Gardasil Vaccine Hoax

THis is really interesting. You can see some sensationalism in it but the point is made. And even if they are exagerating and misrepresenting things if it gets people THINKING before they just get it for not other reason then they were told to, then I think it has been successful. Oh, and I appreciated the Stuck in stuff movie yesterday. We went over and watched it last night and while some of it seemed sensationalized it was valid and got us thinking about our stuff. Great finds! I’ve posted both over at my blog.

Angela’s last blog post..Vaccines and Stuff

I personally have a hard time believing a guy sitting in front of a wrinkled blue sheet. On the internet. But I went ahead and watched this whole video anyways.

To start with, when Merck came out with the vaccine it never made the claim to “cure cervical cancer” or that HPV directly caused cervical cancer in most women, Quite the opposite, almost every news story was quick to point out that HPV clears up on it’s own in most women and does not cause cervical cancer in most women. Another problem with this “news report” is that while it briefly shows the documents from the FDA and mentions a report from JAVA he doesn’t have any of these documents on the link to this video on his website. I also feel like these studies were taken out of a medical context in his attempt to make them easy to understand and I am not sure his conclusions matched up with those of the studies. I don’t like that he clearly has a bias and promotes his own website a countless number of times. That to me doesn’t make him look crediable.

Also, to say that HPV never causes cervical cancer is not true. A few months ago my sister went to her pap smear and discovered she has HPV and had developed dysplacta which is the pre-cancer of the cervix. She had to get the lining of her cervix surgically removed which would put her at an increased risk of pre-mature labor if she were to get pregnant. The only way she could have gotten HPV was from her current husband who she has been with for the past 3 years (2 years of which she missed her annual paps due to them canceling her appointments) so it’s possible had she missed another pap smear she may have developed cervical cancer.

Whether the vaccine is the best way to avoid HPV, whether it’s safe or not, or whether we should be encouraging condom use instead which prevents HPV in around 98% of call cases, to say it does not cause cervical cancer in women is just a lie. Also while some strains don’t, it’s very very possible that a woman may come across several different strains of HPV with-in her life time that could cause cervical cancer and may not clear up.

Yep and she could come along with something else too. My thought though is that if there is this much doubt then don’t get it. Just get your paps every year. But also don’t put crap in your body that isn’t already there.

Angela’s last blog post..Vaccines and Stuff

Brooke, I went to NewTarget and looked at the report and every single page he had in to the video is linked too, including the JAMA report.

http://www.newstarget.com/Report_HPV_Vaccine_1.html

No need to take his word for it. Although I am a bit surpised that someone talking in front of a wrinkled blue sheet on the Internet can’t be taken seriously…especially when he can back up everything he said….and does. What makes him trustworthy?

Read the clause on his site. He takes NO money for his work. He takes on NO advertisers, he promotes full disclosure, he earns no revenue from things recommended on his site unless he sells them like the LED bulbs and the soap. He doesn’t let people invest in his company….I say that shows integrity. He really cares about the people hurt by these vaccine makers. In that video he didn’t mention the thousands of reports of injuries and the deaths that have occurred because of this vaccine.

There appears to be only a small chance the vaccine will do anything to help against HPV but yet the company is pushing to have it be mandated by state law..meanwhile people are getting sick and several have died…all for something that maybe, possibly, hypothetically could help protect against cancer…but ooops…. if they already have the strain they are being vaccinated against they are 44% more likley to get cervical cancer. I will trust Mike before I trust Merck any day.

I’m not saying we should trust Merck AT ALL. But we shouldn’t automatically trust everyone online either, or ever person who claims to be an expert just because their information is not for profit. This information is not in a peer reviewed medical journal or in the news or in any place that can be checked and countered by experts in the field. He also instead of letting the public come to their own conclusions presents his information in a bias way, stating his own conclusions. That’s not journalism. It’s not news. It’s an opinion piece, it’s propaganda, whether I agree with it or not. Also are we supposed to trust his sources? The FDA, Merck and JAVA, because I am not sure we can trust their information either.

