| Author |
 Topic  |
|
jackie
United Kingdom
114 Posts |
 Posted - 09/13/2008 : 15:22:16
|
The Gardasil vaccine product information sheets list adverse reactions which are very similar to the adverse reactions stated in the Cervarix product sheet. Both target similar strains; Gardasil also targets two strains of genital warts. Both manufacturers promote their vaccines as being safe and effective. The vaccine policy-makers in the US (one of the main users of Gardasil) and the UK fully endorse the use of their chosen product.
thomas p, you should know as well as I do that the real trials begin when the vaccines are introduced into the general population.
If another country, especially one with such a large population as the US, is collecting details of serious adverse effects (seizures, paralysis syndrome etc) including the reported deaths of some 18 young people then the HPV vaccine programme should be halted immediately until each and every report has been independently evaluated to determine for certain whether the vaccine caused the serious problem/death or not.
It is simply not good enough to hear that the manufacturer of Gardasil does not think there is a link with the death or serious problem. An independent medical assessor, with no links to the drug companies, should be investigating and reporting the findings.
The vaccine trials have only lasted about six years, far too soon to categorically state that young girls/women have been saved from cervical cancer.
And the young girls/women whose lives have been dramatically affected with a long-term disability or have died following the HPV vaccine? What about them?
Do you really believe they are all coincidences? Or are these children and young women's lives not as valuable as those that might contract one of the strains of cervical cancer that might lead to a problem that might not be treatable?
|
 |
|
|
thomas p
United Kingdom
314 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2008 : 11:51:44
|
Whatif - you've just demonstrated the lack of intelligence i alluded to. thanks. If you're a virgin when you're given the vaccine then it is protective, hoever if you're not then you may already have the virus and it's less likely to be protective.
It's not rocket science, but it still seems to have whooshed over your head.
Jackie - they may target similar strains but they are different drugs. I don't know what the vaccination rates are in the US, but sometimes people die suddenly of undiagnosed conditions (such as prolonged QT syndrome). If the rates of derath on vaccinated vs non-vaccinated girls are higher then it's a problem. The FDA will be looking at this constantly. Since it's a particularly high-profile vaccine, I'd be surprised if they weren't having weekly meetings looking at the figures to see if there's a problem appearing.
to suggest immediately halting all HPV vaccinations until every single death completely excludes any possiblity of the vaccines is daft and shows no understanding of the complexities of post-mortem diagnoses.
Nobody wants anything to go wrong, but there will inevitably be some side-effects. The question is, is the level acceptable? What if the vaccine does kill 1 in a million recipients, but prevents 50% of cervical cancers (by the way, these prevention/death figures are for example only - I plucked them out of the air).
Cervical cancer kills 2.4 per hundred-thousand women, so a 50% efficacy would save 1.2 per 100,00 or 12 per million.
so if it did kill 1 in a million, then there would be a net saving of 11 lives. Is that acceptable? What if it's 100% effective when given to virgins (as it is currently aimed and as it seems to be) then there's 24 per million who don't die with a net saving of 23 lives. Is this acceptable?
What if it kills 22 per million leading to a net saving is 2 lives per million? Is this acceptable?
Either way, if it's on'es daughter who dies, then one would feel it;s unacceptable, but on'es daughter is likely to be many times as likely to be in the survivor group than the dying one.
Life isn't a simple question of "this is safe, that is unsafe", it's nuanced and you need to properly analyse what's the best course of action, rather than just using gut instinct or half-understood figures based on another drug. |
|
|
|
Wanda
United Kingdom
133 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2008 : 12:31:56
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by thomas p[/i]
[br]Whatif - you've just demonstrated the lack of intelligence i alluded to. thanks. If you're a virgin when you're given the vaccine then it is protective, hoever if you're not then you may already have the virus and it's less likely to be protective.
It's not rocket science, but it still seems to have whooshed over your head.
Jackie - they may target similar strains but they are different drugs. I don't know what the vaccination rates are in the US, but sometimes people die suddenly of undiagnosed conditions (such as prolonged QT syndrome). If the rates of derath on vaccinated vs non-vaccinated girls are higher then it's a problem. The FDA will be looking at this constantly. Since it's a particularly high-profile vaccine, I'd be surprised if they weren't having weekly meetings looking at the figures to see if there's a problem appearing.
to suggest immediately halting all HPV vaccinations until every single death completely excludes any possiblity of the vaccines is daft and shows no understanding of the complexities of post-mortem diagnoses.
