person carrying the virus! If they're unhealthy and vulnerable, then of course they're not going to be able to keep the virus in check.

We don't live in a sterile world, after all. There are more bacteria cells in your body right now than human cells, and we're surrounded by viruses, fungi and other germs. The whole idea of vaccinating against one particular strain that might someday, possibly, perhaps cause a problem if you have sex is just medical nonsense.

But vaccinating young boys is an even dumber idea. It's so stupid that I can't find the words to even describe how low on the IQ chart these drug marketing "experts" must be to come up with this one. They must think the public is so gullible that they can just make up any sex-related story and use it to sell drugs. Next, we'll be hearing about young boys giving themselves HPV through masturbation! And the cries for vaccinating all young boys will be something along the lines of, "If you masturbate, VACCINATE!"

Sadly, most consumers are so ignorant about reproductive health and germs in general that they'd probably buy into it. And if that campaign is successful, they'll go for the ultimate stupid scare tactic: The Doorknob Campaign (keep reading, if you dare...).

Warning: Doorknobs can give you cancer
Here's how this campaign works. (Warning: This contains some graphic language, but it's the only way I can accurately describe just how stupid these vaccination scare tactics have become. If you're offended by certain words, you probably shouldn't be reading anything on this website in the first place...) To pull this off, the drug companies start floating scare stories about how anyone can get cancer by touching doorknobs. How? Because you never know when some HPV carrying person might have touched a doorknob after touching themselves. Therefore, doorknobs can give you sexually transmitted diseases, and if you happen to touch yourself after touching the doorknob, then -- watch out! -- suddenly you're going to die from cervical cancer, throat cancer, crotch cancer or whatever other fear mongering diseases they can dream up. Doorknobs are dangerous, didn't you know?

The only way to protect yourself from these germified doorknobs is to get a vaccine. And since doorknobs are everywhere, everybody should get the vaccine! This includes children, teens, adults and senior citizens. It's a brilliant way to sell hundreds of millions of doses of a dangerous injected substance that nobody actually needs, and it's all made possible by the doorknob scare campaign! (And if doorknobs aren't convincing enough, they can start scare stories about public toilet seats instead.)

Drug companies have turned the United States into a nation of hypochondriacs
If they can convince parents that their male children need to be vaccinated against a virus linked to cervical cancer, I suppose they can sell just about anything to anyone. What's next? Are they going to demand that all girls be vaccinated against prostate cancer just in case they engage in oral sex with men who have enlarged prostate glands? Yes, this sounds stupid. It IS stupid. And yet it's not too stupid to be embraced by Big Pharma.

Remember, Big Pharma is the same industry that has essentially declared womanhood to be a disease. They have a pill that stops all menstruation -- for life, and the marketing materials imply that a woman having a monthly period is some sort of disorder that needs to be halted to live a normal, happy life. It won't be long before they've got women scared half to death about simply being a woman! (Notice, too, that conventional medicine is dominated by males who all too easily declare various female experiences to be "diseases" or "disorders.")

Big Pharma's primary weapon in promoting these silly scare stories is the mainstream media. All they have to do is start floating stories about how dangerous oral sex can be, and then once everybody is scared half to death of oral sex, they can float the "solution" as yet another vaccine.

Inventing the problem, then marketing the "solution"
Did you ever notice how the press never even talked about Restless Legs Syndrome until the drug companies had a new pharmaceutical for sale that claimed to treat the condition? The press sets up the fear campaigns for one fictitious disease after another, and then Big Pharma just happens to introduce a new high-profit chemical that treats the disease. In this latest example, the press has been floating stories about the dangers of oral sex for several days, and then -- whammo! -- a story magically appears about vaccinating young boys to protect them from the dangers of oral sex.

You have to understand that almost nothing appears in the mainstream media without an agenda. The news isn't news, it's a way of shaping public perception in order to market something: War, drugs, products, paradigms, etc. The U.S. press is a vehicle of shaping the belief systems of the public. It invents and promotes cultural fears, beliefs and perceptions. It has nothing whatsoever to do with bringing people useful news and information. Instead, it is almost entirely focused on getting people to believe what the folks in charge want them to believe.

The current news about the housing bubble, for example, is all designed to delay the coming collapse of both the global real estate market and the U.S. stock market (not to mention the U.S. dollar). By shaping public perception and telling people it's only a temporary downturn in the market, they can convince enough people that we should all keep on paying sky-high prices for houses and thereby delay the inevitable real estate market collapse for a little longer.

Similarly, virtually every story you read about health is designed to shape your beliefs about nutrition, pharmaceuticals, health care and the (false) causes of diseases. Stories about the genetic causes of disease, for example, are designed to strip away your power and get you to believe that you have no control over your own health. Stories about the dangers of nutritional supplements are designed to convince you to fear nutrition and trust only in pharmaceuticals. Stories about oral sex, as we've seen here, are designed to rally the nation into a state of irrational fear out of which they will react by calling for mandatory vaccinations of teenage boys.

David Icke describes this as "Problem - Reaction - Solution." First, they set up the fictitious problem and scare everybody, then they wait for the public reaction (which is quite predictable and actually planned out from the beginning). Finally, they introduce the "solution" which is war, or martial law, or forced vaccinations or whatever was on their agenda in the first place. It's the way all power brokers have ever managed to get things done in a society that pretends to be free. If you want to sell useless pharmaceuticals to hundreds of millions of people who don't need them, you can't just march in and force people to buy them. That would never fly. Instead, you have to convince the people to demand the vaccinations themselves! And you do that by propagandizing scare stories like this one on the dangers of oral sex. If you scare the people enough, they'll demand that you take action, and then your "solution" looks like you're just responding to the needs of the people.

Modern medicine is a hoax. It mostly comes down to brainwashing doctors, playing mind games with the public and controlling the media. Disease mongering is rampant, and drug companies are now resorting to the most absurd, ridiculous leaps of the imagination to try to convince people they need more vaccines and medications. Just five years ago, the idea that teenage boys needed to be vaccinated against a cervical cancer virus would have been considered lunacy, but today, the Big Pharma propaganda machine is pushing it with a straight facing, hoping that within a year or two, the population will be so utterly frightened over oral sex viruses that every sexually active person in the country will line up and fork over cash for their "sex vaccines."

And it is in this way that Big Pharma has now managed to turn oral sex into a disease requiring chemical treatment. Regardless of whether there's any actual sex taking place, there's one thing for certain: Consumers are getting royally screwed.