Jump to content
bamboozooka

hpv vaccine roll out for boys

Recommended Posts

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6892445/Chemists-cash-charging-475-vaccinate-teenage-boys-against-HPV-virus.html

 

read the merck patient info sheet

https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil_9/gardasil_9_ppi.pdf

 

the only reasons for boys to have it is genital warts and anal cancer.

do you think its been designed by the elites to protect the elites as we all know what they do to boys.

 

also the nurses will be using gillicks law to bypass the parents non consent and scare the child into having it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, a couple of things there.

 

Firstly, where exactly do you think girls get HPV? Is it entirely possible that boys might just have a role in the transmission of the virus? There is no point only vaccinating half of the source.

 

Secondly, HPV is not just responsible for genital warts and anal cancer in men, or for that matter cervical cancer in women. 

 

Giving the vaccine to boys and girls makes social and financial sense. It has absolutely nothing to do with what you have obviously spent a lot of time imagining the 'elites' do with boys.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, silverback said:

Giving the vaccine to boys and girls makes social and financial sense. It has absolutely nothing to do with what you have obviously spent a lot of time imagining the 'elites' do with boys.

 

how are you making this assessment?

 

can you please show me all the research that has been carried out into the non specific effects caused by the HPV vaccine? We will need to know about all of the harms caused by it in order to then weight them against the supposed benefits

 

Also we will need to assess the blood of people vaccinated over decades of time to see if they continue to have the antibodies to fight the virus

 

Personally in think we would be better off investing in preventative approaches that ensure a strong immune system. This would involve improving public health and reducing stress in society. What ideas have you got along those lines?

 

The only problem with this approach is that it doesn't render massive profits for big pharma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about you present your evidence that the HPV vaccine causes damaging side effects, and that it isn't effective? Your original post implied that it was, and that's why the elites want to give it to boys. 

 

In the absence of a successful programme persuading people of the benefits of abstinence, I have a very simple suggestion for preventing HPV related cancers: vaccinate. 

 

Big pharma makes a lot more money treating cancer than it does preventing it, so what's the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, silverback said:

How about you present your evidence that the HPV vaccine causes damaging side effects, and that it isn't effective? Your original post implied that it was, and that's why the elites want to give it to boys. 

 

In the absence of a successful programme persuading people of the benefits of abstinence, I have a very simple suggestion for preventing HPV related cancers: vaccinate. 

 

Big pharma makes a lot more money treating cancer than it does preventing it, so what's the problem?

 

i have a potion that will prevent you from getting cancer but for it to work i need to inject it into your muscle

 

I have scientific studies carried out by my own inhouse scientists that show that many of the people who have been injected with it have indeed gone on to not have cancer during the test period

 

I think you and all your family should be injected with this potion. We haven't done any research into the side-effects (non specific) effects but we have managed to lobby the government so that we cannot be sued directly if anyone is harmed by our product. Instead they must seek compensation through a government vaccine court

 

We are not able to ascertain if the product does indeed cause other health problems but because our own studies funded by us suggest it is effective we feel it should be rolled out.

 

You might argue that the roll out should wait until there is research to prove that there are not non-specific effects as they may outweigh any benefits but we disagree and if we can pressure the government enough then they can over rule your individual objections

 

So when would you like to receive your shot?

 

WARNING: this post is satire and not to be taken as true

Edited by muir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I replied on my phone last night so was unable to get through the pages and pages of links on the effectiveness of the virus. Here is just a selection of the data the OP asked for:

 

http://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/hpv-vaccine

https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k2059

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19254046

https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2018/06/18/ten-years-on-since-the-start-of-the-hpv-vaccine-programme-what-impact-is-it-having/

https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/85/9/06-038414/en/

 

 

In spite of the 'satire' presented above says, vaccines are tested. That's how people know they are going to work. I'll put money on there being only a tiny tiny proportion of people waving placards and preaching against vaccines have the luxury of being vaccinated as a child and have lived longer lives as a result. 

 

All of this anti-vaxxer hysteria is a nice diversion from the OP's basic claim, which was that the HPV vaccine actually is effective and is only being given to boys to mask what his fervid imagination has decided 'elites' do to them. 

