PDA

View Full Version : mandatory HPV vaccine



Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 04:03 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/02/02/tx.cervical.cancer.ap/index.html

HPV is the cause of 70% of all cerical cancer...also contribute to most cases of genital warts.

I cant post in the womens forums....however I do have a great interest in the opinions of this.

I have personally spoken with very very high ups in both Merck and Kline(the company that made this product) So they have shed some light on what their plan is as well as the governments.They came to speak to the military ,because no matter what the nation does....the military is going to make it mandatory.


opinions please

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 04:06 PM
don't sleep around you won't have a problem....right?

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 04:09 PM
well as easy as that sounds.....the age at which girls are having sex gets lower every year

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 04:12 PM
ok well instead of enabeling them further by giving them one less thing to be afraid about.... how about instead scaring them about the dangers of sleeping with multiple partners and std's and teach abstinence?

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 04:13 PM
haha yeah thats my only fear is that with one less thing to worry about they will just have more sex

I am definetly in favor of a very strict very photographic STD class lol

karenoka27
Feb 7th 2007, 04:15 PM
I agree, but unfortunately, that won't happen. Everything is so out of control...I think the govenment is finding a new way of control. Give everyone the shot and let them do what they want...for now.
What's in the shot anyway? How do we really know?

Has anyone ever read "This Perfect Day" by Ira Levin? Very interesting.....

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 04:18 PM
Well the same could be said for just about any shot you get......whats in it? how do we know for sure? what are the side effects?

I do know that it has been extremely succesful in all human testing.With minor minor complications i.e. fever,soreness, the side effects from 9 out of 10 vaccines you will ever get in your life.

xSTEADFASTx
Feb 7th 2007, 05:13 PM
it'll be like hiv and another strain will come out of it; nothing like the government giving the flag for people to just ....not care and continue to abuse one another.

lbeaty1981
Feb 7th 2007, 05:26 PM
I personally think a mandatory vaccine for this would be a good idea. There are still plenty of other STD's out there, so I am doubtful that being vaccinated against one will cause girls to go out and have unprotected s*x. Then again, I've noticed that teenagers aren't the most rational creatures in the world. :lol:

Seriously, though, if a simple vaccine can help protect a girl from getting cancer, I see no problem with making it mandatory.

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 05:53 PM
I personally think a mandatory vaccine for this would be a good idea. There are still plenty of other STD's out there, so I am doubtful that being vaccinated against one will cause girls to go out and have unprotected s*x. Then again, I've noticed that teenagers aren't the most rational creatures in the world. :lol:

Seriously, though, if a simple vaccine can help protect a girl from getting cancer, I see no problem with making it mandatory.
i do because there are side effects... they don't have long term research for this yet... do they? who knows what can happen, all they need is to understand that premarital sex is just WRONG. just because something might now happen does not mean i would sit by and let the next best thing happen. why should i bend for something that Christ will not?

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 05:55 PM
they have been doing extensive researchand this vaccine has been approved

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 06:11 PM
they have been doing extensive researchand this vaccine has been approved
i know they do research... but it's never enough. there have been plenty of drugs that have be recalled.... i don't know any off the top of my head but i could certainly call my parents and they could give me a list.

Vickilynn
Feb 7th 2007, 06:13 PM
Shalom,

As the mother of 5 children I must we will refuse to have our children vaccinated because the government thinks we should. We as parents have the right and the responsibility to research every vaccine and consider whether our children need to get it.

In our state, we can opt out of vaccines by filing a Religious Waiver. Many parents here have done that and thus cannot be forced into vaccinating our children.

My thinking is that we will not vaccinate our girls with this shot because we teach them that pre-marital sex is wrong. We cannot, in good conscience, then enable them to engage in it.

When they get married, if they wish to take the shot, as adults, that is their decision. But as parents, we will not do this to them.

Ninna
Feb 7th 2007, 06:16 PM
I heard on the news last night that the governor of Texas mandated the vaccine to girls in the 6th grade, I believe. I will try to find the link......

http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=6048095

mheat923
Feb 7th 2007, 06:39 PM
THis reminds m of the chicken pox vaccine..the one I didn't want my children to have because well there hadn't been enough research... and then it was made mandatory and so far 2 of my 3 children still got chicken pox after being vaccinated..

now back to the HPV topic, just because one gets vaccinated does not advocate premarital sex.. I have thought about this and a girl can be pure to her wedding night but that dont mean her husband is nor will it always stay that way ....(people are sinners )and well if this vaccine can keep someone from going through what my cousin has gone through then maybe its worth it. Shoot you dont have to tell your child the vaccine is to prevent an STD.....like they care all they know is a shot is coming and they dont like it;)

Glinda
Feb 7th 2007, 06:45 PM
they have been doing extensive researchand this vaccine has been approved

Being approved and being safe can be two entirely different things. There is money behind getting things approved. We also have the remember that these are the same yahoos who recommended that women have HRT. That ended up being very bad advice.

I am against this vaccination being mandatory.

lbeaty1981
Feb 7th 2007, 07:04 PM
I heard on the news last night that the governor of Texas mandated the vaccine to girls in the 6th grade, I believe. I will try to find the link......

http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=6048095

He hasn't mandated it yet, but he's pushing to have it approved. As much as it kills me to admit it, I actually agree with Rick Perry on this one. Despite how well children are raised, the fact remains that some will engage in pre-marital s*x, and not all will use condoms. The way the mandate is stated (at least in Texas), there will be a process that parents can go through if they don't want their children vaccinated.

Personally, I'm glad my parents had me vaccinated when I was young. The vaccines protected me from a wide range of diseases, and neither I nor anyone I know have ever had an adverse reaction to one. Obviously, some people will have reactions, but in most cases they are minor, and still better than the disease they were meant to protect from.

Jesusinmyheart
Feb 7th 2007, 07:14 PM
I guess personally i'd feel that if my children went against the word of God, then they brought it upon themselves. I Feel if God has it in His heart to prevent anything from happening, then it will not happen, regardless of what.

On the other hand i would not like to see my children suffer from something preventable, as it is true that my children's future husband could be a scum in that aspect......

Hard to make a good call, but those are my thoughts, and based on one fact:

My first ex obviously cheated on me, as he developped genital warts, and him and i did have physical relations during that time, and we did not use "jackets"

He had to have his removed, and they found none on me, nor have they ever found any on me. So i believe it's possible he had the HPV back then, but i did not get it.
This is an act of God.....

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 07:19 PM
let's put it this way..... until the time comes that i'm getting married i see no need to get it. if my husband has not remained pure until marriage... i'll cross that road when it comes..... but mandatory.... just don't see it as a good thing at all. it's a jump on the bandwagon at this point. another health fad quick fix for something that can be avoided simply by not having sex.

SethElijah
Feb 7th 2007, 07:31 PM
I got HPV after I was married and now I will carry it forever, always have abnormal paps come back and always have to check for cancer. I do not agree that it should be mandatory, however. I have researched this shot for myself and my sister who had the same issue. From what I understand it will only work if you dont already have HPV, and if you have not begun the monthly cycle. I personally would do a thorough investigation and then, if all was well, would have it given to my child.

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 07:42 PM
I got HPV after I was married and now I will carry it forever, always have abnormal paps come back and always have to check for cancer. I do not agree that it should be mandatory, however. I have researched this shot for myself and my sister who had the same issue. From what I understand it will only work if you dont already have HPV, and if you have not begun the monthly cycle. I personally would do a thorough investigation and then, if all was well, would have it given to my child.


You are 100% correct that is why they are targeting young girls that they believe have not come in contact with HPV.

beckisted2004
Feb 7th 2007, 08:10 PM
now back to the HPV topic, just because one gets vaccinated does not advocate premarital sex.. I have thought about this and a girl can be pure to her wedding night but that dont mean her husband is nor will it always stay that way ....(people are sinners )and well if this vaccine can keep someone from going through what my cousin has gone through then maybe its worth it. Shoot you dont have to tell your child the vaccine is to prevent an STD.....like they care all they know is a shot is coming and they dont like it;)

I agree. I don't think the vaccine advocates premarital sex at all. If there's a way to save people from unnecessary suffering, like your cousin, I think it's worth it.

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 08:11 PM
I agree. I don't think the vaccine advocates premarital sex at all. If there's a way to save people from unnecessary suffering, like your cousin, I think it's worth it.
i still don't see the need to get it so young

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 08:13 PM
looks to me that the biggest complaint is that it will be mandatory.......but a lot of vaccines started out the same way MMR/polio/TD/Small Pox (which btw has more side effects than anything I have ever experienced.....it was not a fun shot)/Yellow fever/Varicella


i think making it mandatory will be a great thing.

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 08:14 PM
i still don't see the need to get it so young
The need to get it so young is that once your exposed to it...it can never be cured.There are over 55 strains of HPV and something like 7 out of every 10 girls have been exposed to atleast one strain.

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 08:14 PM
looks to me that the biggest complaint is that it will be mandatory.......but a lot of vaccines started out the same way MMR/polio/TD/Small Pox (which btw has more side effects than anything I have ever experienced.....it was not a fun shot)/Yellow fever/Varicella


i think making it mandatory will be a great thing.
why? i'm missing the point i think.

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 08:15 PM
The need to get it so young is that once your exposed to it...it can never be cured.There are over 55 strains of HPV and something like 7 out of every 10 girls have been exposed to atleast one strain.
yes but how are they being exposed?

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 08:15 PM
why? i'm missing the point i think.

The vaccine will stop the spread of an std that causes cancer.

Would you take a vaccine that prevented Aids?

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 08:16 PM
yes but how are they being exposed?

Through sex ofcourse ,but remember not everyone out there has the same convictions as you.

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 08:18 PM
Through sex ofcourse ,but remember not everyone out there has the same convictions as you.
no but point being... this is not stopping the underlying cause and by making it mandatory right now.... before it has even been tested for a period of time like it should be.... it's just silly. also girls will have one less thing to fear... and boys will have one less thing to think of their future wives contracting. since they don't have the same convictions as me.... they will view this as an opportunity to dodge a bullet. i still don't see it as a good idea.

mheat923
Feb 7th 2007, 08:20 PM
in my scernio where you dont know what your future spouse has done if he aint honest then boom your exposed and its to late........you cant get it after the fact it has to be done before

and actually most Doctors wont do it on a child less then 12 even though commercials say younger ages....

its really no differnt then a young girl have problems requiring her to go on birth cntrol ..that dont mean she has to run out and have relations just becaus she is on a preventative

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 08:23 PM
in my scernio where you dont know what your future spouse has done if he aint honest then boom your exposed and its to late........you cant get it after the fact it has to be done before

and actually most Doctors wont do it on a child less then 12 even though commercials say younger ages....

its really no differnt then a young girl have problems requiring her to go on birth cntrol ..that dont mean she has to run out and have relations just becaus she is on a preventative
no but if a girl is having sex and wants to be protected then she can be responsible and go to her parents about it.

and if a girl is getting married and wants to be safe she can get it then. but making it mandatory is just silly.

mheat923
Feb 7th 2007, 08:23 PM
no but point being... this is not stopping the underlying cause and by making it mandatory right now.... before it has even been tested for a period of time like it should be.... it's just silly. a

They have done this with evrey vaccine we have on the market today..............


I honestly did not want my kids to have the chicken pox vaccine but guess what they had to hav it if I wanted them to go to school:rolleyes:

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 08:24 PM
so okay you do understand you will never ever ever ever ever stop premarital sex right?

and to do a full length study is going to take 30-40 years.....they have done tests and found that it immunizes against HPV.It is a fact and cannot be debated.

To say that it will give them a new reason to have sex is wrong I am sorry.....thats like saying hospitals/clinics should not give out free condoms because it advocates sex....it doesnt medicine is here to prevent the spread of diseases not to stop sex completely.That is impossible.

So now that that is out of the way dont you think with the rise in pre marital sex that since we have come up with a way to stop the spread of the disease it might be a bit useful to those who do not have the same convictions as a Christian?

lbeaty1981
Feb 7th 2007, 08:25 PM
i still don't see the need to get it so young

Growing up, I knew a girl who was pregnant at 13 years old, and a couple others who were s*xually active by the time they were 14 or 15. Like it or not, some kids start having s*x at a very young age. Like Doc said, once the disease is contracted, there is no cure. The idea of vaccinating girls at the age of 12 is to get them before they start having s*x at all.

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 08:28 PM
If a teen thinks they are responsible enough to be having sex then they can go and get it themselves. making it mandatory isn't the way to go though.

i see the benefits..... as i have said..... but i still do not see how making it mandatory helps FIGHT premarital sex. because letting it go without fighting it is giving up.

it's there for people to get if they want it. that is a PERSONAL decision THEY can make.

mheat923
Feb 7th 2007, 08:29 PM
no but if a girl is having sex and wants to be protected then she can be responsible and go to her parents about it.

.


not everyone has parents they can talk to....
and if they already did it.. its too late for the vaccine

getting a vaccine dont mean you go out and do it no more then being put on birth control for female problems means you go out and do it

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 08:29 PM
Growing up, I knew a girl who was pregnant at 13 years old, and a couple others who were s*xually active by the time they were 14 or 15. Like it or not, some kids start having s*x at a very young age. Like Doc said, once the disease is contracted, there is no cure. The idea of vaccinating girls at the age of 12 is to get them before they start having s*x at all.
how about get them with information... showing them what will happen if they start having sex that young. despite the fact that there are kids having sex that young does not mean it is the majority.

spread the Word.... spread the facts.... and spread understanding about what they are getting themselves into.

lbeaty1981
Feb 7th 2007, 08:31 PM
no but if a girl is having sex and wants to be protected then she can be responsible and go to her parents about it.


I know very few girls in high school who would have talked with their parents about birth control of any type. Most would go to great lengths to cover up the fact that they were having s*x from their parents, since they knew they would not approve. As most parents on here can vouch, teenagers in general aren't the most logical and responsible creatures on the planet.

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 08:32 PM
If a teen thinks they are responsible enough to be having sex then they can go and get it themselves. making it mandatory isn't the way to go though.

i see the benefits..... as i have said..... but i still do not see how making it mandatory helps FIGHT premarital sex. because letting it go without fighting it is giving up.

it's there for people to get if they want it. that is a PERSONAL decision THEY can make.


it is not meant to fight pre marital sex.....like i said you will never ever stop premarital sex

half of all Christians have become saved when they were past the age of 20...I gurantee you most of those have even had pre marital sex...I know I did.

Pre marital sex will exist as long as the world goes round

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 08:32 PM
not everyone has parents they can talk to....
and if they already did it.. its too late for the vaccine

getting a vaccine dont mean you go out and do it no more then being put on birth control for female problems means you go out and do it
no not everyone does...

but i still don't agree with making it mandatory.

lbeaty1981
Feb 7th 2007, 08:33 PM
how about get them with information... showing them what will happen if they start having sex that young. despite the fact that there are kids having sex that young does not mean it is the majority.

spread the Word.... spread the facts.... and spread understanding about what they are getting themselves into.

We had s*x education classes and lectures, starting in about the 7th or 8th grade. S*xually transmitted diseases and pregnancy were taught as risks of s*x, and a strong emphasis was always placed on abstinance until marriage. Unfortunately, not everybody listens.

moonglow
Feb 7th 2007, 08:39 PM
They have done this with evrey vaccine we have on the market today..............


I honestly did not want my kids to have the chicken pox vaccine but guess what they had to hav it if I wanted them to go to school:rolleyes:

Well no you can opted out on ANY vaccination...including that one and this one...they already said that on the news, parents can decline based on moral or religious or medical reasons so its not going to be that hard to avoid getting it...second I agree with what they also said...getting this shot isn't going to mean to the girl they will want to go out and have sex (or that its ok too) anymore then getting a tenus shot is going to make someone want to step on a nail...