Nobody wants anything to go wrong, but there will inevitably be some side-effects. The question is, is the level acceptable? What if the vaccine does kill 1 in a million recipients, but prevents 50% of cervical cancers (by the way, these prevention/death figures are for example only - I plucked them out of the air).
Cervical cancer kills 2.4 per hundred-thousand women, so a 50% efficacy would save 1.2 per 100,00 or 12 per million.
so if it did kill 1 in a million, then there would be a net saving of 11 lives. Is that acceptable? What if it's 100% effective when given to virgins (as it is currently aimed and as it seems to be) then there's 24 per million who don't die with a net saving of 23 lives. Is this acceptable?
What if it kills 22 per million leading to a net saving is 2 lives per million? Is this acceptable?
Either way, if it's on'es daughter who dies, then one would feel it;s unacceptable, but on'es daughter is likely to be many times as likely to be in the survivor group than the dying one.
Life isn't a simple question of "this is safe, that is unsafe", it's nuanced and you need to properly analyse what's the best course of action, rather than just using gut instinct or half-understood figures based on another drug.
If one's daughter died would you be equally insulting to the parents as you have to parents on this site? We are witnesses to vaccine damage. You are not. Your belief is based on the idea that it's acceptable when it's happening to someone else. We represent the 'someone else'. |
|
|
|
GUS THE FUSS
United Kingdom
1465 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2008 : 12:47:08
|
Anonymous Dr Tom P (P for poison) of LT /RT
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdlecture.htm
QUOTE:
Most recently we are saying that cervical cancer in women is due to human papillomavirus. Ten years ago, it was herpes virus, you remember. There was just a study at Berkeley. It studied 400 female students on the Berkeley campus. 250 were papillomavirus positive. In reality, 50% of all women in this country have these papillomaviruses and men have them too, and the incidence of cervical cancer is totally independent of it. The percentage of women with cervical cancer with and without papillomavirus reflects exactly the percentage of papillomavirus in this country. No evidence whatever.
UNQUOTE
MMR RIP |
Edited by - GUS THE FUSS on 09/15/2008 12:54:50 |
|
|
|
thomas p
United Kingdom
314 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2008 : 14:53:14
|
ah virusmyth, an aids denialist site.
Gus, you are a truly stupid and nasty person. |
|
|
|
GUS THE FUSS
United Kingdom
1465 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2008 : 18:46:47
|
You first SATIN aka Anonymous Dr Tom P (P for poison) of LT /RT
Anyone/thing/it that Laughs’ at the meaning of special disabled kids is evil
thomas p
United Kingdom
205 Posts Posted - 09/04/2008 : 13:10:36
________________________________________
quote:
________________________________________
Originally posted by Seonaid
[br]Well I've come into contact with him plenty - and I don't need or want your commiserations thank you. Nor do his family. Gus is a very special human being
________________________________________
Anonymous Dr Tom P (P for poison) of LT /RT
QUOTE
Is that "special" as in special school?UN QUOTE
http://www.jabs.org.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2848&whichpage=3&SearchTerms=special%2Cneeds
MMR RIP |
Edited by - GUS THE FUSS on 09/15/2008 18:53:05 |
|
|
|
Suba
United Kingdom
395 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2008 : 22:21:57
|
The spermicide Nonoxynol-9 used in condoms and gel has been shown to damage the lining of the cervix increasing the chances of HPV infection. Also as it happens increases the chances of HIV infection not yet proven as the cause of AIDS. It may also play an important part in cancer of the cervix. Nonoxynol-9 is used as a detergent and can also be found in hair dye and is classed as an irritant. It is carcinogenic. Advice: use a gel and/or condom that is made with carrageenan an extract from sewaweed that has been shown to inhibit hpv virus and cancer.
Cancer of the genital tract, particularly cervical cancer, is an important cause of cancer morbidity and mortality in women in the U.S.A. and elsewhere. Any persistent mutagenic or carcinogenic influence in the vagina is therefore of great potential significance in the causation of cancer. One such potential persistent influence is the presence of a mutagenic spermicidal gel. In the present study, the mutagenicity of three commonly used over-the-counter spermicidal gels containing Nonoxynol-9 as the active ingredient was examined in a bacterial assay, which was a modification of the Ames test. The results were compared with those in which a series of non-antibacterial and antibacterial products were examined. These products included a number of personal products that come into contact with mucous membranes as well as some caustic non-personal home products and a known mutagen, sodium azide. Whether these substances needed to be activated by liver enzymes in order to be mutagenic was also examined. The results showed that all three of the intravaginal spermicidal gels tested were as mutagenic or more mutagenic than the other products tested in each category. One caused frame shift type mutations and the other two point mutations. Although two of these products only became mutagenic following activation by liver extract, suggesting that in a clinical situation they might only be significant mutagens if systemically absorbed or ingested, the third was mutagenic without liver activation. It therefore might be expected to be directly mutagenic in the female, and indirectly in the male, genital tract. These results thus suggest that spermicidal gels, either acting alone or in concert with other potentially mutagenic and carcinogenic agents, may be a significant cause of cancer in women.