 

I'll repeat what I said so he can address it again: there is no point vaccinating half of the population against a disease that all of the population can get and transmit, and that his ill-informed assessment of which cancers are caused by HPV in males is totally incorrect.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

almost everyone that ever had sexual contact has this
there are more than 150 different types of HPV - and some can cause cancer
it is more dangerous for women than for men

 

🙂

Edited by Moonlight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What justifies giving it to men is that it will:

 

a) Prevent men giving it to women

b) Men giving it to men.

c) Prevent non-sexually transmitted HPV becoming a sexually transmitted one.

 

If you want to prevent women getting sexually transmitted HPV related cancers then it would be pretty dumb not to give men a vaccine that would prevent them getting the virus and transmitting it. Which part of that is difficult? You do not get herd immunity by only immunising half of the herd.

 

You asked for links. I gave you them. I don't see you refuting them, just going "lalalala not listening". Tell me why I should believe a pro-disease website in preference to those written by experts in the field and medical professionals?

 

Try doing some research on HPV related head and neck cancers, because let me tell you that if I'd had the choice between a few quid's worth of injection in the arm and 7 weeks of chemo and radiotherapy, 7 months off work, the loss of my salivary glands and a chunk of my sense of taste and 4 operations at God knows what cost to the taxpayer see if you can take a wild stab in the dark as to which one I'd have chosen.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/21/2019 at 7:26 AM, silverback said:

In spite of the 'satire' presented above says, vaccines are tested. That's how people know they are going to work. I'll put money on there being only a tiny tiny proportion of people waving placards and preaching against vaccines have the luxury of being vaccinated as a child and have lived longer lives as a result.

 

yes the vaccine are tested for their efficacy at preventing their specific target eg HPV or measles

 

But what is not tested is the non specific effects that the vaccines may ALSO cause the person. Without that data it is not possible to assess if the vaccine is worth administering because without a full assessment of the harm they cause we cannot weigh that against any possible benefits and therefore we are not yet placed to make a judgement about the true benefit to cost ratio

 

Lets say that your foot is bleeding so i chop off your entire leg and cauterise it. I then say to you ''look i stopped the bleeding'. Would you consider that a successful intervention?

 

if i gave you a vaccine that prevented you from getting measles but instead it caused you lifelong autoimmune disorders or infertility (see study in my post below this one) on balance was that a good move considering measles would only have put you into bed for a few days and then you would have carried on your life except you would have lifelong immunity after that.

 

See what they are not telling you is that people who have been vaccinated in past decades who are donating blood are being found to no longer have the antibodies which means that the effects of the vaccines are wearing off. if however you had used the old method of getting measles and accepting a few days of illness you would have a lifelong immunity to it. of course there would be no profits for big pharma then though....

Edited by muir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, silverback said:

Try doing some research on HPV related head and neck cancers, because let me tell you that if I'd had the choice between a few quid's worth of injection in the arm and 7 weeks of chemo and radiotherapy, 7 months off work, the loss of my salivary glands and a chunk of my sense of taste and 4 operations at God knows what cost to the taxpayer see if you can take a wild stab in the dark as to which one I'd have chosen.

 

If a non specific effect of the HPV vaccine is that it makes you infertile then i'd say you have paid an overly high price for taking a drug that you took to prevent something that you only had a small chance of developing in the first place...

A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection

Pages 661-674 | Received 05 Aug 2017, Accepted 14 May 2018, Published online: 11 Jun 2018
ABSTRACT

Birth rates in the United States have recently fallen. Birth rates per 1000 females aged 25–29 fell from 118 in 2007 to 105 in 2015. One factor may involve the vaccination against the human papillomavirus (HPV). Shortly after the vaccine was licensed, several reports of recipients experiencing primary ovarian failure emerged. This study analyzed information gathered in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which represented 8 million 25-to-29-year-old women residing in the United States between 2007 and 2014. Approximately 60% of women who did not receive the HPV vaccine had been pregnant at least once, whereas only 35% of women who were exposed to the vaccine had conceived. For married women, 75% who did not receive the shot were found to conceive, while only 50% who received the vaccine had ever been pregnant. Using logistic regression to analyze the data, the probability of having been pregnant was estimated for females who received an HPV vaccine compared with females who did not receive the shot. Results suggest that females who received the HPV shot were less likely to have ever been pregnant than women in the same age group who did not receive the shot. If 100% of females in this study had received the HPV vaccine, data suggest the number of women having ever conceived would have fallen by 2 million. Further study into the influence of HPV vaccine on fertility is thus warranted

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287394.2018.1477640?journalCode=uteh20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Study Reveals "Unavoidable" Danger of HPV Vaccines

Monday, February 17th 2014 at 6:00 am
Written By:

Sayer Ji, Founder

 

A new review published in Autoimmunity Reviews titled, "On the relationship between human papilloma virus vaccine and autoimmune disease," is destined to reopen the controversy surrounding numerous reports of HPV vaccine-induced harm that have surfaced ever since their widespread use, beginning with the FDA's 2006 approval of Merck & Co.'s Gardasil.