The fact IS young girls ARE raped and sexually abused everyday! At that point its out of their hands and has nothing to do with what they are taught or not taught about sex before marriage. I read some truly heartbreaking online notes from people with herpes and many of them got it through being raped (including date rape) or sexual abuse....or on the older ones their spouse had an affair they didn't know about and brought the STD home! I saw a show once where this happened to this lady and she was dying of AIDS...all because her husband had an affair...:cry:

Now image this...you don't get it for yourself or your child...you teach them to wait until marriage and they are, but the unthinkable happens, she is raped or sexually abused...and they get this STD and it turns into cancer ...and she end up having major surgery to stop the spread of the cancer and then has no chance of having her own children when she gets married (that is if she lives)...now how are you going to feel about that? How many nights will you lay awake thinking I should have had them get that shot? Its not her fault...she was waiting...you brought her up right...but someone hurt her and now her whole life is ruined when the shot could have saved her...

A girl/woman can heal from rape and go on to live a happy life...they can't heal from death caused by the cancer, caused by the STD.

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 08:40 PM
what if we made it mandatory to not have sex you would be all for it then right?

mheat923
Feb 7th 2007, 08:41 PM
Well if I was young enough to get the vaccine I would get even though I am married I would rather be safe then sorry.

beckisted2004
Feb 7th 2007, 08:42 PM
Well if I was young enough to get the vaccine I would get even though I am married I would rather be safe then sorry.

Yup. Better safe than sorry.

mheat923
Feb 7th 2007, 08:43 PM
Well no you can opted out on ANY vaccination...including that one and this one...they already said that on the news, parents can decline based on moral or religious or medical reasons so its not going to be that hard to avoid getting it....

You are right but none of my rasoning was legitmatly falling under those categris and I wasn't ging to lie to keep it from happening:D

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 08:45 PM
what if we made it mandatory to not have sex you would be all for it then right?
that absolutely has nothing to do with what i've been saying and is just ridiculous to even say

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 08:47 PM
you want pre marital sex to go away......you dont want a shot that can eradicate a cancer because it is mandatory......right?

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 08:53 PM
you want pre marital sex to go away......you dont want a shot that can eradicate a cancer because it is mandatory......right?
that's just a really bad argument. i see no point in you making it except to make me seem like a nut.

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 08:55 PM
no not at all I am sorry if I am coing across that way.....I just want to see the problem you have with it being mandatory

moonglow
Feb 7th 2007, 09:03 PM
You are right but none of my rasoning was legitmatly falling under those categris and I wasn't ging to lie to keep it from happening:D

I opted Nate for religious reason out on most of those shots because I feel they are not safe...if he was a girl I would have to pray long and hard on this one as to whether its safe or not....the longest they have studied the long term affects is only five years. Already children who got the chickenpox shots are now getting shringles instead because in not getting sick with the chickenpox their immune system was not able to build up against getting shringles which is the same type of virus. (I prayed about this and felt many of the shots were either not needed or too risky and felt the Lord didn't want me putting these things in his body...he has enough problems as it is)

http://www.vaccinetruth.org/shingles.htm

Data Reveals Threat of Shingles Epidemic From Vaccine Use; Health Officials
Threaten Legal Action Against Researcher
Wednesday October 1, 7:40 am ET


PEARBLOSSOM, Calif., Oct. 1 /PRNewswire/ -- Three different analyses of reported cases of shingles and chickenpox were published today in the October 2003 issue of Vaccine and suggest the threat of a shingles epidemic in the US due to mass vaccination with varicella (chickenpox) vaccine. Data collected under the CDC-funded Varicella Active Surveillance Project (VASP) of the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services Acute Communicable Disease Control Unit revealed that when chickenpox disease was significantly reduced in a population, there was an unexpectedly high number of shingles cases among unvaccinated children with a previous history of chickenpox. Shingles is usually mild in children and can be severe in adults. Complications from shingles, which is caused by the reactivation of the chickenpox virus that lies dormant in the body, result in about three times the number of hospitalizations and five times the number of deaths as those from chickenpox disease.

The analyses were authored by Gary Goldman, Ph.D., a former research analyst with the VASP, using capture-recapture methods. Goldman worked from 1995 through late 2002 at one of three projects in the nation assigned to actively study the effects of chickenpox vaccine and received reports from three hundred different public and private schools, daycares, and healthcare facilities. He observed that because the vaccine is eliminating chickenpox disease, children and adults no longer receive the natural boost to their immune systems that they received from periodic exposures to the disease. Due to the dramatic decline in chickenpox, children are now experiencing a higher incidence of shingles and Goldman predicts that a large-scale increase in shingles incidence will soon become manifest among adults -- a group more susceptible to serious complications.

Vaccine manufacturers plan to license a booster "shingles" vaccine to substitute for the boosting that naturally occurred when chickenpox disease was previously circulating in the population. "This will likely lead to endless disease-and-cure cycles," says Goldman. "Varicella vaccination would have been less problematic if all children had the opportunity to gain natural immunity and only those still susceptible at twelve years old were vaccinated."(read the rest at the link)

At any rate, the shots 'sound' good...but I would have to do the research on them then pray hard about it to decide whether Nate (if he was a girl) should get it or not...do the risk outweight what could happen? In our church in one month we had several prayer requests for young women that had this fourm of cancer...now not all is caused by the STD but alot of them are. They young girls were only in their early 20's! :(

God bless

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 09:04 PM
no not at all I am sorry if I am coing across that way.....I just want to see the problem you have with it being mandatory
because it is not something that i can catch just by being around someone. if a parent wants to protect their child in case of rape then that is their choice... and a teen can always go to a doctor themselves. they are not completely cut off from this if it is not mandatory.


the fact still remains that there is much unknown about this vaccine. it should be a personal decision until the government can promise no big neg side effects that may occur down the road.

moonglow
Feb 7th 2007, 09:05 PM
no not at all I am sorry if I am coing across that way.....I just want to see the problem you have with it being mandatory

well like they said, parents can get out of it based on pretty much any reason they want too....so the word 'mandatory' is really pretty lose here actually...

moonglow
Feb 7th 2007, 09:13 PM
because it is not something that i can catch just by being around someone. if a parent wants to protect their child in case of rape then that is their choice... and a teen can always go to a doctor themselves. they are not completely cut off from this if it is not mandatory.


the fact still remains that there is much unknown about this vaccine. it should be a personal decision until the government can promise no big neg side effects that may occur down the road.

I doubt a teenager could just do this themselves though...first they would have to be old enough to drive...papers would have to be signed by the parents oking it, plus insurance, etc have to be submitted.

I think it should be up to the parents too! Remember when Bush order the mantory vaccincation of small pox to the military and first responders? Major side effects and some people died...it was so bad, they finally had to call it all off...and orginally he wanted everyone to get the vaccination in case of a terroist attacking us with this virus. All he did was prove the orginal vaccination were worthless and actually caused more problems...:(

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 09:15 PM
I doubt a teenager could just do this themselves though...first they would have to be old enough to drive...papers would have to be signed by the parents oking it, plus insurance, etc have to be submitted.

I think it should be up to the parents too! Remember when Bush order the mantory vaccincation of small pox to the military and first responders? Major side effects and some people died...it was so bad, they finally had to call it all off...and orginally he wanted everyone to get the vaccination in case of a terroist attacking us with this virus. All he did was prove the orginal vaccination were worthless and actually caused more problems...:(
no i'm saying a teenager can bring it up to their doctor... the doctor is not going to sit and tell the parents it's a bad idea. and it can be a healthy discussion for the family to have regarding the teen's health and choices she is going to make.

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 09:17 PM
I doubt a teenager could just do this themselves though...first they would have to be old enough to drive...papers would have to be signed by the parents oking it, plus insurance, etc have to be submitted.

I think it should be up to the parents too! Remember when Bush order the mantory vaccincation of small pox to the military and first responders? Major side effects and some people died...it was so bad, they finally had to call it all off...and orginally he wanted everyone to get the vaccination in case of a terroist attacking us with this virus. All he did was prove the orginal vaccination were worthless and actually caused more problems...:(

not to get all technical ,but that was the anthrax vaccine....which has been deemed by the CDC and FDA safe....it will be required in the military again very very soon.

Smallpox is still mandatory

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 09:19 PM
and not to get to far off topic the biggest reason it was discontinued was because they thought it only immunized the member from 1 of the 3 ways to get anthrax.

They found that not to be true and they did more research so it will be mandatory again.Yay me =( I hate giving anthrax shots

Jesusinmyheart
Feb 7th 2007, 09:44 PM
You know, i still feel that it being mandatory is wrong also, just for the fact that they seem to tkae the choice out of your hands. Not too many people know they can opt out of these shots. Some would not question it since it says mandatory.

IMO i think it would be so much more efficient to inform the general public, and tell them to chose between the cancer it can cause and the shot.

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 09:46 PM
see if they would have given the option for people to get the small pox shot back in the day it would have been much much harder to eradicate it.

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 10:15 PM
see if they would have given the option for people to get the small pox shot back in the day it would have been much much harder to eradicate it.
well they did give the option for polio and see what happened there.... the public learned... some suffered greatly, yes... but that is still a different issue than this.

the only thing that even convinced me i want it is the rape factor

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 10:17 PM
not a different issue at all.....some will continue to get the cancer some wont.It will sadden me to see that it will still spread when it can be stopped

moonglow
Feb 7th 2007, 10:19 PM
not to get all technical ,but that was the anthrax vaccine....which has been deemed by the CDC and FDA safe....it will be required in the military again very very soon.

Smallpox is still mandatory

Nope it was the small pox..
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30079

BIOLOGICAL WAR-FEAR
Bush smallpox plan
takes a shot
Fear over risk factors, liability has even Health chief declining vaccine

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 19, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Diana Lynne
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

Days after President Bush outlined his plan to take a pre-emptive strike against the possibility that terrorists would use smallpox as their next weapon of choice against Americans, emergency medical providers have refused to participate amid the risk of side effects and the threat of liability issues.

"At this point in time, the risk of the vaccine far outweighs the benefit of getting the vaccine," Dr. Carlos del Rio of Emory University told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Del Rio backs the decision by his staff of emergency workers at Grady Memorial Hospital not to roll up their sleeves.

Unions representing healthcare workers also condemn the plan.

Smallpox is a deadly but preventable disease. Most Americans who are 34 or older had a smallpox vaccination when they were children. By 1972, the risk of smallpox was so remote that routine vaccinations were discontinued in the United States.

In 1980, the World Health Organization declared smallpox had been completely eradicated. Since then, there have been no natural cases of the disease anywhere in the world.

"We know, however, that the smallpox virus still exists in laboratories. And we believe that regimes hostile to the United States may possess this dangerous virus," Bush announced last week, but stressed the government has no information on any imminent threat.

The president detailed a two-tiered strategy which starts with mandatory vaccinations for 510,000 military personnel who serve in "high-risk parts of the world." Next in line would be 440,000 civilian health workers in hospital emergency rooms and then the first responders – police, firefighters and EMTs. The administration recommends at least half of 10 million first responders be vaccinated.


The smallpox plan for troops comes as the government still weathers controversy over its anthrax inoculation. As WorldNetDaily reported, hundreds of military personnel refused that mandatory vaccine. This after, some 100,000 Persian Gulf War veterans got sick with a still-unexplained syndrome many suspect has to do with vaccines they were given and the possible exposure to chemical or biological weapons.



here is a whole lists of news stories on it: http://www.google.com/search?q=smallpox++Bush&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&start=20&sa=N
Smallpox vaccination plan 'ceased'
By Anita Manning, USA TODAY
Less than a year after President Bush announced a smallpox vaccination plan to protect Americans in the event of a terrorist attack, a fraction of the expected number of health workers have been immunized and the much ballyhooed program is dead in the water.
Federal health officials say they're not ready to declare the program dead, but they readily acknowledge it's ailing.

"The fact is, it's ceased," says Ray Strikas of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "not that anyone's issued an edict to say stop."

The smallpox vaccination program was a central part of the Bush administration's plan to protect the nation against bioterrorist threats in the wake of 9/11.

Earlier in the week, he told USA TODAY that the pace of new vaccinations dropped dramatically in April after well-publicized reports of unexpected heart problems associated with the vaccine. At the peak, hundreds of health workers were vaccinated. Now, it's down to "a few per week."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/12/eveningnews/main553449.shtml

(CBS) Three months into the smallpox inoculation campaign, sources say the government is doing an about-face and will let states stop administering the high-risk vaccine, if they choose, reports CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson.

That's a sharp contrast to the original rush to vaccinate a half-million health care workers as a frontline defense against a possible bio-terror attack. So far, only 35,000 of the targeted workers have been inoculated.

Dr. Brian Strom of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine heads the independent advisory committee that urged the government to slow – or stop – its program.

"This is a toxic vaccine. We should only use it in people who need it," says Strom. "And we need a few weeks or months to just step back and say let's replan the plans to see how many people need to get the vaccine before we continue on with it."

The turnaround comes amid serious and unexpected adverse events in the first people to get the shots.

An aggressive government surveillance program set up to detect any dangerous trends recently uncovered one: 11 cases of unusual heart inflammation among military troops who got the smallpox vaccine; three civilian deaths are also under investigation.

But CBS News has learned of one high-profile death that hasn't yet been counted – that of NBC Correspondent David Bloom. He died of an apparent blood clot several weeks after getting both the smallpox and anthrax vaccines.

Asked if an individual death that occured within a matter of weeks a smallpox vaccination should have been reported , Strom said, "Yes."

The link between the smallpox vaccines and blood clots like Bloom's isn't widely accepted in the medical community, but has been claimed for years by some researchers. All adverse events are required to be reported so researchers can look for new, dangerous trends and see whether the vaccine may be at fault.

Strom says it would be "a surprise if we did not see new adverse reactions emerge."

Bloom's case may have mistakenly gone uncounted because civilians are being monitored under a civilian system and the military is tracking the troops. But it's unclear who – if anybody – is tracking the hundreds of civilian journalists who embedded with the military during the war with Iraq.

Bloom's case would make four deaths under investigation for a possible link to the smallpox vaccine. Already considered the riskiest of its kind, the smallpox vaccine may be even more dangerous than anyone thought.



God bless

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 10:21 PM
not a different issue at all.....some will continue to get the cancer some wont.It will sadden me to see that it will still spread when it can be stopped
polio was spread a little different than this...same with chicken pox and all those others

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 10:22 PM
weird it has never stopped as long as I have been in

I got mine I have given thousands of small pox vaccines

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 10:23 PM
polio was spread a little different than this...same with chicken pox and all those others

yeah i dont see how the method of it being spread realyy matters in this day and age...I am not trying to come off harshly but you do need to overlook getting people to not have sex.

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 10:29 PM
yeah i dont see how the method of it being spread realyy matters in this day and age...I am not trying to come off harshly but you do need to overlook getting people to not have sex.
first i have said over and over again i know people are going to have sex... so stop bringing that up

second it's not a danger to the community becaue the community is choosing to partake in it. it's not like me standing next to someone is going to be a health hazard with this. THAT is the difference in making it mandatory.

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 10:31 PM
okay but think about this when you have sex when you get married your partner may have a dormant strain that you could get that leads to cancer....then poof you now have cancer! now you either go through a lot of therapy or you die

moonglow
Feb 7th 2007, 10:32 PM
weird it has never stopped as long as I have been in

I got mine I have given thousands of small pox vaccines

it might not have stopped in the miltary...but for the general public it did.

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 10:39 PM
its definetly the worst shot I have ever got

moonglow
Feb 7th 2007, 10:42 PM
first i have said over and over again i know people are going to have sex... so stop bringing that up

second it's not a danger to the community becaue the community is choosing to partake in it. it's not like me standing next to someone is going to be a health hazard with this. THAT is the difference in making it mandatory.

just something to consider when deciding this for yourself...