http://www.aacrmeetingabstracts.org/cgi/content/abstract/2004/1/1123-b
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v13/n7/abs/nm1598.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T32-4KGG1GT-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlversion=0&_userid=10&md5=c0898523bcfce54717e85514ef957877
http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/3/5/553
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/2/gr080204.html
http://www.metrokc.gov/health/APU/infograms/noxnine.htm
http://www.naturalnews.com/019649.html
Nonoxynol-9 is one of those appalling, creepy American products masquerading as something beneficial, when in fact it is snake oil. The debate over the merits of nonoxynol-9 has raged for over a decade. This substance, a detergent-like solution developed over 30 years ago as a kind of contraceptive spermicide for women, is the product of junk science. Nonoxynol-9 is the Frankenstein monster of laboratory lubes. It has never been FDA-approved for use against HIV infection, yet it was added to condoms and lubricants at the height of AIDS hysteria back in the 1980s based on nothing more than some lame animal experiments and questionable test tube results.
Yes, nonoxynol-9 kills HIV in a test tube. Vaginas and rectums are not test tubes. Controlled, laboratory experiments have little in common with real-world, human sexual interaction. Still, various companies were able to plant the idea that nonoxynol-9 kills HIV, STDs and sperm with very little scrutiny and went on to make a lot of money off our need to alleviate fears about disease and pregnancy. While cosmetic, pharmaceutical and condom companies added nonoxynol-9 to commercial sexual products, the Food and Drug Administration looked the other way and unsuspecting consumers like you and me bought into this deceitfulness and quackery.
I haven't promoted this N-9 crap since I first became a safer sex educator in 1994. Nonoxynol-9 always gave me a rash and irritated my skin. I knew that couldn't be a good thing. My male safer sex workshop participants reported similar results. I talked to women who privately disclosed their own dissatisfaction with N-9 because of vaginal lesions and irritation. It's bad enough that we've been duped and put at risk, but worse than that is the fact that the hype surrounding nonoxynol-9 was so effective that it ultimately undermined further, better research into spermicides and microbicides that really might effectively kill HIV and other STDs. Someone ought to be held accountable for this sham, because the truth is we have every right to be angry and unforgiving towards all the companies who developed, sold and falsely marketed this fraudulent substance.
Remember when we all found out that those guys from Milli Vanilli were lip-synching their songs? Okay, that was a surprising, but harmless turn of events. Nobody ever got hurt by deceptive pop music. This nonoxynol-9 business is a real scandal with real victims. We have been grievously misled by the shameful marketing of a product so bogus and ill-conceived that it can actually increase the risk of HIV and STD transmission. How is this any less abominable than big tobacco companies secretly mixing harmful additives into cigarettes and lying about it? It's not. Big tobacco eventually got busted. Public condemnation and aggressive litigation against the manufacturers and marketers of nonoxynol-9 is long overdue. There is no evidence to date that N-9 provides protection against HIV in real-life sexual situations. Let's bust them, too, because this is not one of those situations where we can say that nonoxynol-9 is better than nothing; it's good for nothing.
http://www.thebody.com/content/art32322.html
|
Edited by - Suba on 09/15/2008 23:53:40 |
|
|
|
whatif
USA
286 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2008 : 04:13:50
|
Uh, thomas p, do you wanna show us how many of the trial virgins had sex post vaccine and then prove they were exposed to HPV 16, 18 etc. etc. etc. Please lay it out thomas p and then explain it against the serotype switching evidence in the sexually active group and how it all contradicts you every step of the way. Good luck thom p, you've proven vastly incapable thus far.
