Three Cases of Very Rare Blood Disorder Reported after Gardasil Vaccination..In One Week!

by anon Tue Jun 16, 2015 16:59

Martin, Is it really true that Gardasil is still being pushed? I can't believe it hasn't been stopped given all the adverse effects.

Besides vaccines ideally should be used against diseases that spread easily. HPC is not something that spreads easily as is not a problem in the same way that a dangerous contagious disease is.

by Rational Ecologist. Wed Jun 17, 2015 13:54

There's been a lot of people reporting very high levels of sudden-onset anxiety, following the taking of Gardasil.

by Martin Wed Jun 17, 2015 20:19

Yes it is still being pushed.. not only that, but the doctors passed a motion to have it extended to boys at their national conference in April!

by Chaos terrain Thu Jun 18, 2015 13:12

What the hell is wrong with these doctors that they want to inflict a potentially harmful vaccine on boys now also?. Are we supposed to just accept that some kids will have their health destroyed as being collateral damage all in the name of 'herd immunity'.

by papillion Mon Jun 22, 2015 08:15

HPV, the human papillomavirus is indeed virulent and can cause cancer and other very unpleasant effects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Human_papillomavirus

a working treatment with minimal side effects for such a virus is welcome.

A corporate profit driven treatment with a high percentage of unpleasant side effects is not.

lets have some actual facts and statistics and let the math speak for itself

by GK Mon Jun 22, 2015 13:33

The HPV4 vaccine, Gardasil, is safe for adolescent girls and young women in routine clinical care, researchers from the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center in Oakland, California, reported in Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.

The vaccine is linked to a slight risk of same-day fainting (syncope) as well as skin infections within two weeks. The researchers said that their findings provide further compelling evidence of the HPV4's general safety for routine use in a clinical care setting for the prevention of cervical cancer as well as other reproductive and genital cancers.

The authors said that the link between fainting and the vaccine was not a surprise, because injections can sometimes have that effect on people, especially younger patients. As far as the risk of infection was concerned, indications suggest that they were mostly cases of injection-site reactions - however, there was not enough data to be able to rule out acute infections. A number of females sought increased clinical care for skin conditions following vaccinations.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/251027.php

A two-year study of nearly 190,000 girls and women, finds that Gardasil, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine made by Merck & Co, does not trigger autoimmune disorders such as lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, type 1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis. The results are published in the Journal of Internal Medicine.

Study lead author Dr Chun Chao, a research scientist at the Kaiser Permanente Department of Research & Evaluation in Pasadena, California, said in a statement released on Friday, that:

"This kind of safety information may help parents with vaccination decisions."

""These findings offer some assurance that among a large and generalizable female population, no safety signal for autoimmune conditions was found following HPV4 vaccination in routine clinical use," said Chao.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/240897.php

The Government's plan to switch its Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccination from "Cervarix" to Gardasil" from Sep. 2012, has been welcomed by the British Dental Health Foundation.

The leading oral health charity believes that the novel vaccine will deliver increased health benefits and prevent genital warts.

In 2010, 75,000 individuals were diagnosed with genital warts, according to the Health Protection Agency. Already, the vaccination program helps save the lives of approximately 400 individuals with cervical cancer each year.

In recent years HPV has been increasingly associated to the increase in mouth cancer cases and neck, genital warts, anal and penile cancers. Last week after following advice from experts in the U.S., the British Dental Health Foundation called for the vaccination program to be extended to boys.

According to members of the 'Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)', the health benefits as well as the cost-benefit examination of the vaccination justify its population-wide extension to boys and young men.

Even though HPV is one of the most prevalent sexually transmitted infections (STIs), awareness of HPV is considerably lower than other common STIs.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/238380.php

A doctor expressed his opinions regarding the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination chosen by the United Kingdom for its immunization program, according to an opinion piece released on October 24, 2008 in BMJ.

A general practitioner and and broadcaster, Phil Hammond claims that even doctors will choose Gardasil for their own children over the government's choice, Cervarix. He agrees with the opinion, citing Peter Greenhouse, a sexual health consultant: "You’d be mad not to protect your daughter against genital warts if you can afford to," and choosing to vaccinate his own children with Gardasil.

He points out that both vaccines show similar efficacy against the strains of HPV that cause most forms of cervical cancer. However, only Gardasil protects from 90% of genital warts. In England, there are 100,000 new cases of genital warts each year, and condoms only reduce transmission up to 50%. As a result, Gardasil vaccination is the superior prophylactic, and most doctors, he writes, would recommend Gardasil over the alternative Cervarix.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/126820.php

by T Mon Jun 22, 2015 23:33

The trouble with these corporate statements such as the above is that when one investigates these, they tend to be full of misrepresentations, deceptive statements and at times even outright mistruths.

These days medical statements have to be almost taken with a pinch of salt because there are so many vested interests, research grants at stake, phony results and much more importantly, studies showing negative effects are quite often blocked under threat of law suits, or withdrawl of research grants, or even self censorship whether by the institutes, researchers or pressure from the journals.