And for those women reading...married women ARE raped and can be giving this STD...being married does not protect you:

http://www.speakout.org.za/events/stats/stats_Usa.html
- Before you finish reading this, another woman will be raped. - Recent statistics show that rape is prevalent in America, a woman is raped every 2 minutes, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. In 1996, 307,000 women were the victim of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault. [National Crime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1997.]Between 1995 and 1996, more than 670,000 women were the victim of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault. [National Crime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1997.

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 10:47 PM
okay but think about this when you have sex when you get married your partner may have a dormant strain that you could get that leads to cancer....then poof you now have cancer! now you either go through a lot of therapy or you die
ya and i've already said something about people getting married who have remained pure...

but they should not make it mandatory until they know long term effects. you know how much trouble that would cause if this turned out to have some horrible long term effect they couldn't predict? the fact is they don't know everything about it... until they do it should be a personal choice.

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 10:48 PM
well I am glad it wont be....we dont know the effects of using a computer or listening to rap or a billion things

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 10:50 PM
well I am glad it wont be....we dont know the effects of using a computer or listening to rap or a billion things
that has nothing to do with this conversation...

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 10:52 PM
sure it does you just said they dont know about the long term effects.......do they really know the long term effects of anything?

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 10:53 PM
sure it does you just said they dont know about the long term effects.......do they really know the long term effects of anything?
well considering the fact that computers and rap music doesn't have a direct effect on your health has been established pretty well considering they've been in use for awhile.

they know the long term effects of a lot of things, and a lot of drugs have been pulled off the market because of discoveries of that nature.

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 10:56 PM
yes they will always continue to do that.....about 12 years ago they thought white bread gave people cancer....but it doesnt so people learn as they go.

Thats life

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 11:02 PM
yes they will always continue to do that.....about 12 years ago they thought white bread gave people cancer....but it doesnt so people learn as they go.

Thats life
well actually you can't follow health news.... because in my nutrtion class we learned there is a new "discovery" and then a couple months later they figure out they were wrong. it's a hard field to follow.... gotta look for those things that stick for more than a year

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 11:02 PM
your right....and to this day people have complications with the flu vaccine...should we stop it?

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 11:04 PM
your right....and to this day people have complications with the flu vaccine...should we stop it?
when did i ever mention stopping it? i didn't

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 11:05 PM
what you are saying is you have a problem with it because it has no long term studies.

I am saying if 5 out of every 5000 people have a problem.....then what is your case?

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 11:07 PM
what you are saying is you have a problem with it because it has no long term studies.

I am saying if 5 out of every 5000 people have a problem.....then what is your case?
i have a problem with it being mandatoy when it's stopping something that isn't a direct danger to the general public

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 11:10 PM
you do realize it kills thousands of people every year right?

just because it is not airborne doesnt make it any less scary

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 11:12 PM
you do realize it kills thousands of people every year right?

just because it is not airborne doesnt make it any less scary
no it doesn't but it does not require the government to step in when they don't know the long term effects

do you realize i know all the facts and i have two parents who are pharmacists and i know a whole bunch about drugs and heard more stories than you would imagine about different things?

now if this were something that would easily spread from something that someone wasn't voluntarily doing i would be saying something different. but fact is the government should not be taking that risk and possibly putting people in danger of the unknown right now.

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 11:15 PM
no it doesn't but it does not require the government to step in when they don't know the long term effects

do you realize i know all the facts and i have two parents who are pharmacists and i know a whole bunch about drugs and heard more stories than you would imagine about different things?

now if this were something that would easily spread from something that someone wasn't voluntarily doing i would be saying something different. but fact is the government should not be taking that risk and possibly putting people in danger of the unknown right now.

Well for your sake I hope and pray that you never have to experience anything close to the damages it has caused many families

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 11:17 PM
Well for your sake I hope and pray that you never have to experience anything close to the damages it has caused many families
well you don't know my history so stop assuming i'm heartless with this.

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 11:21 PM
I didnt assume that at all I just hope that you never get it.

I say that with respect not vengeful or anything

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 11:23 PM
I didnt assume that at all I just hope that you never get it.

I say that with respect not vengeful or anything
well i can tell you i won't because i'm not taking the chance that i might get raped and get it. i've seen cancer and it tears my heart to pieces... difference is i'm making the choice instead of being told.

Doc
Feb 7th 2007, 11:24 PM
yeah I see that is the big problem with most people....they dont like being told what to do.I guess I can understand that,but being in the military has taken that away from me.

I only do as I am told now hehe

mshake
Feb 7th 2007, 11:49 PM
i do what i'm told a lot... it's not the public being told in general i have a problem with.... it's the possible problems for our government in telling them so. (like they need anymore)

flybaby
Feb 8th 2007, 12:16 AM
I have a big problem with vaccines being mandatory in general....good thing my children and I can opt out.

Here's the thing, I don't think it should be mandatory, but if it comes to that, there are ways to get around it....like I will be doing with my children.

They don't know that with this vaccine that in 20 years our girls won't be sterilized b/c of this so called vaccine....they just don't know...

Doc
Feb 8th 2007, 12:19 AM
I would rather my children not be able to have kids then have to fight cancer

xSTEADFASTx
Feb 8th 2007, 02:14 PM
This is a rather conflicting thing for me really; my feelings say; you play with fire; and you deserve to get burned. On the same hand; this isnt going to stop anyone from having s-x; but could this be some good to young girls that are raped? I honestly don't know; I'd like to believe that they're only wanting to look out for people. Maybe this could be a good step forward to help with the growing problem of people not holding themselves pure. I dont know; but I stand firm on my feelings.

saintsfan0884
Feb 10th 2007, 06:04 AM
i think what really grabs me on this topic is that in our society today, children are vastly learning more off experience than off learning through a book or by word of mouth. I think if its mandatory, then it might prevent that one. but who's to say that that person is wise enough to not partake in activites that would lead to a different std. i think we should wait and see what kind of effects the vaccination has before we make it mandatory

excubitor
Feb 10th 2007, 08:06 AM
Most people here don't know the first clue about the horrors and evils of immunisation. There is no excuse for Christians to live in ignorance. You all have internet access. Do some research. As the Bible says "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" For those of you who are astonished by my statement I will give a tiny insight into this enormous and evil subject.

Let's take Autism as one example. Autism has been repeatedly linked to the Mumps-Measles-Rubella MMR vaccine. You would think commonsense would tell anyone that injecting something laced with mercury would be harmful. The anecdotal evidence for this link is overwhelming. Parents of children who change suddenly after taking the vaccine and are subsequently diagnosed as autistic know absolutely that it was caused by the vaccine. However their cries of despair and daily torment fall on deaf ears and instead endless studies are repeatedly done as shown in this link 1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36703-2004May18.html to show "scientifically" that the MMR vaccine is perfectly safe. All this proves is the extent of corruption in the medical field by powerful men with interests in drug companies. These drug companies make billions of dollars from the vaccine trade to governments and people of the world. These men will lie till the end to maintain their empires. You have to ask; if the mercury caused no harm then why have they been phasing out the use of mercury in vaccines since 1999 in developed nations (and not developing nations)? They won't admit to the harm to infants that has been caused because of the huge damages they would have to pay out. It's far cheaper and easier to put together a bogus scientific study to show that the vaccine was safe.

Most people will reject this because they cannot conceive that men could be so evil as to traffic in the lives of men, women and children for the sake of power and money; and yet tobacco companies have been guilty of this for decades.

People have been indoctrinated into believing that vaccines are the panacea for the prevention of all kinds of disease and are even deluded into thinking that a vaccine for cancer could be developed one day. In fact people are simply gullible victims of massive marketing and propoganda. The drug companies use well worn techniques to develop new markets in the trafficking of vaccines. A new market is currently being developed for vaccine sales for protection against avian bird flu. The process for developing a new market goes like this.

1.Someone dies in Asia (common occurence).
2.They had flu like symptoms (common occurence)
3.They have some birds (common occurence)
4.They test positive for H5N1 virus (I would have no doubt that billions of healthy people also have the H5N1 virus in their system and never become sick)

From these entirely common events the following events will transpire
1. Farmer already gripped in poverty told that his entire flock must be destroyed by men with scary breathing masks on.
2. Neighbouring impoverished farmers flocks in surrounding area must also be destroyed with international TV coverage.
3. Medical Science experts appear on TV to terrify the public with the horrors of the Bird Flu mutating into a human transmitted virus.
4. Global population conditioned to believe that a global pandemic is imminent and that millions will die.
5. Billions of dollars of public money diverted to drug companies and medical labs to research into the H5N1 virus, and to form strategies to confront the pandemic, develop vaccines and stockpile retro-viral drugs
6. Vaccinations of hundreds of millions of panicked people will be forced on world citizens
7. Drug companies will make untold billions of dollars from the people of the world and their governments from the sale of vaccines
8. Hundreds of millions of people already weakened by modern living will become sick from the vaccinations and from the power of suggestion implanted by the media which panics the people into believing ("You will get sick. You will die")
9. Millions of people will die from fear and panic who are already weakened and who would have died of fear or panic or of some other malady anyway. Millions of people who died of all the usual things that people die of will be diagnosed as having died of mutated bird flu because the symptoms of mutated bird flu will be vague and similar to a myriad of other diseases. The death rate will show a brief increase during the crisis followed by a corresponding decrease six months later but will be largely static over time.
10. Drug companies will make untold billions of dollars from the people of the world and their governments in the sale of retro-virals and treatments which will keep people alive (although not healthy). However they must take the drug for the rest of their life to keep the virus at bay.

This little charade has been played out many times in the last hundred years with smallpox, syphilis, polio and a host of other so-called infectious diseases so that now our children grow up being injected with a host of revolting and synthetic substances. This little charade is also currently being played out with the Aids virus.

Most people will probably think that I am mad to say all this. It is difficult to conceive that the medical system and the pharmaceutical system could be so corrupt and evil. However if I may say so. I have done the research and know that what I say is the truth. If anyone doubts me then let them also do the hard yards of research. We are all blessed to have the Internet to learn and research these things. Our fathers had little defence against the priestly all-knowing men in white, the doctors and pharmacists who preyed upon them, but we have no excuse for being ignorant and gullible.

Vaccines are a spectacular market for drug companies. Unlike pharmaceuticals which have to be prescribed for a limited number of people, vaccines are a guaranteed sale to every person in the nation. Sales are as predictable as the birth rate. The drug companies will stop at nothing to protect this market and the consumers slavish trust in vaccines.

To enforce vaccinations is an abomination and reduces men to the status of cows. We must not let ourselves be treated like ignorant and foolish animals, but sadly that is what we are all to like as we sit grazing on our chips with dull eyes staring blankly at the TV while our nation, our society, and our children become the plaything, chattels and cash cows of the NWO and greedy multi-national drug companies.

xSTEADFASTx
Feb 10th 2007, 01:04 PM
Most people here don't know the first clue about the horrors and evils of immunisation. There is no excuse for Christians to live in ignorance. You all have internet access. Do some research. As the Bible says "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" For those of you who are astonished by my statement I will give a tiny insight into this enormous and evil subject.

Let's take Autism as one example. Autism has been repeatedly linked to the Mumps-Measles-Rubella MMR vaccine. You would think commonsense would tell anyone that injecting something laced with mercury would be harmful. The anecdotal evidence for this link is overwhelming. Parents of children who change suddenly after taking the vaccine and are subsequently diagnosed as autistic know absolutely that it was caused by the vaccine. However their cries of despair and daily torment fall on deaf ears and instead endless studies are repeatedly done as shown in this link 1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36703-2004May18.html to show "scientifically" that the MMR vaccine is perfectly safe. All this proves is the extent of corruption in the medical field by powerful men with interests in drug companies. These drug companies make billions of dollars from the vaccine trade to governments and people of the world. These men will lie till the end to maintain their empires. You have to ask; if the mercury caused no harm then why have they been phasing out the use of mercury in vaccines since 1999 in developed nations (and not developing nations)? They won't admit to the harm to infants that has been caused because of the huge damages they would have to pay out. It's far cheaper and easier to put together a bogus scientific study to show that the vaccine was safe.

Most people will reject this because they cannot conceive that men could be so evil as to traffic in the lives of men, women and children for the sake of power and money; and yet tobacco companies have been guilty of this for decades.

People have been indoctrinated into believing that vaccines are the panacea for the prevention of all kinds of disease and are even deluded into thinking that a vaccine for cancer could be developed one day. In fact people are simply gullible victims of massive marketing and propoganda. The drug companies use well worn techniques to develop new markets in the trafficking of vaccines. A new market is currently being developed for vaccine sales for protection against avian bird flu. The process for developing a new market goes like this.

1.Someone dies in Asia (common occurence).
2.They had flu like symptoms (common occurence)
3.They have some birds (common occurence)
4.They test positive for H5N1 virus (I would have no doubt that billions of healthy people also have the H5N1 virus in their system and never become sick)

From these entirely common events the following events will transpire
1. Farmer already gripped in poverty told that his entire flock must be destroyed by men with scary breathing masks on.
2. Neighbouring impoverished farmers flocks in surrounding area must also be destroyed with international TV coverage.
3. Medical Science experts appear on TV to terrify the public with the horrors of the Bird Flu mutating into a human transmitted virus.
4. Global population conditioned to believe that a global pandemic is imminent and that millions will die.
5. Billions of dollars of public money diverted to drug companies and medical labs to research into the H5N1 virus, and to form strategies to confront the pandemic, develop vaccines and stockpile retro-viral drugs
6. Vaccinations of hundreds of millions of panicked people will be forced on world citizens
7. Drug companies will make untold billions of dollars from the people of the world and their governments from the sale of vaccines
8. Hundreds of millions of people already weakened by modern living will become sick from the vaccinations and from the power of suggestion implanted by the media which panics the people into believing ("You will get sick. You will die")
9. Millions of people will die from fear and panic who are already weakened and who would have died of fear or panic or of some other malady anyway. Millions of people who died of all the usual things that people die of will be diagnosed as having died of mutated bird flu because the symptoms of mutated bird flu will be vague and similar to a myriad of other diseases. The death rate will show a brief increase during the crisis followed by a corresponding decrease six months later but will be largely static over time.
10. Drug companies will make untold billions of dollars from the people of the world and their governments in the sale of retro-virals and treatments which will keep people alive (although not healthy). However they must take the drug for the rest of their life to keep the virus at bay.

This little charade has been played out many times in the last hundred years with smallpox, syphilis, polio and a host of other so-called infectious diseases so that now our children grow up being injected with a host of revolting and synthetic substances. This little charade is also currently being played out with the Aids virus.

Most people will probably think that I am mad to say all this. It is difficult to conceive that the medical system and the pharmaceutical system could be so corrupt and evil. However if I may say so. I have done the research and know that what I say is the truth. If anyone doubts me then let them also do the hard yards of research. We are all blessed to have the Internet to learn and research these things. Our fathers had little defence against the priestly all-knowing men in white, the doctors and pharmacists who preyed upon them, but we have no excuse for being ignorant and gullible.

Vaccines are a spectacular market for drug companies. Unlike pharmaceuticals which have to be prescribed for a limited number of people, vaccines are a guaranteed sale to every person in the nation. Sales are as predictable as the birth rate. The drug companies will stop at nothing to protect this market and the consumers slavish trust in vaccines.

To enforce vaccinations is an abomination and reduces men to the status of cows. We must not let ourselves be treated like ignorant and foolish animals, but sadly that is what we are all to like as we sit grazing on our chips with dull eyes staring blankly at the TV while our nation, our society, and our children become the plaything, chattels and cash cows of the NWO and greedy multi-national drug companies.

just another sign of the times...

SammeyDW
Feb 10th 2007, 06:27 PM
just another sign of the times...