I'll stop there as it's quite evident you're lost thom p. |
|
|
|
thomas p
United Kingdom
314 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2008 : 10:43:05
|
Gus - satin? what? you're insane.
whatif, you're clearly unable to understand what i've posted so i';m not going to waste any more time discussing this with you.
suba, since it comes from you, i'm going to base my judgement on past experience and assume that it''s ill-understood scaremongering. Condoms, regardless of the spermicide, are protective against STDs, including all trains of HPV and AIDS (but excluding pubic lice). |
|
|
|
Suba
United Kingdom
395 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2008 : 11:43:43
|
Read the content Thomas P. This is very significant. Fact not scaremongering Thomas. Scaremongering is what Big pharma does as a concerted marketing strategy along with trolls like you.
Interesting isn't it that the HPV vaccines work best on virgins; they have not got damaged cervix from condoms or gel yet. Just a coincidence.
HPV vaccine less effective on older females. Hmmmm, older females have more chance of lesions and damage due to carcinogenic chemical found in gels and condoms not to mention suppositories.
INDUSTRY QUOTES
"...... new concerns are arising regarding allergic or other toxic reactions to various components of latex condoms such as vulcanization accelerators, latex proteins, spermicides and finishing powders."
"* Studies are needed to evaluate the best lubricants to use in the manufacture of condoms. Evidence suggests that the right quantity, type and placement of lubricant is important for condom functionality, acceptability and safety.
In addition, the added value and risk presented by spermicidal lubricants and by dry finishing powders (e.g. talc or cornstarch) should be critically examined."
"Since the late 1980s the reported incidence
of allergy to natural rubber latex has increased dramatically, as much as 12 -fold."
"Latex allergy is incurable, although the symptoms, such as itching, soreness, painful blistering, runny noses, swollen eyes, asthma symptoms and anaphylaxis can be ameliorated.
Everyone who has contact wi th natural rubber latex is potentially at risk from sensitisation.
Both patients and health care workers can be at risk from allergic reactions to natural rubber latex. Over the past decade, allergic reactions to natural
rubber latex have become a major public health concern."
" Once a person has developed latex allergy, however mild, they are “sensitised” to latex and are at risk from severe allergic reactions."
"Delayed cell-mediated reactions are the most common form of hypersensitivity reaction to natural rubber latex. These reactions are to individual chemical residues from the production process such as accelerants used in the vulcanisation process which is required to strengthen the product.
The residual chemicals may bloo on the surface of the products and can be absorbed through the skin upon contact."
Condoms contain compounds known to cause cancer and serious birth defects in substantial quantities
SOURCE. Condom Industry web site and Beacon Pharmaceuticals, July 2001
Condoms contain 41 FDA listed toxins, 3 carcinogens, 2 suspected carcinogens, a teratogen and over 50 toxic proteins. In addition the lubricants are highly toxic in particular N9, talc and silicone.
_________
Australian AIDS organizations last week called for the withdrawal of spermicides and lubricants containing nonoxynol-9 (N-9), which has been shown to increase the risk of contracting HIV. Nonoxynol-9 was designed as a
spermicide about 50 years ago and is now contained in most vaginal gels, creams, foams, suppositories, sponges and films. It is also used as a lubricant either added to condoms or for use during intercourse.
The spermicide had been promoted as a means of preventing HIV, but a recent Lancet study (2002;360:971-977) found frequent use may in fact increase the risk of HIV transmission.
The head of the Australian Federation of AIDS Organizations, Don Baxter, said up to 10 percent of condoms sold in Australia include nonoxynol-9 as a lubricant. "Not a high percentage of condoms use nonoxynol-9, it's
usually a particular brand, but they are fairly widely available," he said. Baxter advised all gay men to avoid using condoms with nonoxynol-9 and said AFAO would call for the product to be withdrawn from pharmacy shelves.
"It's not a panic-station thing but it's now clear that it doesn't protect against HIV."
The US CDC issued an alert when the results of the latest study were first released at the International AIDS Conference in South Africa in July 2000. The study found that the women who used N-9 gel had become
infected with HIV at about a 50 percent higher rate than women who used a placebo. This was because it could cause lesions on the epithelium of the vagina or rectum walls, potentially facilitating infection.
The World Health
Organization repeated the warning last June.
Lancet's latest report on the data first presented in 2000 said that nonoxynol-9 has toxic effects that enhance the risk of infection. "Nonoxynol-9 no longer has a part to play in HIV-1 prevention," said the authors, led by Lut
van Damme of the Institute of Tropical Medicine in Antwerp, Belgium. "Our data show that low-frequency use of nonoxynol-9 causes neither harm nor benefit, but that frequent use increases a woman's risk of HIV-1
infection by causing [vaginal] lesions."
|
Edited by - Suba on 09/16/2008 11:44:26 |
|
|
|
Suba
United Kingdom
395 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2008 : 11:47:48
|
Study Reveals Condoms are Carcinogenic
BERLIN, May 31, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Most condoms contain a potent carcinogen, N-Nitrosamine, a German research facility revealed Friday. Of 32 types tested, 29 contained the cancer-causing chemical at highly elevated levels, up to three times what could be found in food, the study showed.