The study points out, "Along with the introduction of the HPV vaccines, several cases of onset or exacerbations of autoimmune diseases following the vaccine shot have been reported in the literature and pharmacovigilance databases, triggering concerns about its safety."

Following an extensive review of the biomedical literature, they listed conditions in which HPV vaccination is most likely linked to the development of autoimmune diseases (with qualification that they are only raising possible links and not fully confirmed ones), including:

  • Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis and other demyelinating diseases of the central nervous system
Multiple sclerosis (MS) Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) Primary ovarian failure (POF) IgA bullosus dermatitis Henoch-Schonlein purpura Cutaneous vasculitis Kikuch-Fujimoto disease Erythema multiforme Acute cerebral ataxia Immune thrombocytopenic purpura

The authors caution that, "The decision to vaccinate with HPV vaccine is a personal decision, not one that must be made for public health. HPV is not a lethal disease in 95% of the infections; and the other 5% are detectable and treatable in the precancerous stage."

HPV Vaccines May Cause The Immune System To Attack Body

How could a vaccine that has been declared safe and effective the world over be connected to such a wide range of autoimmune diseases?

Part of the explanation lies with a phenomena known as 'molecular mimicry,' defined as the possibility that the immune system will mistake a self-structure with a foreign (usually pathogen derived) peptide and thereby cause auto-immune harm. Antibodies, for instance, which are produced against a specific pathogen can cross-react with proteins in the body that have a similar or identical sequence.

Exactly this possibility is addressed in a groundbreaking article titled, "Quantifying the possible cross-reactivity risk of an HPV16 vaccine," published in 2009 in the Journal of Experimental Therapeutics and Oncology.  The article describes the background for the topic as follows:

"The potential adverse events associated with vaccination for infectious diseases underscore the need for effective analysis and definition of possible vaccine side effects. Using the HPV16 proteome as a model, we quantified the actual and theoretical risks of anti-HPV16 vaccination, and defined the potential disease spectrum derived from concomitant cross-reactions with the human organism."

The HPV16 proteome is the entire spectrum of proteins produced by the HPV16 virus, which are present within both the Gardasil and Cervarix HPV vaccines. Each protein carries a risk of inducing an immune response that could, in theory, 'blow back' on self-structures within the human proteome. With this possibility in mind, the researchers used the following method to ascertain the likelihood of such an event:

"We searched the primary sequence of the HPV16 proteome for heptamer amino acid sequences shared with human proteins using the Protein International Resource database."

Heptamer amino acid sequences are defined as an oligomers (molecular complex) with seven subunits.

The results of their search revealed a profound degree of matching:

"The human proteome contains 82 heptapeptides and two octapeptides found in HPV16. The viral matches are spread among proteins involved in fundamental processes, such as cell differentiation and growth and neurosensory regulation. The human proteins containing the HPV16-derived heptamers include cell-adhesion molecules, leukocyte differentiation antigens, enzymes, proteins associated with spermatogenesis, transcription factors, and neuronal antigens. The number of viral matches and their locations make the occurrence of side autoimmune cross-reactions in the human host following HPV16-based vaccination almost unavoidable." [emphasis added]

The so-called "unavoidability" of "side autoimmune cross reactions in the human host following HPV16-based vaccination" is a huge concern, especially considering that there are 4 strains in total in the Gardasil vaccine and 2 in the Cervarix, increasing the range of proteomic overlap between viral and human proteins and subsequent molecular mimicry significantly. Also, it is important to acknowledge that the vaccine has never even been found to prevent one single case of death from cervical cancer, and yet millions are being exposed to what are likely its unavoidable health risks. 

HPV Vaccines Don't Work As Advertised and Lack Safety

In an article published in 2013 in the journal Infectious Agent Cancer, titled "HPV vaccines and cancer prevention, science versus activism," the rationale behind current worldwide HPV vaccination programs is called into question.