:agree: It's :crazy:

harry
Apr 10th 2008, 07:40 AM
i haven't read all the replies on this thread but therer was an interesting programme on bbc radio last night.

worth listening to IMO.

audio online for 7 days.

and if one needed a practical reason to avoid pre-marital s*x (as well as the moral one) - here it is :

...The herpes simplex viruses spread by skin to skin contact. Those infected are most likely to pass the virus on when they have active sores, but spread can sometimes occur when they are apparently symptom-free...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/casenotes

daughter
Apr 10th 2008, 12:26 PM
Even if the vaccine is a hundred percent safe (which I doubt... nothing is ever one hundred percent safe) I really resent the idea that people can be FORCED to vaccinate their children for something that they may never need. The assumption seems to be, "girls are going to be promiscuous, let's vaccinate them against one of the consequences..."

If I had a daughter I'd really resent someone implying that she was going to be promiscuous! If when she's an adult she wants the vaccine, she can go get it. Until then, keep your hands (and your smutty inuendoes) off my child.

diffangle
Apr 10th 2008, 03:51 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/02/02/tx.cervical.cancer.ap/index.html

HPV is the cause of 70% of all cerical cancer...also contribute to most cases of genital warts.

I cant post in the womens forums....however I do have a great interest in the opinions of this.

I have personally spoken with very very high ups in both Merck and Kline(the company that made this product) So they have shed some light on what their plan is as well as the governments.They came to speak to the military ,because no matter what the nation does....the military is going to make it mandatory.


opinions please
I am adamently opposed to forced vaccinations. Why should anyone be forced to inject poison from greedy pharma-cartel and greedy politicians into their own bodies? It's insane and dangerous... and thye know it, that's why they're working hard to pass laws that protect the drug companies from lawsuits that do and will arise from their drugs/vaccines.

IPet2_9
Apr 10th 2008, 05:19 PM
Personally I lean against the idea of forced vaccinations, but first I have to look at the justification in favor of them: that diseases are communicable. Your acquisition of a communicable disease (or even as a carrier of one) makes you a public health risk. Thus, in an ideal world, forced vaccinations are justified, for the greater good.

The problem is that it is not an ideal world. The vaccinations do not always work--sometimes they actually CAUSE disease, not prevent/cure it--the diseases they are meant to cure are not always communicable, and the money in it for pharmaceutical companies/lobbyists makes us question the motives for particular vaccines and methods. And I believe that questioning of motives is well justified.

In a free country, far and away the fairest compromise is to allow parents the liberty to choose. But still, we must remain cognizant of the drawback: we only partially block the spread of the disease. That could defeat the purpose of the vaccine. I consider that drawback the least evil among the options available to us.

TheDayIsComing
Apr 10th 2008, 06:55 PM
ok well instead of enabeling them further by giving them one less thing to be afraid about.... how about instead scaring the crap out of them about the dangers of sleeping with multiple partners and std's and teach abstinence?
Agreed. And I have heard of some serious side-effects with the vaccine in some women.

TheDayIsComing
Apr 10th 2008, 06:56 PM
I am adamently opposed to forced vaccinations. Why should anyone be forced to inject poison from greedy pharma-cartel and greedy politicians into their own bodies? It's insane and dangerous... and thye know it, that's why they're working hard to pass laws that protect the drug companies from lawsuits that do and will arise from their drugs/vaccines.
Yep!! I won't take a vaccine, not in a million years and neither will my kid(s?)

threebigrocks
Apr 10th 2008, 07:24 PM
I didn't even give my daughters doc time to explain it at her checkup last summer. I said no, she's will not get it. She can just avoid what would give it to her in the first place.

I believe in letting a healthy fear do it's work as far as STD's go, and conviction of the Spirit to work right along with it.

However, things such as the routine immunizations against the airbourne viral and bacterial things that kill us that we are defenseless against - I'm all for it. Last season mumps were way up after decades of them being pretty quiet. It proves that even with vaccinations that these things still lurk and we can't toss aside the benefit of the serums that can keep us from hospitalizaiton or death.

teddyv
Apr 10th 2008, 08:06 PM
Yep!! I won't take a vaccine, not in a million years and neither will my kid(s?)
I guess you never plan to travel?

findingmyfaith
Apr 11th 2008, 01:07 AM
wow what a topic. I totally respect everyones views on this, and can see why you'd be opposed to it, however, I ask you to respect why I think its so utterly important this HPV vaccine IS given to everyone!

personally, I know that vaccines have saved millions of lives. My life. Your life. Even the lives of people that havn't had vacines (because they'd been saved by everyone around them that have). Yes, some people have side effects. Yes, for some people it may be unnesesary, but there is no way of knowing who. I respect it's hard to hear that something is mantatory, that you have no choice, you HAVE to have it. But for vaccines to be effective, the vast majority of the population need to have it. So we give vaccines to everybody. Even if the dug companys are making a bomb, it's saved so many lives, isn't it worth the price? And the risk... I think it's more risky NOT to have a vaccine than TO have it.

Vaccines prevent disease and death. I find it unfair that suddenly because this disease is caused by sex, it shouldn't be aloud, is seen as a taboo, as wrong, as offensive even! Just cause you can catch HPV through sex, rather than any other way of transmitting diseasing, it's seen as so much worse. We should not be condeming people, for it is not our job to judge.

The reality is millions of people have sex everyday. Unprotected. With many different people. I'd love to tell them all the gospel, i'd love for them all to listen, but thats just... not going to happen today, right now. What could happen, is to show them God's love by using the intelligence and compassion He gave us, by stopping them getting HPV and potentially cervical cancer. Then they'd still be alive to be saved.

And you "know" your daughter won't have sex before marriage? So you don't think she will need the vaccine? You're bothered by the assumptions or connotations it means are made? Please, see the real world. People can be misled, currupted or changed. People make mistakes. People are raped. People have no choice. People are sinners.

And even if your daughter doesn't have sex, how do you know her future husband wasn't one of those people before?

And just to add another dimention to this discussion. I think the introduction of the HPV vaccine will open a window for parents, teachers or friends to TALK about sex, about the problems that occur with it. It's a chance to educate people. The more we try and hide it, the more it occurs. When we don't talk about it, there's nothing you can do to stop it. I hope this vaccine will help people understand sex and all that it means and won't encourage it, but highlight the profile of STDs and how dangerous they are.

I am a student nurse and have to care for people from all walks of life. Whatever thier background, whatever thier beliefs, however hard that may be for me. And the majority of these people aren't Christians, sad to say.

Personally, I think by-passing the vaccine is like trying to ignore sex. Cause you can't... it exists!

MikeAD
Apr 11th 2008, 01:17 AM
Shalom,

As the mother of 5 children I must we will refuse to have our children vaccinated because the government thinks we should. We as parents have the right and the responsibility to research every vaccine and consider whether our children need to get it.

In our state, we can opt out of vaccines by filing a Religious Waiver. Many parents here have done that and thus cannot be forced into vaccinating our children.

My thinking is that we will not vaccinate our girls with this shot because we teach them that pre-marital sex is wrong. We cannot, in good conscience, then enable them to engage in it.

When they get married, if they wish to take the shot, as adults, that is their decision. But as parents, we will not do this to them.


I haven't read all of this thread, but I came to your post, and I would like to commend you.

Where we live you have have to get waivers and pay a fee to prevent getting vacinations. I offered to pay for my neices and nephews (even though I can't really afford it) and I showed my family all of the research on how dangerous they can be, but they still got their vaccines. :cry:

One of my two best friends, his mother is a doctor, and she strongly earges all of her young patients to get the HPV Vacine and she has already witnessed some pretty bad side effects. Whats shocking to me is that she gave the vaccine to her son, my friend. I didn't think this was a drug that was given to males.

Its really shocking to me that she gets so many to get the vaccine, but I think its because she thinks she is helping. She is the closest example I have ever seen to a Christ-like life, which is another reason why its shocking because shes researched both sides heavily.

diffangle
Apr 11th 2008, 02:15 PM
Excerpts from http://educate-yourself.org/vcd/howensteinwhyyoushouldavoidvaccines03feb07.shtml





Dr. James R. Shannon, former director of the National institute of health declared, "the only safe vaccine is one that is never used."

Cowpox vaccine was believed able to immunize people against smallpox. At the time this vaccine was introduced, there was already a decline in the number of cases of smallpox. Japan introduced compulsory vaccination in 1872. In 1892 there were 165,774 cases of smallpox with 29,979 deaths despite the vaccination program. A stringent compulsory smallpox vaccine program, which prosecuted those refusing the vaccine, was instituted in England in 1867. Within 4 years 97.5 % of persons between 2 and 50 had been vaccinated. The following year England experienced the worst smallpox epidemic[1] in its history with 44,840 deaths. Between 1871 and 1880 the incidence of smallpox escalated from 28 to 46 per 100,000. The smallpox vaccine does not work.

Much of the success attributed to vaccination programs may actually have been due to improvement in public health related to water quality and sanitation, less crowded living conditions, better nutrition, and higher standards of living. Typically the incidence of a disease was clearly declining before the vaccine for that disease was introduced. In England the incidence of polio had decreased by 82 % before the polio vaccine was introduced in 1956. In the early 1900s an astute Indiana physician, Dr. W.B. Clarke, stated "Cancer was practically unknown until compulsory vaccination with cowpox vaccine began to be introduced. I have had to deal with two hundred cases of cancer, and I never saw a case of cancer in an un-vaccinated [2] person."

There is a widely held belief that vaccines should not be criticized because the public might refuse to take them. This is valid only if the benefits exceed the known risks of the vaccines. Do Vaccines Actually Prevent Disease? This important question does not appear to have ever been adequately studied. Vaccines are enormously profitable for drug companies and recent legislation in the U.S. has exempted, lawsuits against pharmaceutical firms in the event of adverse reactions to vaccines which are very common. In 1975 Germany stopped requiring pertussis (whooping cough) vaccination. Today less than 10 % of German children are vaccinated against pertussis. The number of cases of pertussis has steadily decreased[3] even though far fewer children are receiving pertussis vaccine.


Measles outbreaks have occurred in schools with vaccination rates over 98 % in all parts of the U.S. including areas that had reported no cases of measles for years. As measles immunization rates rise to high levels measles becomes a disease seen only in vaccinated persons. An outbreak of measles occurred in a school where 100 % of the children had been vaccinated. Measles mortality rates had declined by 97 % in England before measles vaccination was instituted.

In 1986 there were 1300 cases of pertussis in Kansas and 90 % of these cases occurred in children who had been adequately vaccinated. Similar vaccine failures have been reported from Nova Scotia where pertussis continues to be occurring despite universal vaccination. Pertussis remains endemic[4] in the Netherlands where for more than 20 years 96 % of children have received 3 pertussis shots by age 12 months. After institution of diphtheria vaccination in England and Wales in 1894 the number of deaths SA from diphtheria rose by 20 % in the subsequent 15 years. Germany had compulsory vaccination in 1939. The rate of diphtheria spiraled to 150,000 cases that year whereas, Norway which did not have compulsory vaccination, had only 50 cases of diphtheria the same year. The continued presence of these infectious diseases in children who have received vaccines proves that life long immunity which follows natural infection does not occur in persons receiving vaccines. The injection process places the viral particles into the blood without providing any clear way to eliminate these foreign substances.

Why Do Vaccines Fail To Protect Against Diseases?

Walene James, author of Immunization: the Reality Behind The Myth, states that the full [5] nflammatory response is necessary to create real immunity. Prior to the introduction of measles and mumps vaccines children got measles and mumps and in the great majority of cases these diseases were benign. Vaccines "trick" the body so it does not mount a complete inflammatory response to the injected virus. Vaccines and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome SIDS The incidence of Sudden Infant Death syndrome SIDS has grown from .55 per 1000 live births in 1953 to 12.8 per 1000 in 1992 in Olmstead County, Minnesota. The peak incidence for SIDS is age 2 to 4 months the exact time most vaccines are being given to children. 85 % of cases of SIDS occur in the first 6 months of infancy. The increase in SIDS as a percentage of total infant deaths has risen from 2.5 per 1000 in 1953 to 17.9 per 1000 in 1992. This rise in SIDS deaths has occurred during a period when nearly every childhood disease was declining due to
improved sanitation and medical progress except SIDS. These deaths from SIDS did increase during a period when the number of vaccines given a child was steadily rising to 36 per child.

Dr. W. Torch was able to document 12 deaths in infants which appeared within 3½ and 19 hours of a DPT immunization. He later reported 11 new cases of SIDS death and one near miss which had occurred within 24 hours of a DPT injection. When he studied 70 cases of SIDS two thirds
of these victims[6] had been vaccinated from one half day to 3 weeks prior to their deaths. None of these deaths was attributed to vaccines. Vaccines are a sacred cow and nothing against them appears in the mass media because they are so profitable to pharmaceutical firms.
There is valid reason to think that not only are vaccines worthless in preventing disease they are counterproductive because they injure the immune system permitting cancer, auto-immune diseases and SIDS to cause much disability and death.

Seeker of truth
Apr 11th 2008, 02:50 PM
I would like to point out that telling our children not to be sexually active doesn't always stop them. How many Christians do you know who are having or have had pre marital sex after becomming Christians?

I do not believe Marion and Hannah would have sex outside of marriage. As Christians they know it's a sin and their love for Him should cause them to think twice.

That said, they are still children and there is a lot of peer pressure out there. I have years before Hannah will reach this age but Marion will be 13 next month. With Marion's special issues I have actually considered having her get the vaccine. Though I am very strict with both of the girls I can't be with them 24-7.

I have given this to prayer and I have not felt as it's something I should do. Not at this point anyway.

diffangle
Apr 11th 2008, 03:49 PM
I would like to point out that telling our children not to be sexually active doesn't always stop them. How many Christians do you know who are having or have had pre marital sex after becomming Christians?

I do not believe Marion and Hannah would have sex outside of marriage. As Christians they know it's a sin and their love for Him should cause them to think twice.

That said, they are still children and there is a lot of peer pressure out there. I have years before Hannah will reach this age but Marion will be 13 next month. With Marion's special issues I have actually considered having her get the vaccine. Though I am very strict with both of the girls I can't be with them 24-7.

I have given this to prayer and I have not felt as it's something I should do. Not at this point anyway.
I agree with you about telling your children not to be sexually active isn't going to neccesarily prevent them from doing anything. But I also believe that vaccines aren't a answer/solution. The large majority of women who get HPV rid themselves of it without ever having a vaccine. The immune system our Creator gave us is amazing if you just give it a chance. Vaccines are full of toxic things like mercury, aluminum, formaldahyde, foreign protien particles, and other toxic ingredients. It's not natural to inject all these objects into our bodies bypassing the tissue barrier... it creates many problems when man tries to outdo God.

In an ideal world, we should obey the words of our Creator and that would keep us from the diseases that we suffer with. He laid out for His people exactly how to live... instructions for cleanliness/sanitiation... eating... no sexual promiscuity, etc... these things are what keeps many a disease away. Funny how science has just recently caught on to what our Creator told His people long long ago.

Exd 15:26 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&c=15&v=26&t=KJV#26)And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of YHWH thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I [am] YHWH that healeth thee.

tryinghard
Apr 11th 2008, 04:32 PM
1. If your girl child makes the mistake of having premarital relations, do you honestly believe she will tell you before she does so, so you can have her vaccinated and perhaps save her life? Or would you decide that contracting cancer was her punishment for sinning? God has entrusted us to teach and protect our children, but that means doing both of those things.:hmm:

2. While it is true that many women have 'cured' themselves of HPV, you would need to know you actually had HPV, I would think. Many times, it gives no symptoms, and the first symptom is cancer.:hmm:

3. I agree that teaching your children that premarital relations are sin, but they still will make their OWN decisions about it. When the issue comes up, you WON'T be there to remind them. :hmm: So many people wind up having s*x in the heat of the moment, when they never intended to. The minute you are exposed to HPV, it's too late to be vaccinated.

My daughters are getting vaccinated, whether it's mandatory or not.