Like the GM industry, where they proclaim their products are safe and tested, the actual reality is that they are in many cases not tested and in the few cases where they are, they are not independent but run by the very same companies that stand to profit. But as I said this is now rampant across the full spectrum of medical and biotech areays.

What is also amazing is the way these so called studies never find any of the adverse effects reported by groups in Ireland such as R.E.G.R.E.T. -A curious scientist or investigator would delve much deeper and want to find out more but instead all their work and reports are just ignored -dismissed even. The ever present and dominating fear of course is the fear to admit they do cause harm and admittance of liability and with that litigation. The whole focus is to avoid any sort of admittance of a problem that would allow for opening of such. This is exactly the strategy the tobacco industry followed successfully for decades.

Another great trick of these studies is to setup them up to examine certain side effects that they know don't occur. It is possible they scour the real live reports of actual side effects reported by doctors and organisations such as REGRET and then they make sure to exclude all these and through third parties arrange for these highly publicised studies that study effects that exclude these. This is the sort of thing that has been done in other fields and the record of corporations which is one of lying, cheating and profiteering often at the cost of the health of lives of people, is a regular practice of large corporate bodies. In other words they will try any and all tactics and it has been shown time and time again that they can't be trusted.

Lastly, it is one thing to have vaccines to prevent highly contagious and dangerous diseases but it is quite another to put so many tens of thousands are risk at permanently damaged health as reported by REGRET and similar bodies in other countries, for the sake of genital warts which every young person is not going to catch anyhow and even the promotors of the vaccines don't suggest there is an plague of them.

One other point I see in lots of statements from corporate entities is the one above: "....A general practitioner and and broadcaster, Phil Hammond claims that even doctors will choose Gardasil for their own children over the government's choice...." -There are two points to note. One is that it does not say doctors actually choose Gardsail. It assumes or suggests they do. The second is that they do get their lackeys to say this because it harks back to the early days of the mad-cow disease epidemic in the UK, when the then agriculture minister John Gummer fed beef to his kids to proof it was safe. Subsequent action where beef was withdrawn and certain cuts of the meat were banned proved otherwise. But the corporate PR industry learnt this lesson and know that people know it, so they now push this aspect as often as they can to proof the safety of whatever it is they are pushing

by T Mon Jun 22, 2015 23:48

In this report you can see how the corporations main objective is to bring the "experts" on-side because they know people trust them more than themselves. They also know the experts have a lot of influence in whether they get to sell this year in, year out to governments and then they can use the fact that one particular government is "convinced" to browbeat other governments into it. For the experts elsewhere, they hear about the prestige and extra research grants they get and while the researchers often do not benefit financially directly, since their work is their life, their ego gets a huge lift as does their notoriety and it is this that the other "experts" see and want too. The PR firms used by corporations know this and have been using this technique for years.

The report itself starts off:

If you dangle a nice juicy carrot in front of many of the world’s leading experts advising the governments on vaccine policies, they will accept the carrot like any other ‘ass’. This has been proven over and over, however, agreeing to use little girls in experiments for the HPV vaccine Gardasil, is stooping about as low as anyone could go. This, however, is exactly what one group of experts from Norway have done. According to the Norwegian newspaper the VG NETT in their report Fikk betalt av vaksineprodusent – VG Nett om Helse og medisin [ http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=1...67501 ] the Norwegian experts received money from Merck and then advised their government on the HPV vaccine Gardasil, which at the time was only in it’s experimental stages, thus putting their own financial gain above the lives of the innocent children of Norway.

The report reads:-

“Four of the experts who advised the government to vaccinate all 12-year-old girls with the HPV vaccine Gardasil have received money for research from the U.S. pharmaceutical giant Merck.

A fifth expert, senior research worker Ellen Nilsen, went directly from the group which gave Health Minister Sylvia Brustad advice, to a position with the company that markets the vaccine in Norway.

There are 13 persons in the expert group.

The newspaper VG revealed that all 12-year-old girls will in fact be research test persons for Merck, if the Norwegian experts get their will.”
....................
The report continues:-

“Clear advice
In April NIPH gave clear advice to the government: HPV vaccination should be implemented in the national vaccination program for girls 11-12 years of age.

The advice was based on the expert group’s assessment.

Professor Ole-Erik Iversen at the women’s clinic at Haukeland Hospital has participated in several clinical trials and has been the national coordinator in Norway for studies of the two vaccines against HPV viruses that currently exist. He has also served on Merck’s steering committee, and has, according to Innovest received 120 000 kroner plus 35 000 kroner in travel expenses for this work since 2000.”................

by GK Tue Jun 23, 2015 13:41

A new study led by researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds that rates of high-grade cervical lesions among young women in the US fell dramatically between 2008 and 2012 - a few years after HPV vaccination was introduced in the US.
HPV vaccine
Researchers say the reduction in rates of high-grade cervical lesions among young American women in 2008-12 may be down to a combination of the HPV vaccine and changes in cervical screening guidelines.
While these findings indicate that HPV vaccination has contributed to this reduction, the researchers say it may also be down to changes in cervical screening recommendations that occurred in 2012.