The basic premise of global immunization campaigns are described as follows:

"1) that HPV vaccines will prevent cervical cancers and save lives and, 2) have no risk of serious side effects. Therefore, efforts should be made to get as many pre-adolescent girls vaccinated in order to decrease the burden of cervical cancer."

Despite this, the authors claim, "Careful analysis of HPV vaccine pre- and post-licensure data shows however that both of these premises are at odds with factual evidence and are largely derived from significant misinterpretation of available data."

 

How so?

The authors explain:

"In spite of much unwarranted and premature optimism, the fact is however that HPV vaccines have not thus far prevented a single case of cervical cancer (let alone cervical cancer death). Instead, what the clinical trials have shown is that HPV vaccines can prevent some of the pre-cancerous CIN 2/3 lesions associated with HPV-16 and HPV-18 infection, a large fraction of which would spontaneously resolve regardless of the vaccination status [2-4]. For example, in adolescent women aged 13 to 24 years, 38% of CIN 2 resolve after one year, 63% after two and 68% after three years [5]. Moreover, the validity of CIN 2 being a cancer precursor is questionable due to high misclassification rates and poor intra- and inter-observer reproducibility in diagnosis, as well as high regression rates [6-9]. According to Castle et al. [7] CIN 2 is the least reproducible of all histopathologic diagnoses and may in part reflect sampling error. While CIN 3 is a more reliable marker for cancer progression than CIN 2, the use of this marker is not without caveats [2,10]."

Moreover, the presumed safety of HPV vaccines is not supported by the facts:

Similarly, the notion that HPV vaccines have an impressive safety profile can only be supported by highly flawed design of safety trials [2,13] and is contrary to accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases and case reports which continue to link HPV vaccination to serious adverse outcomes (including death and permanent disabilities) [2,4,14]. For example, compared to all other vaccines in the U.S. vaccination schedule, Gardasil alone is associated with 61% of all serious adverse reactions (including 63.8% of all deaths and 81.2% cases of permanent disability) in females younger than 30 years of age [12].

Although a report to a vaccine safety surveillance system does not by itself prove that the vaccine caused an adverse reaction, the unusually high frequency of adverse reactions related to HPV vaccines reported worldwide, as well as their consistent pattern (i.e. nervous system-related disorders rank the highest in frequency), points to a potentially causal relationship [2]. Furthermore, matching the data from vaccine surveillance databases is an increasing number of case reports documenting similar serious adverse reactions associated with HPV vaccine administration, with nervous system and autoimmune disorders being the most frequently reported in the medical literature [15-24].

The article summarizes their findings as follows:

"In summary, the optimistic claims that HPV vaccines will prevent cervical cancers and save lives, and that they are extremely safe, rest on assumptions which are misinterpreted and presented to the public as factual evidence. We thus conclude that further reduction of cervical cancers might be best achieved by optimizing cervical screening (which carries no serious health risks) and targeting other factors of the disease rather than by the reliance on vaccines with questionable efficacy and safety profiles [2,25]."

Concluding Remarks

Considering also the recent discovery that HPV vaccines aren't effective at protecting African-American women, policy-makers need to reformulate their message for a wide range of reasons.  The fact that the vaccines aren't nearly as effective as advertised, and clearly lack industry independent assurance of their safety, brings to the question the issue of informed consent. If the public is not being provided with the information required to make an informed choice, and immunization policy is based upon cultivating faith in a higher authority and not the evidence itself, clearly, the time has come for people to take back control of their own health, beginning perhaps with exploring the primary literature on the topic themselves in greater depth.

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/study-reveals-unavoidable-danger-hpv-vaccines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Database on HPV research:

 

View the Evidence: 66 Abstracts with Vaccination: HPV (Gardasil) Research:

 

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/anti-therapeutic-action/vaccination-hpv-gardisil

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most [HPV infections] are self-limiting and will be self-cleared,” Moritz says. There’s no specific timeline for how long it takes your immune system to complete this process. “Studies have shown that more than 90 percent of new HPV infections, including those with high-risk types, clear or become undetectable within two years, and clearance usually occurs in the first six months after infection,”

https://www.self.com/story/does-hpv-go-away

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2019 at 12:01 PM, silverback said:

Try doing some research on HPV related head and neck cancers, because let me tell you that if I'd had the choice between a few quid's worth of injection in the arm and 7 weeks of chemo and radiotherapy, 7 months off work, the loss of my salivary glands and a chunk of my sense of taste and 4 operations at God knows what cost to the taxpayer see if you can take a wild stab in the dark as to which one I'd have chosen.