Interestingly enough, I made the exact opposite decision about the chickenpox vaccine, and we almost lost my son to a strep infection when he got the chickenpox.:hmm:

diffangle
Apr 11th 2008, 04:46 PM
[quote=tryinghard;1602862]1. If your girl child makes the mistake of having premarital relations, do you honestly believe she will tell you before she does so, so you can have her vaccinated and perhaps save her life? Or would you decide that contracting cancer was her punishment for sinning? God has entrusted us to teach and protect our children, but that means doing both of those things.:hmm:

Way more people die from pharmaceuticals taken properly(not including bad drug interactions) each year than die from cervical cancer.




2. While it is true that many women have 'cured' themselves of HPV, you would need to know you actually had HPV, I would think. Many times, it gives no symptoms, and the first symptom is cancer.:hmm:

Nope you don't have to know, the immune system God gave us knocks it out. Something like 98% of women who get HPV get rid of it via our immune system. Praise God!



3. I agree that teaching your children that premarital relations are sin, but they still will make their OWN decisions about it. When the issue comes up, you WON'T be there to remind them. :hmm: So many people wind up having s*x in the heat of the moment, when they never intended to. The minute you are exposed to HPV, it's too late to be vaccinated.

My daughters are getting vaccinated, whether it's mandatory or not.

That's definately your choice, but I would urge you to also really look at all the cons, follow the money trail, look at Mercks history on knowingly allowing dangerous drugs on the market, look at how little the HPV vaccine has actually been studied, etc. I heard this mother being interviewed on the radio who took her active daughter to get the vaccine and within three weekd her daughter was totally dibilitated with bleeding under her skin and out her rectum... dr. even admitted it was a vaccine induced "illness"... very sad. :cry:



Interestingly enough, I made the exact opposite decision about the chickenpox vaccine, and we almost lost my son to a strep infection when he got the chickenpox.:hmm:

You also don't know if him getting the vaccine would have prevented him from having the same results or even worse. Take the flu shot for example, many people die when they get the shot. I guess it's the chance one takes when they inject a pathogen straight into their blood stream bypassing the protective tissue barrier God gave us.

tryinghard
Apr 11th 2008, 05:28 PM
Nope you don't have to know, the immune system God gave us knocks it out. Something like 98% of women who get HPV get rid of it via our immune system. Praise God!

Um...how do you know that it's been knocked out if you don't know you had it in the first place? Are you basing this on a scientific study you've read? If so, what makes that study more valid than the one the vaccination has been put through?



I heard this mother being interviewed on the radio who took her active daughter to get the vaccine and within three weekd her daughter was totally dibilitated with bleeding under her skin and out her rectum... dr. even admitted it was a vaccine induced "illness"... very sad. :cry:

This is a sad case I agree. We should pray for the family involved, and any others affected in this way. However, I'm pretty sure from what I've read though, that it isn't supposed to be given to people who are already "active".


[quote]You also don't know if him getting the vaccine would have prevented him from having the same results or even worse.

I do know the children in our family who had been vaccinated (the other 3!) got 10 or fewer spots and no strep infection, and he got 700-800 spots (and no, that isn't a typo) and could have died. The whole family had it at once, and he was the only one unvaccinated, and the only one with complications.

I am wondering if you are so opposed to injecting things into your body rather than relying on the immune systems God gave us, that faced with cancer yourself, you would choose to forego chemotherapy? :hmm:

I believe it's a situation of to each their own. I think we will all fare fine, as long as we approach the situation with prayer, and decide based on what God tells each of us. And remember the answer might not be the same for all.

Respectfully, I am outta here...

p.s. I am a childhood survivor of Hodgkin's disease...praise God for doctors and modern medicine!

NHL Fever
Apr 11th 2008, 08:15 PM
There was a thread on this awhile ago, but I'll weigh in again because I think this whole debate is basically waged on peoples personal ideologies and need for self-justification rather than on facts or concern for others. As a physician and evangelical Christian, here's my 2 cents on the issues

HPV is not prevented by abstinence
The following situations can happen, all of which are either extremely difficult, or impossible to prevent.

- Rape
- Your husband slept around
- Your husband is an upstanding guy but is divorced from someone who slept around or was raped
- Your husband is an upstanding guy who was married but his wife died, who previously slept around or was raped
- Your husband and his former wife (widowed) were both upstanding, but years ago she was raped or slept around etc, etc

Any of these things can happen, and you may or may not know they happened, your cannot predict them, and once they do that's it, you've missed your chance.

HPV vaccination is not an incentive to have sex
Because it doesn't prevent against the many other, much more common dangers of having extra-marital sex. There are plenty of very compelling, religious and non-religious reasons to be abstinent. Vaccination is essentially a moot point.

Not getting HPV vaccination is not an incentive for abstinence
Teenagers and pre-teens don't think scientifically or logically like that. What teeny-bopper is going to sit there are think to themselves 'hmm well I was going to get it on but since I'm not prophylaxed against the 4 HPV strains most closely associated with cervical cancer I guess that tilts my carefully weighed decision in favor of celibacy for now' ? Give me a break. Teenagers have sex because they are impulsive, and unable to anticipate their actions in foreign circumstances. The same teenagers who were going to have sex with the vaccination, will have sex without the vaccination, and the same teenagers who will not have sex (out of moral convictions, fear or whatever) without the vaccine, will maintain their convictions despite a vaccine.

You are more likely to get HPV and then cervical cancer without the vaccine, than you are to get even a mild side effect from the vaccine
In one of the largest studies, events like headache, GI upset, appendicitis and PID happened in 0.02-0.03% of those taking the vaccine. They also happened in 0.01-0.02% of those not taking the vaccine (placebo). This is not significant, and not considered a side effect, because a side effect implies something related to the vaccine, not just something that happens occur after the vaccine by coincidence of a what happens in a normal population.

Not vaccinating your kids is foolish
Do side effects, even serious ones happen with vaccinations? Yes. Are you more likely to die from the disease than get even a mild side effect form the vaccine? - Yes, some would say 100-1000 times more likely. A thinking person just has to play the numbers and make a decision. Do you drive a car? You put your family at infinitely greater danger by putting them in a motor vehicle than by giving them a vaccine. Your chances of dying in a car accident are many fold higher than getting a headache from a vaccine.

Vaccinations in the 1800's are incomparable to now
Its just as ignorant to conclude that because there were deaths in 1800'whatever that its dangerous now, as if I decided not to board my flight to Europe because the first planes tested in the 1800's had accidents. Its 2008. There are rigorously controlled, placebo-blinded studies that must first pass on in-vitro and then animal testing before they are even considered for humans. We have protections agencies and scientific ethics. None of these things existed in the early days of modern medicine, or even 50 years ago.

Sometimes you have to do things for the greater good, even if you don't like it
If you agree that some people should be denied their desire to get behind the wheel intoxicated for your and your societies good, then you may have to come to terms with the fact that sometimes you will be restricted in your choices on the same basis. There is an opportunity to wipe out HPV. But everyone has to do it, not just some. If only some participated in polio vaccination (with much greater side effects than gardasil), we would not have eradicated it. The chance to eradicate a cancer should not be skuttled for the sake of people getting to feel self-righteous about how pious they are, or they perceive their children to be, meanwhile putting others at risk when that shockingly doesn't happen. Virtually equal numbers of Christians have pre-marital sex and get divorces statistically, and it affects all of us, so frankly put a sock in it.

Your immune system does not stop cancer
God designed you, but you're broken because you are a sinner, and so is your daughter, sister and everybody. Even if they are holier and better than other people and will never do the wrong thing, they can still get cancer and no matter what cancer can kill you. Your immune system will not cure you of cancer, its incurable. Your immune system can however, help heal you from temporary vaccine side effects, in the rare instance they occur. You can get HPV and not get cervical cancer, but you can also get HPV and get cervical cancer, and your chances are much higher than in the normal population. But if you don't get HPV, you will not get cervical cancer. Gardisil does not prevent against all HPV strains, but it prevents against the 4 strains that cause 70% of cervical cancer.

There are many things the government prevents everyone from doing, or forces everyone to do. The majority of those you and I agree with - being an insured driver, yielding to police, not having sex in public, no public nudity, food must pass safety regulations, etc. Vaccinations are one of those things, but any government initiative is going to be met with controversy.

teddyv
Apr 11th 2008, 10:39 PM
Excellent post NHL Fever!

diffangle
Apr 12th 2008, 02:08 AM
[quote=tryinghard;1602905]

Um...how do you know that it's been knocked out if you don't know you had it in the first place? Are you basing this on a scientific study you've read? If so, what makes that study more valid than the one the vaccination has been put through?

Most women get pap smears... so there are records of how many women test positive for hpv during one of their pap visits... next 6-12 months the women comes back for pap #2 and no hpv.

From cancer.org (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_FAQ_HPV_Vaccines.asp)...



Genital HPV is a very common virus. Some doctors think it is almost as common as the common cold virus. In the United States, over 6 million people (men and women) get an HPV infection every year. Almost half of the infections are in people between 15 and 25 years of age. About one-half to three-fourths of the people who have ever had sex will have HPV at some time in their life.

Most people who test positive for genital HPV DNA in research studies eventually test negative, often within 6 to 12 months. Scientists are still not sure whether this means that a person’s immune system has completely destroyed all of the HPV or has only suppressed the infection to an extremely low level (too low to be detected by available tests).




This is a sad case I agree. We should pray for the family involved, and any others affected in this way. However, I'm pretty sure from what I've read though, that it isn't supposed to be given to people who are already "active".

When I said she was active, I meant she was a 13 year old girl who was a cheerleader with lots of energy... not that she was sexually active with a active hpv virus.



I do know the children in our family who had been vaccinated (the other 3!) got 10 or fewer spots and no strep infection, and he got 700-800 spots (and no, that isn't a typo) and could have died. The whole family had it at once, and he was the only one unvaccinated, and the only one with complications.

Out of curiousity, why was he the only one ya'll didn't vaccinate?



I am wondering if you are so opposed to injecting things into your body rather than relying on the immune systems God gave us, that faced with cancer yourself, you would choose to forego chemotherapy? :hmm:

I would choose to forego chemo. I would seek to do things that would strengthen my immune system naturally, food, herbs, etc. I know that I wouldn't get cancer due to my body being deficient in chemo/mustard gas or radiation. I know many people who have died from the chemo... not from the cancer... but from the chemo. I also know many people who have healed from cancer using natural methods... so yes, I would forego chemo.



I believe it's a situation of to each their own. I think we will all fare fine, as long as we approach the situation with prayer, and decide based on what God tells each of us. And remember the answer might not be the same for all.

Yes to each his own. All we can do is discuss each others viewpoint on the subject and hope that it will be helpful in the decisions we each make.




Respectfully, I am outta here...

p.s. I am a childhood survivor of Hodgkin's disease...praise God for doctors and modern medicine!

Praise Him for you still being here:pp and surviving the treatment. ;) Were you aware that they are linking lymphoma to the polio vaccine? Here's a link to a article about it... http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2002/03/20/polio-vaccine-part-two.aspx

diffangle
Apr 12th 2008, 03:05 AM
You are more likely to get HPV and then cervical cancer without the vaccine, than you are to get even a mild side effect from the vaccine


How do you know that? Do we have any proof that the vaccine has prevented anyone from contracting hpv or getting cervical cancer? Even Merck admits "it may not prevent" it... iow, they don't know.


Not vaccinating your kids is foolish
In your opinion.


Do side effects, even serious ones happen with vaccinations? Yes. Are you more likely to die from the disease than get even a mild side effect form the vaccine? - Yes, some would say 100-1000 times more likely. A thinking person just has to play the numbers and make a decision.
How many women get hpv? How many of them have died from cervical cancer? Less than die in car wrecks or from taking prescription meds? According to the research I've done, the majority of hpv cases go away on their own thanks to the immune system so why would I want to inject a toxin into my un-hpved system risking the adverse side affects of the vaccine?


Do you drive a car? You put your family at infinitely greater danger by putting them in a motor vehicle than by giving them a vaccine. Your chances of dying in a car accident are many fold higher than getting a headache from a vaccine.
Using that same logic... wouldn't you say many more women die from car wrecks than they do hpv?



Vaccinations in the 1800's are incomparable to now
Its just as ignorant to conclude that because there were deaths in 1800'whatever that its dangerous now,

The point of the info I posted was to show that these diseases were already on the decline before the vaccines ever came into the picture due to things like better sanitiation practices, cleaner water, better quality of food, less crowded living conditions, etc. Many people attribute the decline of disease to vaccines when it's entirely possible that it isn't from the vaccines at all.


Sometimes you have to do things for the greater good, even if you don't like it

If you agree that some people should be denied their desire to get behind the wheel intoxicated for your and your societies good, then you may have to come to terms with the fact that sometimes you will be restricted in your choices on the same basis.
Poor analogy... the drunk not getting behind the wheel will have absolutely positively no negative side affects for the drunk unlike vaccines will for the un vaccinated.


There is an opportunity to wipe out HPV. But everyone has to do it, not just some.
You or the drug companies will not be injecting that stuff into me or my family. ;)



If only some participated in polio vaccination (with much greater side effects than gardasil), we would not have eradicated it.

You don't know that it was eradicated b/c of the vaccine, there are others who weren't payed off by the drug makers that believe it was other factors(the things I've already listed) that played a part in the eradication of polio and other diseases. Here's some info on it for those who may be interested...

http://www.whale.to/a/mcbean5.html


The chance to eradicate a cancer should not be skuttled for the sake of people getting to feel self-righteous about how pious they are, or they perceive their children to be, meanwhile putting others at risk when that shockingly doesn't happen. Virtually equal numbers of Christians have pre-marital sex and get divorces statistically, and it affects all of us, so frankly put a sock in it.
Sorry but no amount of bully talk("foolish, ignorant, pious, self-righteous, put a sock in it") is going to make me take what you're saying as anymore factual than the research I've done or have personally experienced. ;)



Your immune system will not cure you of cancer, its incurable.


Again, your opinion. I personally know people who have been cured of cancer without poisonous chemo and radiation.

diffangle
Apr 12th 2008, 03:29 AM
There are many things the government prevents everyone from doing, or forces everyone to do. The majority of those you and I agree with - being an insured driver, yielding to police, not having sex in public, no public nudity, food must pass safety regulations, etc. Vaccinations are one of those things, but any government initiative is going to be met with controversy.

There are no negative side effects from those other things... there are negative side effects with vaccines. Speaking of negative side effects from vaccines, did you happen to see a couple of months back where the Federal government conceded on that vaccine indused autism case? Here's a good article about it...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/government-concedes-vacci_b_88323.html

MikeAD
Apr 12th 2008, 03:39 AM
There are no negative side effects from those other things... there are negative side effects with vaccines. Speaking of negative side effects from vaccines, did you happen to see a couple of months back where the Federal government conceded on that vaccine indused autism case? Here's a good article about it...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/government-concedes-vacci_b_88323.html


Diffangle, no matter how much research people see that link vaccines to autism, chrone's disease and a plethora of other diseases, they still won't beleive it.

Jenny McCarthy was recently on the Larry King show (her son has autism) on Autism Awareness Day and she talks about the research that links autism to vaccines, and she is basically called stupid.

Here is a very poor-quality Youtube link to the segment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5WTaLnDPY4&feature=related

diffangle
Apr 12th 2008, 04:36 AM
Diffangle, no matter how much research people see that link vaccines to autism, chrone's disease and a plethora of other diseases, they still won't beleive it.

Jenny McCarthy was recently on the Larry King show (her son has autism) on Autism Awareness Day and she talks about the research that links autism to vaccines, and she is basically called stupid.