High-grade cervical lesions, or precancerous cervical lesions, are abnormal changes in cervical tissue that may become cancerous. Such lesions do not cause any symptoms, but they can be detected through cervical cancer screening.

Over 50% of high-grade cervical lesions are caused by persistent HPV (human papillomavirus) infection, most commonly HPV types 16 and 18. As such, they can be prevented with HPV vaccination.

The HPV vaccine Gardasil, which protects against HPV types 16 and 18, as well as types 6 and 11 - known to cause genital warts - was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2006. In 2009, another HPV vaccine - Cervarix - was approved to protect against HPV types 16 and 18.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), girls aged 11 and 12 are recommended to receive HPV vaccination in three doses, as are girls and women aged 13-26 who have not already been vaccinated.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/295682.php

by Mike Novack Sun Jun 28, 2015 22:19

I think at least SOME of the problem is with the terms as usually used.

When the proponents of a vaccine say "safe" they do NOT mean safe in absolute terms. They do NOT mean that there is zero risk involved with use of the vaccine.

They mean only that the vaccine is much safer than not taking the vaccine, that the risks incurred by taking the vaccine are much less than the risks of not taking the vaccine, thereby having a probability of contracting the disease and suffering those consequences.

It is also VERY important to remember that those probabilities are the practical probabilities, not the theoretical probabilities of unrealistic assumptions. Thus in a case like this (an STD) CANNOT argue that the risk of the disease can be avoided by abstaining from sex, remaining virgin till marriage and then exclusively monogamous, etc.

Suppose we vaccinate a million young people and ten die from complications of the vaccine.
Suppose we don't vaccinate and ten thousand die of the cancer caused by the virus the vaccine would prevent.

WHICH of these two is the riskier? (or conversely, which the safe policy?)

by T Mon Jun 29, 2015 18:02

The vaccine industry would like to pretend that the risks you outline are the only ones and if that were the case then it is quite acceptable, because clearly in terms of the greater good, the risk and impact on health is lowered.

However, these are not the only risks. One should also beware that in the criticism of vaccines, it runs the full gauntlet from those who say they are safe and work to those who say they are unsafe and don't work. My position is that it is quite hard to know what is going on, but if we start from the position that the "great" vaccines of the early years did work and massively reduced epidemics and deaths of various kinds then they have worked. And lets assume this to be the case. In prior decades of the 1960s and 1970s, I guess which corresponds to the later post-war years but where science was still promising great advances and future possibilities, at this time the miracle of vaccines was still riding high. Consider then that the companies, scientists and officials of the manufacturers of these vaccines would have been held up on a pedestal and thought of as saviours. We know that anyone group put in such a position, quickly take advantage of it and often betray that trust.

In the manufacture of vaccines, quality control is very important to keep contaminants out and careful control of various chemical. We know that batches can vary and be contaminated. As I recall in the early years, side effects would often be associated with certain batches and there had been numerous out of court settlements and tentative admissions of these types of problems. It is clear that these new high priests of society did not like to have their reputations tarnished and also became lazy and arrogant and that the profit motive and bottom line become central. Thus it is my belief as the years went by they got worse and because they have successfully warded off any major negative press, it allowed bad practices to continue and damage to be compounded.

A typical response in the early years when questions were asked why mercury was used in some of the vaccines was to invite ridicule and contempt and considerable effort was made to tarnish those who dared challenge these almighties. Yet it was shown to be unsafe and was removed in those countries where there was some semblance of democracy.

It would seem to me that in pursuit of continuing "growth", market and ultimately profit, these companies have pushed vaccines into areas where the underlying disease being attacked was less contagious and deadly. It is also plainly evident that like the rest of capitalism in this neo liberal era, there is utter contempt for any sort of oversight, regulation or even safety. If we are to delve further into some of the literature against vaccines it would seem it has run full course. This in itself leads one to reconsider the whole industry from its inception to see how effective it really has been and how much was blind hope and then coverup because nobody wanted to dampen expectations that were running sky high.

In many ways we see the same thing with other industry, lots of blind simplistic reductionist claims and hopes only to be dashed later by the real complexity of life itself. The gene therapy industry springs to mind soon after the human genome was decoded with wild claims, an explosion of experimental trials all claiming incredible success and no downsides. That bubble soon burst after it eventually came to light that indeed in some of the trials there was deaths and then a re-examination of previously positive trials showed them to be flawed or dubious or both. The same goes for GM crops but considering the corporate state only viewed genes not as something important to life but simply as tools to increase pesticide sales and control the seed supply of the some of the most important food crops, it is not surprising that ran into problems too.