 

Talking about the unpleasant results of contracting the virus has no bearing on the claimed effectiveness of a vaccine.

On 4/21/2019 at 12:01 PM, silverback said:

What justifies giving it to men is that it will:

 

a) Prevent men giving it to women

b) Men giving it to men.

c) Prevent non-sexually transmitted HPV becoming a sexually transmitted one.

If it is proven to be effective, which some appear to be questioning.

 

On 4/21/2019 at 12:01 PM, silverback said:

Tell me why I should believe a pro-disease website in preference to those written by experts in the field and medical professionals?

You said yourself earlier that big pharma make more money "treating" than curing cancer.

 

So let's not be so naive as to think just because someone is held up as an expert and has pieces of paper to prove it....

 

The only thing that provides  a level of proof of effectiveness is recorded results and of course clinical trials are not free from corruption and cover ups -history has shown us that more than once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roche withheld information on its clinical trials for five years.

 

More worryingly they broke no laws doing so.

 

Of course Tamiflu was pushed like there was no tomorrow, regardless.

 

It was (and I believe still is, although I’m not certain what the outcome of the Chochraine Review was )perfectly legal for a drug company to withhold vital information on how well a drug works.

 

Both methodology and results are routinely withheld legally from both doctors and patients

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2019 at 8:25 AM, muir said:

 

If a non specific effect of the HPV vaccine is that it makes you infertile then i'd say you have paid an overly high price for taking a drug that you took to prevent something that you only had a small chance of developing in the first place...

A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection

Pages 661-674 | Received 05 Aug 2017, Accepted 14 May 2018, Published online: 11 Jun 2018
ABSTRACT

Birth rates in the United States have recently fallen. Birth rates per 1000 females aged 25–29 fell from 118 in 2007 to 105 in 2015. One factor may involve the vaccination against the human papillomavirus (HPV). Shortly after the vaccine was licensed, several reports of recipients experiencing primary ovarian failure emerged. This study analyzed information gathered in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which represented 8 million 25-to-29-year-old women residing in the United States between 2007 and 2014. Approximately 60% of women who did not receive the HPV vaccine had been pregnant at least once, whereas only 35% of women who were exposed to the vaccine had conceived. For married women, 75% who did not receive the shot were found to conceive, while only 50% who received the vaccine had ever been pregnant. Using logistic regression to analyze the data, the probability of having been pregnant was estimated for females who received an HPV vaccine compared with females who did not receive the shot. Results suggest that females who received the HPV shot were less likely to have ever been pregnant than women in the same age group who did not receive the shot. If 100% of females in this study had received the HPV vaccine, data suggest the number of women having ever conceived would have fallen by 2 million. Further study into the influence of HPV vaccine on fertility is thus warranted

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287394.2018.1477640?journalCode=uteh20

 

Discussed here https://respectfulinsolence.com/2018/06/13/antivaccine-pseudoscience-about-hpv-vaccination-gayle-delong/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dumbcritic said:

 

 
n/a
Abstract Title:

A link between human papilloma virus vaccination and primary ovarian insufficiency: current analysis.

Abstract Source:

 

Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Aug ;27(4):265-70. PMID: 26125978

 

Abstract Author(s):

Noah Gruber, Yehuda Shoenfeld

Article Affiliation:

Noah Gruber

Abstract:

 

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The cause of primary ovarian insufficiency (POI) is multifactorial. Known causes include external factors such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, infections that lead to a permanent insult to the ovary, autoimmune conditions, and genetic causes. An association between the quadrivalent antihuman papilloma vaccine (HPV4) and POI was recently suggested.

RECENT FINDINGS: An increasing number of cases of POI post-HPV4 are being reported. Possible mechanisms for the suspected effect of HPV on female reproductive function are a toxic effect or an autoimmune response. The trigger could be the vaccine immunogen contents or the adjuvants, the latter are used to increase the immune reaction. The adjuvant in HPV4 contains aluminum. Animal models have shown aluminum exposure to inhibit expression of female reproductive hormones and to induce histologic changes in the ovaries. Specific genetic compositions may be more susceptible to developing an autoinflammatory syndrome after exposure to an environmental factor.