Here is a very poor-quality Youtube link to the segment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5WTaLnDPY4&feature=related
Thanks for the link, it was interesting to see when she pointed out the amount of vaccines our children are being loaded with today(something like 37) compared to the mid 80's(10 vaccines) and how the cases of autism have raised with the increase in vaccines. :hmm:

Ashley274
Apr 12th 2008, 05:32 AM
I do not have a bunch of links but if you Google the vaccines and drugs for HPV you will see some people have had seizures and brain issues..VERY young girls . I am 100% against the vaccine. I think people ought to not have s*& unless you are married and kids just should not have s/* period. First they shoved the pill at them IN CASE they didn't abstain and now that we have a billion STD and the like they want to make kids and people get a vaccine. Personal responsibility is lacking nowdays.

diffangle
Apr 12th 2008, 01:48 PM
[quote=Ashley274;1603425]I do not have a bunch of links but if you Google the vaccines and drugs for HPV you will see some people have had seizures and brain issues..VERY young girls . I am 100% against the vaccine.

That's not surprising, like that little girl I talked about who is dibilitated and bleeding under her skin and out her rectum... but hey she got her her vaccine at least so now "MAYBE" she won't get hpv or cervical. "MAYBE", iow, no guaruntees. If I remember correctly, I think Merck tested that vaccine for less than a year before it was released out on the market... with that being the case, we have absolutley no idea of its effectiveness or long term side effects. And even with the studies that come out(that are sponsered by greedy drug companies), the studies are tweaked in favor of the drug companies (Merck having a notorious one under their belt, here's a article (http://www.naturalnews.com/002155.html)about the Vioxx fiasco.)... they have ways of eliminating those that have had more serious injury and/or death from their lists.




I think people ought to not have s*& unless you are married and kids just should not have s/* period. First they shoved the pill at them IN CASE they didn't abstain and now that we have a billion STD and the like they want to make kids and people get a vaccine. Personal responsibility is lacking nowdays.

While this is certainly true, there are cases like what NHL Fever pointed out that are unpreventable...



- Rape
- Your husband slept around
- Your husband is an upstanding guy but is divorced/widowed from someone who slept around or was raped



But even with the above possibly being the case and you do get hpv from them, the hpv virus is like the common cold virus... the body will get rid of/supress it on its own. Just like with the common cold, if one is immune-surpressed then you can be subceptible to more serious consequences if you contract the virus... and in those cases we have no idea if some vaccine is even going to do anything for those individuals destined to get the virus and the vaccine may(and has) actually cause injury or death in those individuals. Just like with the flu vaccine that many people line up to get each year... many people die from the vaccine itself, all these people who have died from the vaccine may have lived alot longer without ever contracting the flu but instead they go to their graves earlier b/c of the vaccine.

NHL Fever
Apr 12th 2008, 06:20 PM
Its amazing to me that these myths continue to circulate. The reason is that fundamental concepts about research and bias are simply not understood by the general public.

When you involve peoples children or babies, there will always be a huge emotional component to the debate that is ultimately a disservice to the community.

MMR does not cause autism
The entire idea of this link comes from one single study done about 10 years ago by Wakefield. Despite many, many studies since refuting any link between autism and MMR, this single instance has somehow managed to stay in parents minds regardless of the facts. Fear is a powerful force. Wakefield's study was published in Lancet, an otherwise prestigious journal, by mistake because he did not divulge his conflict of interest. The top experts in the field describe this as a 'fatal' conflict of interest. At the time of his study he was on the payroll of a group of parents trying to file a class action lawsuit against the makers of MMR, and he was taking out a patent on a vaccine to compete with MMR. No legitimate journal would publish research like that, unless it was hidden like in Wakefields case.

Wakefield is widely viewed with dismay by top experts, and his work described as a 'poison' to public knowledge. He has undergone hearings in which he may lose his license because of it.

From this article:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070716/vaccine_070716?s_name=&no_ads=

"The British body that governs physicians, the General Medical Council, begins a hearing Monday into allegations that Wakefield and two colleagues behaved unethically and dishonestly in conducting their research. The hearing, expected to last months, could result in the trio losing their medical licenses."

"It's very interesting how important the responsibility is to speak carefully about risk -- because one paper can just poison so much thinking," adds Langley, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist at Halifax's IWK Health Centre.

"In the nearly 10 years since the Lancet publication, scads of studies costing untold millions of dollars have failed to corroborate the link Wakefield still insists exists. Scientific authorities such as the U.S. Institute of Medicine have flatly concluded that Wakefield and his coauthors were wrong."

In 2004, 10 of Wakefield's 12 collaborators retracted the Lancet study.
"We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism, as the data were insufficient," wrote the group. "However, the possibility of such a link was raised. Consequent events have had major implications for public health."


From the CIDC:

Other articles
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/07/05/autism-vaccine.html
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/mmr_autism_factsheet.htm
http://cdbra-mb.com/content/view/54/2/


There are numerous factors that enter into the the confusion when science and non-scientists collide. Unless you understand how to interpret scientific information, this will continue to go on. Some important points:

Because B happens after A, does not mean A caused B
This is logic 101, but vitally important for so many reasons. Autism symptoms occur around the the same time as some of the MMR doses are given, so rightly-worried parents make the connection. But real no connection exists. The same amount of kids who get autism after the vaccine, get autism around that time without the vaccine. All federal bodies have concluded there is no link. The only people still claiming a link, are internet websites and private groups on a mission determined to prove it so. It doesn't matter if the rate of autism has increased since the inception of a certain vaccine, it only matters if autism has increased in those taking the vaccine as compared to those who are not, which has not happened. We are simply much better at diagnosing autism now, so like prostate cancer, the incidence has skyrocketed. This does not mean there are any more real cases of autism in society.

Those advocating the link rely on anecdotal evidence
By definition, anecdotal evidence is useless to make reliable conclusions. Its only role is for a launching pad for an idea to perform a study to see whether or not that idea holds water. Its a theory-generator, nothing more.

Looking at different internet articles and websites is not research
People love to conclude that they have 'looked into it', about things, but what does this mean? Unless you pay for it or are training at a university, you cannot even access the raw research which is published in the real journals, all you get is news articles and agenda-driven websites. If you aren't reading the journals, you aren't doing research. Can you tell me what a two-tailed t-test is, or a cox-regression model? What does the 'power' of study mean? What are the best journals for this topic, and where are you accessing them? Unless you are familiar with advanced statistics and cognizant of how to identify bias and con founders, you cannot realistically hope to make reliable conclusions.

There is no conspiracy in the medical community about this vaccine
Studies both industry and non-industry funded have denied a link between autism and MMR or other vaccines, there is no legitimate criticism about industry influence or money or whatever. The one study in the literature proposing the link, of which nearly all the authors later said it was a mistake, was funded by a group determined to prove a link.

The immune system does not prevent cervical cancer
Because if it did, people would not get cervical cancer. But 1 in 123 of all women do. There are basically no other causes than HPV.


Most women get pap smears... so there are records of how many women test positive for hpv during one of their pap visits... next 6-12 months the women comes back for pap #2 and no hpv.


A negative pap smear does not mean you don't have HPV
Have you ever performed a pap smear? I have. All it is is a little stick and brush sampling one part of the cervix. Much more likely than being cured of HPV, is that the next test simply does not detect it. Tests are not 100 perfect, they all have sensitivity and specificity ratings, some are very reliable and some aren't, but you have to understand medicine to understand the ramifications of this. You can eradicate HPV just with your immune system, but you also can't often enough that 27% of all women are estimated to be carrying it.

HPV is not even in the same ballpark as the common cold
You get the common cold, you get symptoms, and then you're fine in 4-10 days. If you get HPV, you may not have any symptoms until getting cancer, and even if you clear it, you may have it for years, before clearing it. You also have a good chance of never clearing it. If it was like the common cold, it would not cause cancer. The reason it causes cancer is because it sits around for a long time and irritates/inflames the tissue. Chronically inflamed/distorted tissue is a risk factor for cancer development in many different organs. The reason is causes cancer, is because the immune very often does not clear it. The immune system always clears the common viral cold, unless you have some other underlying systemic illness.

'Natural' medicine or methods, are very misleading
The 'natural' way before evil modern medicine intervened, was to have a lifespan of about 50 years, and lose several children during childbirth, that is if you didn't die of blood loss from delivering the first few children. People died of cuts and bruises from infection and simply starved when certain sources of food became scarce. Their teeth rotted and diarrhea was life-threatening. If you want the natural way, understand what that is. Also 'natural' medications do not have the same regulations as tested medicine, their is no way to know what's in them. They could be natural herbs or motor oil, you cannot know for sure, and they are not required to list side effects. In contrast the exact ingredients in all prescription pharmaceuticals are required by law to be meticulously listed, and the side effects documented and listed by percentage of occurrence. When is the last time you saw a commercial for a drug that did not list side effects? Usually it takes like half the commercial. Do you ever see that for miracle cures of this or that herb or natural doo-dad on TV? No, its simply an amazing 'breakthrough' with no drawbacks.

Now for some of the specific claims:

Excerpts from http://educate-yourself.org/vcd/howensteinwhyyoushouldavoidvaccines03feb07.shtml

This clown is refuted here at quack files:
http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/howenstine_laidler.html
His 'sources' at basically op-ed books, not peer-reviewed literature.
If you have any specific points you want to get behind, let me know and I can also address them individually.


;) Were you aware that they are linking lymphoma to the polio vaccine? That link is because of contamination of the polio vaccine with SV40 virus. between 1955 - 1963. SV40 is not part of the vaccine, it was a contamination. Back then they did not have the purity mechanisms we do now, and this is a non-issue in modern times. If you don't take vaccines on that basis, you should also be refusing blood transfusions if you need them, because many years ago they also had high rates of contamination.


I would choose to forego chemo. I would seek to do things that would strengthen my immune system naturally, food, herbs, etc. I know that I wouldn't get cancer due to my body being deficient in chemo/mustard gas or radiation. I know many people who have died from the chemo... not from the cancer... but from the chemo. I also know many people who have healed from cancer using natural methods... so yes, I would forego chemo. If you're on chemo, that means you have cancer. So therefore its very difficult if not impossible to know if it was the cancer or the chemo, or if you would have lived longer with or without the chemo. Nobody gets chemo automatically. You have to be doing relatively well symptomatically to be considered for chemo. A person can be feeling well, get chemo and then unexpectantly die, and they can be feeling well, not get chemo and then unexpectantly die. Because I see this regularly, its not a mystery to me but if all you have is a few isolated experiences to go off of, you cannot appreciate this. Chemo has lots of side effects, but much less than it used to with the new agents. Chemo would not be used, if studies did not show that patients on chemo lived on average longer than those with the same cancers who did not get it. Some chemo is extremely effective, and some is only effective a minority of the time. For example if somebody had metastatic kidney cancer, the chemo available is not very good, it only extends life by months. If may not be worth the trouble or expense until further research improves it. But it would be a tragedy for example, for a child with leukemia to not get chemo based on ideological fears, as the cure rate for leukemia is exceedingly high with chemo. Another killer of the young is testicular cancer, which also has extremely good response to chemo, and near certain very early death without. Those are the danger areas where plain lack of knowledge can have a terrible end.

Because some guy or gal I or you know did poorly with chemo, or happened to get a bleeding diasthesis or a meteor hit their house after a vaccine, that is not evidence, that is simply an anecdote.



How do you know that? Do we have any proof that the vaccine has prevented anyone from contracting hpv or getting cervical cancer? Even Merck admits "it may not prevent" it... iow, they don't know.
I know it because that's the whole point of research, to prove or disprove stuff. It has a 98-100% rate of preventing HPV infection depending in which of the four strains you're talking about. All pharm companies have to say they can't guarantee things, to cover their butt because the strict regulations they are under. You will find that disclaimer on everything from Tylenol to penicillin. You will not find a single peer-reviewed journal article doing a real placebo controlled trial, that denies this. You will only find denial of this on somebody's opinion website who has not done research involving normal population vs treated population. There are unfortunately so many of those, that people believe it counts as real research.


How many women get hpv? How many of them have died from cervical cancer? Less than die in car wrecks or from taking prescription meds? According to the research I've done, the majority of hpv cases go away on their own thanks to the immune system so why would I want to inject a toxin into my un-hpved system risking the adverse side affects of the vaccine?If the reading you've done is the stuff you've posted, its biased, unscientific and feels no need to quote any peer-reviewed literature. Its unreliable, because you could prove the moon is made of jello using those methods. Lots of people die from prescription meds, the question is do the costs outweigh the benefits. Vaccines have exceedingly low risks with high benefits. Cars and pharmacenticals have high risks and even higher benefits. Lots of women get HPV, look at wikipedia or any source if you want the breakdown by age group. Even if HPV is defeated most of the time by the immune system, its not defeated enough times that it causes one of the most common cancers in society today. That is why its worth immunizing against. Banking on your immune system to cure it is like banking on your reflexes to dodge cars on the highway - yep most of the time you probably avoid them but the chance of getting hit is high enough that its a bad idea. The benefit is that you're improving your reflexes.



The point of the info I posted was to show that these diseases were already on the decline before the vaccines ever came into the picture due to things like better sanitiation practices, cleaner water, better quality of food, less crowded living conditions, etc. Many people attribute the decline of disease to vaccines when it's entirely possible that it isn't from the vaccines at all.Source? There is only internet websites, which are themselves only referring to people with nothing more than their opinion. There are no journal articles about this, because they didn't exist back then. Now they do, and that's why we can be confident of conclusions, or reject conclusions, based on rigorous research such as has been done for MMR and gardisil, and all the vaccines we use today.


You don't know that it was eradicated b/c of the vaccine, there are others who weren't payed off by the drug makers that believe it was other factors(the things I've already listed) that played a part in the eradication of polio and other diseases. Here's some info on it for those who may be interested...
http://www.whale.to/a/mcbean5.htmlThis article refers to events that transpired over 50 years ago. Its basic argument is 'because this vaccine was poor a long time ago, vaccines are dangerous now'. Thats the same as my previous argument about getting on a airplane. There is no way to find legitimate research to comment one way or another. If you have any evidence at all that Gardisil, polio, MMR, HiB, pneumovax, or any other vaccine given today is dangerous to extent that can even being to compare to its enormous benefits, show me where it is. If you've done the reading and research, then you should be able to comment in your own words as to why, and I can address it point by point. Otherwise, all the large trials comparing vaccine to placebo have thoroughly established its safety and its benefit.

Use the pubmed database to find real research. Type in gardisil and read until the cows come home, see if you find anything suggesting any hesitation of use based on risk. If its anything worth looking at, it will be archived there, since that is how you can access the thousands of journals that contain modern medical knowledge. It does not archive opinion websites, because those are not science, contain no objective data and don't lead to useful or reliable conclusions.

diffangle
Apr 12th 2008, 08:32 PM
People love to conclude that they have 'looked into it', about things, but what does this mean? Unless you pay for it or are training at a university, you cannot even access the raw research which is published in the real journals, all you get is news articles and agenda-driven websites. If you aren't reading the journals, you aren't doing research.

First off, you yourself post links to articles on the internet, since there on the internet should we discard what you post? Second of all, I wouldn't be so confident that medical school and the medical journals are so free from error... don't they both get big bucks from drug companies? From http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/12/31/who-really-is-writing-all-those-scientific-studies.aspx



It's an open secret in medicine that many of the articles that appear in medical journals, often purporting to be written by well-known academics, are actually written by unacknowledged ghostwriters in the pay of drug companies.

These "seemingly objective articles" are usually actually part of a marketing campaign to promote a product or draw attention to the condition it treats.

However, questions about the role of medical journals have increased in the wake of the New England Journal of Medicine's admission that a 2000 article it published about Vioxx painkiller omitted information about heart attacks among those taking the drug. One element that is being looked at sharply is the "ghostwriting" practice and the medical journals' rules of author disclosure.