I didn’t see the link for the actual article on his website yesturday, but thanks for posting it. He completely contradicts himself! He says that HPV does not cause cervical cancer, yet if a woman who already has HPV gets the HPV vaccine then she is more likely to develop cancer. Well…according to his previous statements, if HPV is not harmful, how could a vaccine that is strains of the HPV virus then cause cancer in women with HPV. Shouldn’t it all just clear up on it’s own according to him? Because HPV is not a dangerous virus??? He has says that in Texas the HPV vaccine is mandatory. That’s not correct. Actually it’s only mandatory that parents are told the vaccine exists. Not that young women have to be given the vaccine and I am sure even if that were the case parents would be able to file waivers and exemptions. Another thing he said that was false was that Merck is lobbying to have the vaccine become mandatory. Aside from their never being any bills in any state legislatures that would make the vaccine mandatory, only for parents to be informed about the vaccines existence, Merck stopped all lobbying campaigns over a year ago. Merck also has said that the vaccine is not effective in women who already have HPV or have been sexually active with more the 3 partners. A claim which this guy makes as something completely new. However, he claims that girls would have to be virgins in order not to have HPV but that’s not true, because if a young woman was having protected sex with a condom and taking other precautions then her chances of having HPV would be minimal, but regardless, there are not alot of 11 year olds having sex (he claimed in a day and age when 9th and 10th graders…14-16 year olds are having sex the vaccines would be ineffective, but Merck has suggested the vaccine be used for girls aged 11-12, 6th and 7th graders). Another false claim he made was that Merck was suggesting the vaccine should be given to males in case they get the disease from oral sex, even though boys don’t have a cervix. Ah, well aren’t boys obviously spreading the disease? If they were not only lesbians would need to worry about HPV and not only can young men get HPV from oral sex, but any unprotected sexual act. So I don’t get what point he is trying to make there.

Anyways, I’m not claiming that everyone or anyone should get the HPV vaccine or any other, or defending Merck. I am just pointing out that in this case, many of the things he is making the claims are huge revelations are things Merck have said from the very beginning, alot of his information is false and I am not sure where is expertise in this case comes from and I think his bias is obvious. I’m definitely not pro-vaccination, but I don’t think people should be making false claims to push an agenda either. I also don’t think that when literally everyone and anyone can build a website that we trust everything we read online. I don’t trust everything I see on the news or read in the paper or hear from random people on the street, so I can’t just trust everyone who has a website.

“Gardasil Vaccine Hoax ”

WHY am I NOT surprised?

I don’t think Mike is contradicting himself so much as it is the FDA that is. The FDA first reports years ago that there is at best a weak connection between HPV and cervical cancer and then they allow a vaccine to emerge to protect against HPV that causes cervical cancer….hmmm.

I think Mike is right about the Texas incident. Merck wouldn’t have given thousands to the governor and parents wouldn’t have been so outraged if the plan was just to “suggest” the vaccine. I know the governor’s speeches didn’t sound they they were making a mere suggestion. They wanted school boards and the state to require it and other states were chomping at the bit.

I don’t care what rationale explains them trying to vaccinate boys. It is ridiculous. If you can’t get the disease you shouldn’t be pushed into getting it. Now we are not only supposed to be proactive in our own health matters but we have to be proactive for everyone else we come into contact with too? And if girls get vaccinated then why do boys need to be too? It makes NO sense.

The point that I took away from this report is that while HPV can possibly cause cervical cancer…in most cases it won’t and therefore a vaccine is not required and in some cases vaccination will increase chances of getting cancer. It seems logical too me that if a certain strain of HPV can “maybe” cause cancer and and they already have it in their body (perhaps being self regulated at that moment) and we give them a concentrated dose of the same strain again, this time mixed with immune supressing chemicals, their chance of NOT being able to fight the disease off is increased and thus their chance of getting cancer is increased.

I would not consider Mike Adams as some random guy with a web site either. He is well respected in the health community.

Brooke,

Of course Merck didn’t advertise it as something that would cure cervical cancer. That would have been ridiculous. But they did market it as something that would prevent cervical cancer. I stayed pretty abreast of the news around the release, and I saw the ads and the pamphlets and the post cards at the doctor’s office. It was not sold as an HPV vaccine, but a cancer vaccine.

And while I’m not proposing – as some have in other places – that giving the vaccine to a teen is a license to have unprotected sex, it does send a subtle message that conflicts the safe sex message. It’s actually similar to reasoning many have for in depth sex-ed for young teens: “They’re going to do it anyway…” While we’re trying to teach people to protect themselves, we’re giving them shots that replace responsibility.

They should market this as an HPV vaccine, and give the risk factors for contracting the virus as the only reasons to get vaccinated. Of course, there’s no money in STD vaccines.

Charles’s last blog post..Rule #6: Be Real

I don’t want what Mike Adams is saying to be true, as a matter of fact I have an automatic reflex against what he is saying. I want vaccines to be little gifts from heaven to protect against disease. But damn it anyway, the more I research it, the more it is evident that Mike Adams is revealing important correct information.