Study scientists, who conducted the research at The Chemical and Veterinary Investigation Institute in Stuttgart, Germany, said "N-Nitrosamine is one of the most carcinogenic substances," as reported by the Reuters news service. "There is a pressing need for manufacturers to tackle this problem," the scientists recommended.
The chemical's purpose is to increase the elasticity of latex rubber, and is released when a condom comes in contact with body fluids.
http://groups.msn.com/LIDS-Latexallergiesandthedangersofcondoms |
Edited by - Suba on 09/16/2008 11:52:58 |
|
|
|
thomas p
United Kingdom
314 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2008 : 12:58:49
|
| it's because they haven't had sex and so they haven't already been exposed to HPV. |
|
|
|
whatif
USA
286 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2008 : 14:46:14
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by thomas p[/i]
[br]
whatif, you're clearly unable to understand what i've posted so i';m not going to waste any more time discussing this with you.
For once I agree with you thomas p! I clearly don't understand how you can think a vaccine can claim efficacy against HPV inducing cervical cancer/lesions/etc., THAT IS SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED...., in VIRGINS!!!
Especially as the NON-VIRGIN groups evidence shows the vaccine is bunk, HPV incidence was on the rise, NON-VACCINE STRAINS having sizeable contribution to the lesions with the worse and worst prognosis.
Oh, I understand preventive measures (i.e. building up antibodies prior to contact with the pathogen) as I preach prevention every day in practice. But the evidence is saying that once virgins have sex, they will likely need Gardasil/Cervarix generation I, Gardasil/Cervarix generation II, Gardasil/Cervarix generation III, Gardasil/Cervarix generation IV............until they get tired of chasing their tail and rightly say No Thanks as 1/3 of Australians smartly did per Rosemary's post on Gardasil.
Anyway, good riddance...hopefully people you may dish out your rubber stamp dogmatic ill-advice upon will come across these boards.
P.S. did you figure out the armamentarium one should have on hand should one follow your "simple common sense" advice to get the vaccine "benefit" which outweighs the high risk of anaphylactic shock to a known allergen in the vaccinatory brew? Damn, it's a good think you aint a doc.
P.P.S. How about Louis Reik Jr. (circa 1980) did you get a chance to study up on disseminated vasculomyelinopathy post-vaccine yet? That's just one place, of countless, to start.
|
Edited by - whatif on 09/16/2008 14:48:33 |
|
|
|
Suba
United Kingdom
395 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2008 : 14:56:16
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by thomas p[/i]
[br]it's because they haven't had sex and so they haven't already been exposed to HPV.
Possible non-sexual transmission of genital human papillomavirus infections in young women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8389707?dopt=Abstract
You just make it up as you go along don't you Thomas P just like Big Pharma. Typical pharma excuse for vaccine:
"The chance of cervical cancers in this age group is likely to go up with the increase in the number of sex partners."
If the immune system is impaired by previous vaccinations I would agree.
If condoms are used laced with toxins I would agree.
Surely there is a market for organic condoms, a natural alternative that is better than this:
http://sexuality.about.com/od/contraception/a/condomhistory.htm
Avoidance of Pharmaceutical toxins is a must for a healthy immune system. There is no place for any HPV vaccine that will just help to overload the immune system.
Pharmaceutical companies time and time again get away with the use of known irritants which after application including injection turn out to be carcinogenic or causative of major illness.
http://www.health-report.co.uk/benzene-lubricants-condoms.htm
|
Edited by - Suba on 09/16/2008 16:30:56 |
|
|
|
thomas p
United Kingdom
314 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2008 : 16:17:46
|
Suba, for all I know the stuff you've posted here about nonxyl 9 could be thorough research showing a real cause for concern (although since cervical cancer has been dropping throughout the period that nonxyl 9 has been on condoms, I think it probably isn't) or it could be credulous nonsense like most of the claims you make.
Since so far every claim you've made has turned out to be wrong, I'm going to be lazy and use the epidemiology I made vague mention to above along with my experience of the integrity of your normal sources and I'll assume it's the latter. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Cervarix