SUMMARY: The mechanisms responsible for POI are not yet fully understood. Although case reports cannot establish causation, awareness of a possible link between HPV4 and POI will help to identify and manage future cases that may arise.

 

Article Published Date : Jul 31, 2015
Study Type : Review

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest David Stevenson
On 4/20/2019 at 7:08 PM, silverback said:

OK, a couple of things there.

 

Firstly, where exactly do you think girls get HPV? Is it entirely possible that boys might just have a role in the transmission of the virus? There is no point only vaccinating half of the source.

 

Secondly, HPV is not just responsible for genital warts and anal cancer in men, or for that matter cervical cancer in women. 

 

Giving the vaccine to boys and girls makes social and financial sense. It has absolutely nothing to do with what you have obviously spent a lot of time imagining the 'elites' do with boys.

 

Next they will say your not allowed to have unprotected sex if you have not had the injection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, David Stevenson said:

 

Next they will say your not allowed to have unprotected sex if you have not had the injection.

 

If the vaccine works then wouldn't any women be protected from contracting HPV in which case why would they be worried about contracting it form a man?

 

maybe some posters here don't have as much faith in the vaccine as they claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its always gonna be a case of the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

 

For the most part, the vaccines appear to do what they say, But, there are always side effects. And it is these side effects that big pharma, governments etc seem to ignore.

 

For big pharma its a money maker. And they are in business to make money, (any company is)

 

Governments are made up of people that are either on the boards of these big pharma or related to someone who is. So its about money there as to lobbying for relevant statutes and acts.

 

 

If it wasn't about the money, then there would be no competition in Big Pharma. they would work as one company, for the benefit of the human populous.

 

 

So, while everyone debates about whether vaccines work or not. and the populous get divided again. Big Pharma make more money, the populous get a game of chance as to the outcome of receiving a vaccine and the cycle continues.

 

Accept to agree that vaccines are needed for some people on this earth. Accept to agree that more has to be done to eradicate illness and disease.

 

Accept to agree that the people making money out of vaccines dont really care whether the vaccine causes a few miseries on the way.

 

Then maybe people can move on to a better resolve with this issue other than 1 contradicting link to another.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/27/2019 at 10:57 AM, Incgonito said:

Accept to agree that vaccines are needed for some people on this earth. Accept to agree that more has to be done to eradicate illness and disease.

 

to establish that you would have to establish that improvements in public health weren't down to things like:

 

-improvements in sewerage removal

-improvements in water cleanliness

-improvements in food and food hygeine

-improvements in housing

-improvements in air quality

 

Because there are graphs that show that these things improved public health BEFORE the vaccine programmes rolled out

 

Imo the best thing you can equip yourself with is a healthy immune system and that's done by reducing stress, ensuring adequate sleep and good nutrition and exercise

Edited by muir
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gardasil’s Fraudulent Research Revealed: There Will Be Legal Consequences, Says Attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 

By Catherine Frompovich

 

Attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Children’s Health Defense’s Chairman and Chief Legal Counsel, finally has “put on the gloves” and is ready to fight Big Pharma’s Merck & Co., Inc. regarding the falsified and fraudulent research they undertook and presented to the CDC/FDA for the licensure of the HPV vaccine Gardasil®.

After reading the transcript of Mr. Kennedy’s video, I could not help but spotlight some of the more apparently shocking facts he and his team uncovered in their exposé of the fraud that apparently took place during Merck’s testing of the Gardasil® vaccine.

Much of the information below is taken from various parts of the video/transcript, which I request readers refer to here. This may read out of context, but it falls together to tell a long story as briefly as possible.

read on here https://www.davidicke.com/article/537199/gardasils-fraudulent-research-revealed-will-legal-consequences-says-attorney-robert-f-kennedy-jr

 

 
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Richard Moskowitz MD On "Anti-Vaxxers"

Richard Moskowitz MDBy Richard Moskowitz, MD

Before responding to the [New York Times] editorial, "How to Inoculate against Anti-Vaxxers" (January 20, 2019), I want to point out that the opposite term, "Pro-vaxxer," is rarely seen or heard, as if belief in the safety and efficacy of vaccines were so universal and such a no-brainer that there would be no need to coin a word to single it out, much less imply that the naysayers might also have a valid point of view.  This subtext is evident throughout the editorial in question, which merely accepts as gospel the authority of the World Health Organization on the subject, as if there were nothing more to be said, other than how to combat those with the temerity to question it.