An analysis found that 10 percent of articles on studies sponsored by the drug industry disclosed help from a medical writer. However, often the practice is not disclosed. An informal poll found that 80 percent of freelance medical writers had written articles that did not mention their contributions.

and

Ironically, much of the research on conventional medicine has raised many speculations over validity issues. An example of this is the hundreds of articles published in top medical journals claimed to be written by academic researchers that are actually written by ghostwriters working for agencies, which receive large amounts of money from pharmaceutical companies to market their products. These are the very journals medical professionals rely on when determining treatment options.



The immune system does not prevent cervical cancer
It this was true, people would not get cervical cancer,

The immune system can prevent cervical cancer, hence the reason why every woman who gets hpv doesn't have cervical cancer. You should give the immune system YHWH gave us a little more credibility.


A negative pap smear does not mean you don't have HPVAgreed.


Have you ever performed a pap smear? I have.

Uh, I've actually had many performed on me... how many have you had performed on you? I would say that I'm just as much of an expert on what happens during a pap smear as you are. :lol:


You can eradicate HPV just with your immune system, but you also can't often enough that 27% of all women are estimated to be carrying it.
27% of all women don't have/get cervical cancer.


The immune system always clears the common viral cold, unless you have some other underlying systemic illness.
"Unless you have some other underlying systemic illness"... yep the same reason why hpv would turn into cervical cancer in some, not all, women... immune deficiency. I'm not convinced that unvaccinated women who get cancer would be any better off if they had gotten the vaccine... vaccines do not magically build you a healthy immune system. Since Merck only tested that vaccine for less than a year before it was released on the market, do you/they have any proof that it has prevented a single woman from getting hpv? Do they give women the vaccine and then tell them to have sex with hpv carrying men in order to prove that contraction of hpv has been prevented? How exactly does that work? How do they/you know that the women wouldn't have not gotten hpv without the vaccine?


The 'natural' way before evil modern medicine intervened, was to have a lifespan of about 50 years, and lose several children during childbirth, that is if you didn't die of blood loss from delivering the first few children. People died of cuts and bruises from infection and simply starved when certain sources of food became scarce. If you want the natural way, understand what that is.
That 50 year life span wasn't always the case, just look at the ages of some the Biblical patriarchs, you're ignoring the factors I've mentioned before that have nothing to do with medicine as to why life span/health has improved... again it's things like better sanitiation, cleaner water, better food, less crowded living conditions. How much study do you have on natural medicine in med school? Do you have any nutrition courses in med school? If so, what would you say the percentage of natural medicine and nutrition courses you take compared with the amount of courses you take on westernized medicine is?

To be continued in next post...

TheDayIsComing
Apr 12th 2008, 08:36 PM
I guess you never plan to travel?
I have traveled. My husband is from Romania. I've done the research and I know that for me and my family, the risks outweigh any possible benefits. Not only that but I believe God is sovereign in all things, including our health.

teddyv
Apr 12th 2008, 09:21 PM
I have traveled. My husband is from Romania. I've done the research and I know that for me and my family, the risks outweigh any possible benefits. Not only that but I believe God is sovereign in all things, including our health.

True, you may not need vaccinations to go to Europe, but if you wish to go to Africa and probably other south Asian countries you won't be let in without Yellow Fever vaccination at minimum.

NHL Fever
Apr 12th 2008, 09:23 PM
First off, you yourself post links to articles on the internet, since there on the internet should we discard what you post? Second of all, I wouldn't be so confident that medical school and the medical journals are so free from error... don't they both get big bucks from drug companies? From http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/12/31/who-really-is-writing-all-those-scientific-studies.aspx


Which just goes to show the beauty of the scientific method - when somebody proposes or even publishes something questionable - others will knock it down with their own studies. Nothing is accepted as written in stone, and that is precisely why it is so reliable. One rule of scientific method is that to have your data accepted, somebody else independently has to reproduce your research and get the same results. A perfect example - Wakefield published his study withholding the facts, but nobody else could get the same results so it was junked. Scrutiny of experts by other experts is the best weapon we have against junk science, and although not perfect, certainly better than some dude with a theory about how all immunizations are bad.

I give you internet links because you cannot access scientific papers. If I'm mistaken and you have some kind of access, then I can link you to the journal papers.



The immune system can prevent cervical cancer, hence the reason why every woman who gets hpv doesn't have cervical cancer. You should give the immune system YHWH gave us a little more credibility.
What a strawman. If you've ever taken antibiotics, gotten surgery, or had a broken bone set, then you yourself give YHWH little credit - can't he heal you? The immune system can, or cannot defeat HPV, that is why we want to immunize it. Whether God did or did not enable somebody's body to cure itself of something, is not my criteria for whether I will try to help them.



27% of all women don't have/get cervical cancer.
Right, so as we've seen, not all HPV causes cervical cancer, but all cervical cancer is caused by HPV. So what is the magic number that indicates we should prevent something? 50%? 80%? Less than 5% of people have diabetes - should we not treat that? Bladder cancer is less common in women than cervical cancer, should we ignore a way to prevent it if we had one?


"Unless you have some other underlying systemic illness"... yep the same reason why hpv would turn into cervical cancer in some, not all, women... immune deficiency. I'm not convinced that unvaccinated women who get cancer would be any better off if they had gotten the vaccine...
Then you should not be convinced that the world is round, because there are about equal amounts of evidence for both. The studies show that 0% of women exposed to HPV got cervical cancer if vaccinated before exposure. The patients studied are now in the hundreds of thousands, some of the largest studies ever done. This includes equal number of patient both on vaccine and placebo who had all kinds of different underlying illnesses, yet nobody in the vaccine arm got HPV.


vaccines do not magically build you a healthy immune system.
Very true, they build you a healthy immune system by entirely non-magical, well understood ways. Can you explain how they work?


Since Merck only tested that vaccine for less than a year before it was released on the market, do you/they have any proof that it has prevented a single woman from getting hpv?
If you understand the natural course of a disease, then you can deduce whether some intervention has made a difference. If you know how to identify HPV in women, then you know how to identify when it is not present in women as well. In the case of HPV, it would take far less than one year to establish whether HPV was there or not.


Do they give women the vaccine and then tell them to have sex with hpv carrying men in order to prove that contraction of hpv has been prevented? How exactly does that work? How do they/you know that the women wouldn't have not gotten hpv without the vaccine?
Good questions, and really the whole points don't you think? If you understood how research is done, you may lose your paranoia over it. For gardisil its something like this:
- Women are getting HPV in society, that is the current norm
- Enormous groups of women are randomized into treatment vs placebo groups (nobody knows if they are getting gardisil or not, and they are told this at the beginning of the study)
- The women are told to continue their regular lives, women in both groups will therefore continue to have sex if they do normally, or not if they normally don't. The amount of people having sex or not, will be the same in both groups because they were randomized, and such large numbers of people remove statistical flukes.
- Pap smears or other blood test are done at regular intervals, and its noted that HPV was found or not. Numerous tests are done, removing the error of a single test being wrong
- Nobody on gardisil had HPV, the normal incidence of HPV was found in those not on gardisil (around 27% had it, the rest didn't)
- Gardisil prevent HPV infection, the only cause of cervical cancer, one of the most common cancers in women


That 50 year life span wasn't always the case, just look at the ages of some the Biblical patriarchs, you're ignoring the factors I've mentioned before that have nothing to do with medicine as to why life span/health has improved... again it's things like better sanitiation, cleaner water, better food, less crowded living conditions.
Yes there is the biblical stuff. But in all documented history other than biblical history, life spans were very short, and life was brutal. How do you think these other sanitation etc methods were spread? By federal mandate after studies proved their benefit. That is what science and scientists do, they either promote or debunk things, to find out what is real and what is not.


How much study do you have on natural medicine in med school? Do you have any nutrition courses in med school? If so, what would you say the percentage of natural medicine and nutrition courses you take compared with the amount of courses you take on westernized medicine is?
We get tons of nutrition courses in school, because nutrition is scientific, and understood by rigorous research and trials. We know why certain nutrition concepts are true, even though there is of course lots we have yet to learn. We take some natural medicine, but by definition most natural medicine won't be taught, because medicine is a scientific discipline, which means something needs evidence to be accepted. If a natural method gains evidence and its shown that more people experience a benefit who take the medicine than those who just think they are taking it, then it will be accepted. But for some reason natural medicines rarely manage to meet those standards...I wonder why :hmm:.

TheDayIsComing
Apr 12th 2008, 09:37 PM
True, you may not need vaccinations to go to Europe, but if you wish to go to Africa and probably other south Asian countries you won't be let in without Yellow Fever vaccination at minimum.

Oh well, I guess I didn't need to go there anyway.

diffangle
Apr 12th 2008, 09:41 PM
This clown is refuted here at quack files:
http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/...e_laidler.html (http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/howenstine_laidler.html)

What makes Dr. Laidler's word any more legit than Dr. Howenstine's?


His 'sources' at basically op-ed books, not peer-reviewed literature.

I've already addressed the subject on how peer-reviewed journals are not free from error/being bought off by drug makers.


If you're on chemo, that means you have cancer. So therefore its very difficult if not impossible to know if it was the cancer or the chemo, or if you would have lived longer with or without the chemo.

You know it's the chemo when the person swells up and/or they has total organ failure from the indiscriminate chemo destroying their organs.


I know it because that's the whole point of research, to prove or disprove stuff.

Again, how does Merck know that the women they did the study on for less than a year were prevented from getting hpv? Did they tell them to go out and have sex with hpv infected partners?


It has a 98-100% rate of preventing HPV infection depending in which of the four strains you're talking about.

Four strains contained in the vaccine... and how many total strains of hpv are there? Hundreds?



Now they do, and that's why we can be confident of conclusions, or reject conclusions, based on rigorous research such as has been done for MMR and gardisil, and all the vaccines we use today.


You're not going to convince me that Merck's less than a year study for gardisil is a "confident conclusion" "based on rigorous research". How "confident" was the "conclusion" of their research on their other drug Vioxx?



Use the pubmed database to find real research. Type in gardisil and read until the cows come home, see if you find anything suggesting any hesitation of use based on risk. If its anything worth looking at, it will be archived there, since that is how you can access the thousands of journals that contain modern medical knowledge. It does not archive opinion websites, because those are not science, contain no objective data and don't lead to useful or reliable conclusions.

Do they receive any funds whatsoever from the drug companies? Can you guaruntee that they don't publish any of the 90% of ghost written articles that appear in the medical journals?

NHL Fever
Apr 12th 2008, 11:17 PM
What makes Dr. Laidler's word any more legit than Dr. Howenstine's?


His arguments. If you have specific points of Howentine that you want to debate, then post then specifically, and then I can respond to them.


You know it's the chemo when the person swells up and/or they has total organ failure from the indiscriminate chemo destroying their organs.
So in other words its the chemo because its the chemo. Not an argument. People can randomly swell up and die at the end of cancer. Sound crazy? - that's cause you don't have the experience to have seen this happen more a few times. Chemo definetly can kill, but it can also prolong life. We use the kind that more often than not, prolongs life. If its not working, we don't use it. Sometimes people will die of chemo, more often they will die sooner without it. You cannot predict exactly what will happen for each individual, that's why you just give the risks and benefits and let the patients decide. Vaccinations are a different issue though, because its a prevention strategy using the body's own defenses, for those diseases which can consistently overcome the body's defenses, or linger around long enough to cause irreversible damage even if they are eventually cleared, like HPV.


Again, how does Merck know that the women they did the study on for less than a year were prevented from getting hpv? Did they tell them to go out and have sex with hpv infected partners?
You don't get it, its not Merck doing the studies. Merck does the initial study because thats its interest. Then others do the same studies to make sure they get the same result. If the vaccine didn't work, those other studies would have quickly put the nail in the coffin of gardisil, just like when other investigators failed to repeat any of Wakefield's work.


Four strains contained in the vaccine... and how many total strains of hpv are there? Hundreds?
You should learn about HPV. See wikipedia.


You're not going to convince me that Merck's less than a year study for gardisil is a "confident conclusion" "based on rigorous research". How "confident" was the "conclusion" of their research on their other drug Vioxx?
You're somebody who starts at the premise of 'vaccinations are bad', instead of from the premise of 'are vaccinations bad?', so its unlikely anyone will ever convince you. That's not the issue, what I'm concerned about is making sure misinformation is not spread to all the mothers considering the wellbeing of their children. Babies and children don't have the choice to make informed decisions, they have no chance, that's why as a Christian I'll do what I can to advocate on their behalf.

At the heart of your sentiment is that pharmaceutical companies are bad. Definetly their bottom line is profit, so that's why peer-review and doctors exist, and why their product can only be pedaled through us. What you fail to consider is that their is also harm in not taking medications in many cases, and its overall more than by taking them, otherwise they wouldn't exist. Would you stop blood pressure medication from being given because some people will have dangerous hypotensive episodes? If you did, there would be a raging spike in heart attacks because the sudden increase would start firing plaques off into coronary arteries all around the country. So indeed there will be bad medicines - but then they will be identified, because that's what science does. Would you simply abolish any medicine to avoid any bad experiences? From a health perspective it would be ideal if people would just stop having extra/pre-marital sex or stop eating steaks and Mcdonalds, but that won't happen so we do what we can with what we have.


Do they receive any funds whatsoever from the drug companies? Can you guaruntee that they don't publish any of the 90% of ghost written articles that appear in the medical journals?Whenever you post this argument, all you really accomplish is making the argument that we can't ever know anything. Here is the process of getting an article published:
- Come up with an idea
- If your idea is about a new drug, you need many years of laboratory and animal models before even being considered, but otherwise:
- Get funding
- Go through the hassle of the 1 million ethics approval boards
- Collect data, over several years sometimes
- Write the paper
- Get your colleagues to review it and make sure you aren't way off
- Present at a conference and defend against criticism
- Submit to journal editor
- Get rejected or have a bunch of modifications requested
- Perhaps get published

Along this chain, there are many checks and balances. This process is why we have such good medical care compared to 50 or 100 years ago, it is not a fluke. The same process took place to establish sanitation, hand washing, antibiotics, vaccinations, clean water, and all that stuff. If we can't rely on this, we darn well can't trust those websites you posted, because they don't even attempt to do research, they just want you to trust them at face value.

There's no secret group that huddles together and decides only what they say can be medicine. Medicine by definition is science, which means that anybody who can prove something based on strict criteria can contribute. Natural medicine peddlers don't feel they need to meet those high standards though, and as such they are not well respected. Do I know something in natural medicine doesn't work? No, but I need to practice based on what I know works, not on what I don't know doesn't work, otherwise its just voodoo. If I accept that its possible some chinese herb will cure arthritis, then I have to be fair and equally accept that perhaps doing the chicken dance with your tongue out cures arthritis, until one of those shows they have more evidence than the other. The chinese herb peddler will probably refer me to some 'study' that showed this many people improved their symptoms after taking the herb, but know that's almost always missing with these guys? - any evidence to show that people taking the sugar pill did not have this improvement. Placebo effect is not just an idea, its a fact. When giving any drug, the placebo group will always experience some improvement along with the treatment group, but eventually they return to baselines and the treatment group maintains effect. You can see this in nearly any study, you see it most profoundly where the results are based on the patient reporting their symptoms, because people will always feel better if they believe they are being treated, whether their treatment makes any difference or not.

EaglesWINGS911
Apr 13th 2008, 04:24 AM
I dont think it should be mandatory because I dont need it or want it! My hubby to be is clean, I'm clean...so what is the point??? For a disease that can be transmitted easily like chicken pox, small pox,etc...fine. But for something that is only a danger if you have sex...I see no point. It shouldnt be mandatory.

NHL Fever
Apr 14th 2008, 02:37 PM
I dont think it should be mandatory because I dont need it or want it! My hubby to be is clean, I'm clean...so what is the point??? For a disease that can be transmitted easily like chicken pox, small pox,etc...fine. But for something that is only a danger if you have sex...I see no point. It shouldnt be mandatory.