The obvious corollary is that the epithet "anti-vaxxer" is pejorative, but another less obvious is that it's inaccurate, since most  of the thousands upon thousands of parents who must live with their conviction that their kids were killed or irreversibly damaged by vaccines are not against all vaccines on principle, but simply have questions and doubts about them, want them to be made safer, and above all seek some public recognition of and validation for the truth of their experience, including their right to choose not to continue vaccinating in the future.

As a family doctor with fifty years of experience caring for many such families, I cannot remain silent about the enormous weight of vaccine-related suffering and disability, sufficient to break any heart, that continues unabated, remains largely hidden and unacknowledged, and cries out at the very least for caution, restraint, and simple compassion for the viewpoint of those whose lived experience, whatever may have caused it, is so tragically different from that of everyone else privileged enough to be ignorant of or somehow unmoved by their loss.

When these tragedies do occur, they are almost always dismissed by their doctors, friends, and relatives alike as coincidental or the result of some genetic defect, unfortunate to be sure, but in no way related to the vaccine or vaccines that more or less recently preceded them.  This amounts to saying that these parents are either lying, ignorant, or stupid, and that modern science knows what really happened to their kids better than what they have actually experienced and lived through, and that the science of vaccines is settled beyond any reasonable doubt.

Which brings me to my second reason for writing, namely, to remind your readers that questioning and doubting are at the heart of the scientific endeavor, that science by definition must never be "settled."  The late Richard Feynman of Caltech, a Nobel Laureate in Physics, said it best:

There is no learning without having to pose a question, and a question requires doubt.  Before you begin an experiment, you must not know the answer.  If you already know the answer, there is no need to gather any evidence; and to judge the evidence, you must take all of it, not just the parts you like.  That's a responsibility that scientists feel toward each other, a kind of morality.1

In addition to the tragic experience of so many families, here are a few more equally important reasons put forth by prominent physicians and scientists to cast doubt on the standard orthodoxy that vaccines are uniformly safe and effective:

1)  even the CDC now admits that supposedly vaccine-preventable diseases are being spread primarily by vaccinated individuals;2

2) the small outbreaks now occurring are predominantly in vaccinated individuals;3

3) many vaccines have led to the emergence of new, resistant strains of the same organisms that we vaccinate against, as well as altogether new species in some cases;4

 

4)  children coming down with and recovering from acute febrile illnesses like flu, measles, mumps, rubella, and chickenpox are much less likely to develop chronic autoimmune diseases and cancers later in life;5

5) vaccine safety studies are conducted primarily by the drug industry itself, or by government agencies that are run mainly by past, present, or future executives of the industry, in lieu of the independent regulation and oversight they are supposed to provide;6

6) these studies rarely include unvaccinated subjects as "controls," and typically give other vaccines or toxic chemical adjuvants instead of genuine placebos for comparison;7

7)  adverse reactions are accepted as vaccine-related only if they occur within a few hours or days of the vaccination, thus arbitrarily excluding the chronic dimension entirely from consideration;8

8) the lead investigator has absolute authority to decide whether unsolicited reports of other adverse reactions by the subjects themselves are or are not vaccine-related, based on criteria that are never specified and allowed to remain a trade secret, if indeed they exist at all;9 and accumulated over the patients' lifetime, which means that they are inherent in the vaccination process per se, as well as in this or that particular vaccine;10

10)  many vaccines contain chemical adjuvants and other ingredients known to be neurotoxic, such as aluminum, mercury, and detergents like Polysorbate 80, which when injected are known to cross the blood-brain barrier, accumulate in brain tissue, and have been causally linked to various forms of brain damage;11

11) the CDC admits that over 25% of American children born today suffer from some form of brain damage, yet has never investigated, or even shown much interest in investigating, what percentage of these cases are vaccine-related;12

12) other vaccine ingredients include human and animal cells, DNA, RNA, and proteins, which almost certainly provoke immunological reactions but havenot been studied, or at any rate such studies have never been made public.13

The Helsinki Declaration on the rights of experimental subjects and the Nuremberg Code of human rights, both devised in the wake of Nazi atrocities during World War II, repeatedly emphasize the right of every individual patient or experimental subject to fully-informed consent prior to any medical procedure, with very rare exceptions, such as an imminent public health emergency.14  But routine childhood and adult vaccinations are mandated purely as a matter of policy, to prevent a possible disease in the future that most people would never have acquired, in many cases would recover from if they did, and is actually being spread to a great extent by the vaccination process itself.

Most doctors nevertheless continue to believe what the CDC tells them, that vaccines are uniformly safe and effective, even though the Supreme Court has ruled that they are inherently unsafe, in order to shield them and the industry from legal liability for the injuries that they cause, to which every other industry is subject.  This, I submit, is not science, but scientism, a blind dogmatism and quasi-religious faith that whatever passes for science at the moment is the absolute truth, beyond question or doubt, to which everyone must pledge allegiance, the main result of which is to stifle the critical thinking, questioning, and doubting of seemingly settled truths that real science requires.

For all of these reasons, most parents who must live with the conviction that their kids were killed or maimed by vaccines, like the physicians who care for them, the lawyers who advocate for them, the independent scientists who study the phenomenon, and the journalists who question the official line, all of whom are regularly lumped together and stigmatized as "anti-vaxxers," ask for nothing more radical than the following:  

1) that the best scientists be recruited independently of the drug industry or the government agencies they control to investigate both the individual vaccines and the vaccination process in general, paying particular attention to effectiveness and safety, including their possible contribution to chronic diseases; to their exact mechanism of action; to the role of individual vaccine ingredients: adjuvants, preservatives, disinfectants, detergents, foreign DNA and proteins, contaminant viruses; and to the emergence of resistant strains of the original viruses and bacteria we vaccinate against; and

2) that vaccines simply be made optional for those who want them, after being fully informed of their risks, rather than mandatory.

In conclusion, I am content to repeat what Professor Mary Holland of NYU Law School has observed, that "a sizable number of developed countries in Europe, North America, and Asia that have relaxed such mandates have not only escaped any major health problems as a result, but have recorded consistently lower infant mortality rates and scored better on other standard health measures as well, without cruelly forcing parents to choose between educating their children and refusing to vaccinate them."15 

I am of course well aware that even questioning these mandates places me beyond the pale of what most people sincerely and devoutly believe, backed up by the full weight of opinion from established authorities such as the CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the vast preponderance of the medical community as a whole.  So I can well understand why many parents who conscientiously vaccinate their kids with no hesitation or soul-searching, and doctors who are deeply committed to the scientific worldview, as I am, perhaps roll their eyes at my presuming to question the wisdom of a procedure that has won broad acclaim as among the best that modern medicine has to offer.

Yet the ever-increasing number of parents who honestly believe, whether rightly or wrongly,  that their children have been Vaccines Richard Moskowitzkilled or maimed by vaccines and must live with that existential reality every day of their lives hardly need my arguments to convince them.  That is why I will feel well rewarded if my words, my reasoning, and the commingled sadness, fear, and outrage I have long felt about this subject will help to promote a healthy debate and to elicit more of the rigorous scientific work that still needs to be done.

Richard Moskowitz, M. D.

I am a Family physician, semi-retired, living and working in the Boston area, and the author of Vaccines: a Reappraisal, Skyhorse Publishing, New York, 2017, from which all citations are taken.

Notes.

  1. Moskowitz, op. cit., Dedication, frontispiece.
  2. Ibid., Chapter 2, pp. 22-24, and Chapter 11, pp. 182-184.
  3. Ibid., Chapter 11, pp. 193-194.
  4. Ibid., Chapter 2, pp. 22-24, and Chapter 11, pp. 182-184.
  5. Ibid., Chapter 1, pp. 11-12.
  6. Ibid., Chapter 3, pp. 33, 39-41.
  7. Ibid., pp. 29-31.
  8. Ibid., pp. 31-32, and Chapter 8, pp. 127-129.
  9. Ibid., pp. 32-34.
  10. Ibid., Chapter 9, pp. 147-150.
  11. Ibid., Chapter 10, pp. 161-165 and 172-174.
  12. Ibid., Chapter 6, p. 82.
  13. Ibid., Chapter 3, pp. 37-39.
  14. Ibid., Foreword, p. xi.

https://www.ageofautism.com/2019/01/dr-richard-moskowitz-md-on-anti-vaxxers.html

  1.  
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×