See post #114
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=77784&page=8

Clavicula_Nox
Apr 14th 2008, 02:55 PM
I dont think it should be mandatory because I dont need it or want it! My hubby to be is clean, I'm clean...so what is the point??? For a disease that can be transmitted easily like chicken pox, small pox,etc...fine. But for something that is only a danger if you have sex...I see no point. It shouldnt be mandatory.

HPV can be transferred at birth by the mother.

I have HPV, my fiance has HPV. I would be leery at making it mandatory, but it should be highly encouraged.

NHL Fever
Apr 14th 2008, 03:46 PM
HPV can be transferred at birth by the mother.

I have HPV, my fiance has HPV. I would be leery at making it mandatory, but it should be highly encouraged.

I forget to mention that one, since its very rare. We call this 'vertical' transmission. For awhile there was controversy about whether the HPV infections found in newborns were simply genital contamination and didn't result in infection, but later studies showed that infections did take place as well. HPV virus has been documented in amniotic fluid, blood and of course genital lesions as well as cervical secretions of mothers.

The reason I would advocate it be made mandatory is because it not only protects the recipient, but also others. If a small group of people made a big enough stink to get out of it that still might be ok, since as long as you get 90-95% of people, herd immunity can help finish it off. The unfortunate part of that is that as the vaccine enacts its effect via herd immunity, you'll get these people saying 'look my kid never got immunized and never got HPV' and having their beliefs reinforced, all the while totally blind to the fact that the actions of others in becoming vaccinated protected them. They may not recognize that as HPV rates plummet in their ranks, they equally plummeted for everybody else. Nevertheless, educational barriers like that to public health will always exist and shouldn't be cause for abandoning efforts to improve it.

diffangle
Apr 23rd 2008, 03:20 PM
Just got this email from Dr. Laibow...

From http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?page_id=676



Vaccine Lies:

* Vaccines are safe
* Vaccines are effective
* Vaccines prevent epidemic diseases
* Vaccines are protective
* Vaccines eliminated health scourges
* Vaccines do not cause autism and other serious diseases

Vaccine Realities:

* Vaccines are profitable only when huge numbers of people are vaccinated http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=505 (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=505)
* Vaccines contain a stew of mercury and other dangerous components, weakening and damaging the immune, nuerological and endocrine systems http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=525 (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=525) http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=554 (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=554) http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=583 (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=583) http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=560 (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=560)
* Vaccines carry huge risks for everyone who has been vaccinated
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=604 (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=604) http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=577 (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=577)
* Vaccines’ positive impact on human health is small or absent http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=582 (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=582)
* Vaccines do not prevent, may actually encourage,epidemics http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=556 (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=556)

The FDA regularly fails to protect us from dangerous drugs and vaccines because corporate profits, not public safety, determine its policies. Conflict of interest among decision makers and consultants to the FDA are, according to Senator Ted Kennedy, “A fact of life.” Every component of a vaccine is dangerous by itself. Together, they are a public health nightmare of unprecedented magnitude.

Vaccination is an uninsurable risk. Think about that: the insurance industry (our society’s risk experts) will not insure you, your doctor or the pharmaceutical industry against the risks of vaccination.

If you (or your children) are facing vaccination, be afraid. Be very afraid. If you speak the truth to your neighbors or pediatricians or politicians or school administrators, etc., be prepared to be loathed and reviled (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=672) by the self-assured “protectors” of the order who will tell you (and everyone who will listen) that you are:

* Misinformed
* Malevolent
* Monstrous

Forgive them, bless their pointed little heads: a close examination of the data makes their position simply absurd. Deadly, it is true, but nothing short of absurd.

The vituperative detractors of vaccine truth are not the ones to worry about, unless they have a syringe in their hands and legal power to back up their menace, of course. It’s the State and Federal Governments you should be very, very afraid of.

Who will protect you?

Your Doctor?

Your doctor is not likely to think (http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/autismparentfacts.htm) through these issues clearly and realize that vaccines are not only unnecessary (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13698.html), but highly toxic (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13703.html). In some states, we have learned, doctors are being advised to refuse care to families where parents choose not to vaccinate their children. Despite the known risks, healthy adults are being targeted for vaccination because they represent a fertile market and new vaccines for everything from hypertension to smoking are in the pipeline.

Your Government?

Your State and local agencies are heavily invested in pharmaceutical stocks (http://cafr1.com/), according to their Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) (http://www.rense.com/general74/whatr.htm), so that they need you to take as many drugs and vaccines as possible since their financial solvency depends upon it.

diffangle
Feb 17th 2009, 12:31 AM
Watch this video of this poor teen that is dying from complication of the Gardasil vaccine. The lawmaker that tried to pass a bill in Kansas requiring it is now questioning the FDA on its safety. If the Texas Legislature doesn’t extend the ban on the mandate this session, the Health Commissioner is free to mandate this to anyone in Texas before the start of the next legislative session. Please ask your state representative and senator to extend the ban on the mandate for the HPV vaccine. - DR

http://www.kake.com/kansas/headlines/39581687.html#

http://www.kvue.com/news/top/stories/021509kvuegardasil-bkm.1d4f95fa.html

Kansas teen wants Gardasil taken off the market

08:55 PM CST on Sunday, February 15, 2009

KVUE News
It was a hot issue here in Texas a couple of years ago. Now Gardasil, the vaccine against the virus that causes cervical caner, is back in the spotlight.

Gabi Swank, a 16-year-old from Wichita, Kansas, says she and other girls are dying from the side-effects of the drug. Once a cheerleader with a 4.0 grade point average, she is now homebound, suffering from seizures, migraines and even two small strokes.
Swank’s doctors diagnosed her with cerebral vasculatis, a terminal disease. And he blames Gardasil complications.

Now, Swank and her mother are on a mission.
“She looked at me with the most somber face and she said, ‘If I have to die to save other girls, then I am prepared to do that’,” said Gabi’s mother, Shannon Schrag.
“I want this drug off the market,” said Gabi.

Governor Rick Perry made headlines two years ago when he made Texas the first state to require the vaccine against human pappilomavirus (HPV), a sexually transmitted disease. Conservatives and parents rights groups felt the requirement condoned pre-marital sex.

The makers of Gardasil say the drug is safe. They’re hoping to vaccinate boys as well.

AngelAuthor
Feb 17th 2009, 01:56 AM
This reminds me of the thread I started just a week or so ago about what's up with drug side effects lately? Guardasil is a perfect example...a shocking example because some governments seem hell-bent on forcing people to undergo those side effects under the pathetic rally cry that "the benefits outweigh the risks!"

And why?

WHY Oh WHY??

Was I NOT surprised from the story, to see that the woman who pushed for this drug to be mandatory had a (D) next to her name?

Jollyrogers
Feb 17th 2009, 02:42 AM
Yea I am talking to a girl who just got those shots last year because her Doctor told her it was in the best interest for her.

She has not had a history of being sick or any heart trouble or anything, until after the first shot. Starting about 3 weeks after the first shot she started having wierd chest pains every once in awhile. Over the last few months they have gotten worse and when they happen her arms have been known to go numb. Last week the hospital put her on a beta blocker to see if they can calm her heart down. They caled what her heart is doing "PVC". None of these problems existed before the first shot was taken and she has refused to take anymore after further researching what has happened to other people.

I was not aware of this shot until she took it but after watching what has happened to her I am not in favor of anyone taking this shot and esp not in forcing people to

RoseClown
Feb 17th 2009, 04:39 AM
I remember on my way to college me and my mom talking about me getting it 'just in case', even if I wasn't planning on sleeping with anyone until I had a ring on my finger and had walked down that isle. We are paranoid like that.;) So, I did some research. Turned up a couple articles that had a sad irony. The vaccine itself only guards for about 3-6 years. They want teenage girls to take it. Problem? The cancer itself shows up typically around 30-40 years of age. This is old info, done about two years ago, so the numbers might be different now. But tell me, what is the point of giving a vaccine to 15 year olds when the shot would be out of effect by age 21 (at the latest) and most cases of the cancer pop up at thirty or up? Needless to say, I decided against the vaccine and have had VERY low esteem of it. To hear what is happening to these girls that have taken it makes me furious. It's a sad irony, girls taking a vaccine that wouldn't truly help, then it causing sickness. This is one reason I think Government should rarely get involved with medicine.

diffangle
Feb 17th 2009, 02:31 PM
This reminds me of the thread I started just a week or so ago about what's up with drug side effects lately? Guardasil is a perfect example...a shocking example because some governments seem hell-bent on forcing people to undergo those side effects under the pathetic rally cry that "the benefits outweigh the risks!"

And why?

WHY Oh WHY??

Was I NOT surprised from the story, to see that the woman who pushed for this drug to be mandatory had a (D) next to her name?
Could you give me the link to that thread? :)


Yea I am talking to a girl who just got those shots last year because her Doctor told her it was in the best interest for her.

She has not had a history of being sick or any heart trouble or anything, until after the first shot. Starting about 3 weeks after the first shot she started having wierd chest pains every once in awhile. Over the last few months they have gotten worse and when they happen her arms have been known to go numb. Last week the hospital put her on a beta blocker to see if they can calm her heart down. They caled what her heart is doing "PVC". None of these problems existed before the first shot was taken and she has refused to take anymore after further researching what has happened to other people.

I was not aware of this shot until she took it but after watching what has happened to her I am not in favor of anyone taking this shot and esp not in forcing people to
That's horrible. Maybe she should join the group of girls who are fighting to remove it off the market.


I remember on my way to college me and my mom talking about me getting it 'just in case', even if I wasn't planning on sleeping with anyone until I had a ring on my finger and had walked down that isle. We are paranoid like that.;) So, I did some research. Turned up a couple articles that had a sad irony. The vaccine itself only guards for about 3-6 years. They want teenage girls to take it. Problem? The cancer itself shows up typically around 30-40 years of age. This is old info, done about two years ago, so the numbers might be different now. But tell me, what is the point of giving a vaccine to 15 year olds when the shot would be out of effect by age 21 (at the latest) and most cases of the cancer pop up at thirty or up? Needless to say, I decided against the vaccine and have had VERY low esteem of it. To hear what is happening to these girls that have taken it makes me furious. It's a sad irony, girls taking a vaccine that wouldn't truly help, then it causing sickness. This is one reason I think Government should rarely get involved with medicine.
Yeah there's so much shady stuff surrounding the pharma cartel and our government. What's sad is that Merck tested the stuff for less than a year before they released it on the market and the amount of parents rushing their little girls out to get it. :cry:

Video:
Gardasil HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK97CHQZhq0)

moonglow
Feb 17th 2009, 06:37 PM
Watch this video of this poor teen that is dying from complication of the Gardasil vaccine. The lawmaker that tried to pass a bill in Kansas requiring it is now questioning the FDA on its safety. If the Texas Legislature doesn’t extend the ban on the mandate this session, the Health Commissioner is free to mandate this to anyone in Texas before the start of the next legislative session. Please ask your state representative and senator to extend the ban on the mandate for the HPV vaccine. - DR

http://www.kake.com/kansas/headlines/39581687.html#

http://www.kvue.com/news/top/stories/021509kvuegardasil-bkm.1d4f95fa.html

Kansas teen wants Gardasil taken off the market

08:55 PM CST on Sunday, February 15, 2009

KVUE News
It was a hot issue here in Texas a couple of years ago. Now Gardasil, the vaccine against the virus that causes cervical caner, is back in the spotlight.

Gabi Swank, a 16-year-old from Wichita, Kansas, says she and other girls are dying from the side-effects of the drug. Once a cheerleader with a 4.0 grade point average, she is now homebound, suffering from seizures, migraines and even two small strokes.
Swank’s doctors diagnosed her with cerebral vasculatis, a terminal disease. And he blames Gardasil complications.

Now, Swank and her mother are on a mission.
“She looked at me with the most somber face and she said, ‘If I have to die to save other girls, then I am prepared to do that’,” said Gabi’s mother, Shannon Schrag.
“I want this drug off the market,” said Gabi.

Governor Rick Perry made headlines two years ago when he made Texas the first state to require the vaccine against human pappilomavirus (HPV), a sexually transmitted disease. Conservatives and parents rights groups felt the requirement condoned pre-marital sex.

The makers of Gardasil say the drug is safe. They’re hoping to vaccinate boys as well.

My sister sent me the same email...

Her daughter will be turning 13 soon and when this first came out..I think her daughter was nine and she was like my nine year old daughter isn't going to be out having sex and didn't want her to get it...yet. She wanted to wait and see how it did with others first...to see if this would be a good idea or not. Now this story is in her own city! So of course it shook her up and she is glad she didn't give into the pressure and have her daughter get it...of course the drug company still feels that since MOST of the girls have done ok its an "acceptable risk"...

But I bet the parents of these girls certainly don't think so...:(

Now they want to make one for boys too...:(

I truly wish they would take this off the market and come up with something much safer...(like telling the kids the best way to not get these diseases is to wait until marriage!!! That is full proof...)

The thing too I don't get about the doctor in this story...the girl was getting sicker after each shot...why didn't the doctor stop the shots? Why didn't the doctor make the connection to her illness after each injection? They have to take three shots..it just seems like someone would have throw out a red flag there. And usually they say don't get any vaccination when you are sick anyway...!

God bless

diffangle
Feb 17th 2009, 11:47 PM
of course the drug company still feels that since MOST of the girls have done ok its an "acceptable risk"...


Something that's intereting is in that video I posted in my post right before yours is the guy shows that the FDA's own records say that HPV doesn't cause cancer! And that the vaccine is actually causing pre cancerous lesions.:B

matthew7and1
Feb 18th 2009, 01:59 AM
Ok, I didn't read all 4 pages here..
But going out on a limb, has anyone considered the possibility that they may contract this from thier husband?
I mean, not personally, but what if you are a virgin and you get it from the man you marry. There are often no symptoms. What if your husbad is a widower and his first wife had it... There are a million not-sinful scenarios here.
In addition, I reject the idea that STD's are curses for disobeying God's laws. If they were, everyone would get one who had sex out of wedlock, promiscuously, etc... Sexually transmitted diseases are diseases like strep and cancer. It isn't logical to equate diseases with punishment if you aren't going to be unilateral.
Now I don't thik any vaddines should be mandatory. My son got the chicken pox one and it was new when he did, so i brought him around kids with pox to make sure if the vaccine was a dud, he'd get them young. But he didn't. It worked out for us. If I had a daughter I would do the research and make this choice for her/with her. I am not in favor of the government forcing any medicine on people per say.
But overall, I think that this is not a bad development and that it will saves some lives: and wont that be worth it?

diffangle
Feb 18th 2009, 02:36 AM
But overall, I think that this is not a bad development and that it will saves some lives: and wont that be worth it?

Imo it won't be worth it and it is a bad development. I would suggest that you at least read the posts on page 10 of this thread and watch all the videos... including the one that shows that the FDA even admits that HPV does not cause cancer. Also check out Jollyrogers post.:(

SammeyDW
Feb 18th 2009, 07:49 AM
My sister sent me the same email...

But I bet the parents of these girls certainly don't think so...:(

Now they want to make one for boys too...:(


I don't either but since the fda does thats all that matters...right?



I truly wish they would take this off the market and come up with something much safer...(like telling the kids the best way to not get these diseases is to wait until marriage!!! That is full proof...)


Not in our over-sexed culture..never.:o




The thing too I don't get about the doctor in this story...the girl was getting sicker after each shot...why didn't the doctor stop the shots? Why didn't the doctor make the connection to her illness after each injection? They have to take three shots..it just seems like someone would have throw out a red flag there. And usually they say don't get any vaccination when you are sick anyway...!

God bless

I don't know how they work it where you are.
But here the doctors get a 'kickback' from the drug companies for every prescription they fill.
So they may have made the connection,
but they let greed override there care for the patient.:(:mad: