Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support
Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support
Home | Profile | Register | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 JABS Forum
 News and Comment
 HPV vaccine
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

karen

United Kingdom
42 Posts

Posted - 10/01/2009 :  06:48:18  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
from today's Guardian what a load of ...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/oct/01/natalie-morton-cervical-cancer-jab

Natalie Morton, the 14-year-old from Coventry who died in hospital after having the cervical cancer vaccination, was not killed by the jab. Public health doctors breathed again when the preliminary result of her postmortem was released on Tuesday night. She had a serious underlying medical problem – nobody has yet specified what. Yet she may well have died because she had the jab. Though it may not have been the cause, the HPV vaccine could have been the trigger.

Vaccines are miraculous, life-saving inventions. They have stopped our babies dying of diphtheria and being disabled by polio. But they can kill. It's extremely rare, but it happens.

Let's be clear. Nobody has died from the cervical cancer HPV vaccine. But one death in the UK and 32 in the US have been linked to it – meaning that these young women died of something within seven days of receiving the jab. As with Natalie, it is highly unlikely the jab was the direct cause of death, and some of these deaths will have been totally coincidental.

Paul Hunt, consultant in paediatric infectious diseases at St George's hospital, London, says there are three categories of side-effects with vaccines: local, such as pain and redness at the injection site; general, such as fever; and severe allergic reactions. "These occur and are rare," he says. "Maybe one in 1m doses will result in a severe anaphylaxis – the serious allergic reaction some people have to a bee sting and the antidote is usually adrenalin, which vaccinators should have in case."

But beyond all that there is sometimes, as with Natalie, the existence of an unknown medical problem, which could have struck them down at any time. "It is conceivable that a child could have an underlying problem with their heart or a heart valve or an unrelated seizure disorder, such as epilepsy, which has not until that event become evident. The event could coincide with vaccination," he says. It is also possible that the vaccine – or the pain or anxiety around having the injection – could trigger the fatal episode.

Public health officials who launch immunisation programmes for an entire population are aware of these risks. But simple maths enables them to sleep at night. Vaccines do good for vast numbers of people. They save lives. In the UK, more than 1.4m doses of the HPV vaccine were given and 4,657 adverse reactions, mostly of the sore arm variety, were reported to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority between April 2008 and September 2009.

The death of one girl from something triggered by the vaccine – if that is what happened – is a tragedy. But set against the potential of the HPV jab to prevent maybe 400 of the nearly 1,000 deaths from cervical cancer each year, there is no contest in most medical minds. "We are saving an awful lot more than one in a million lives," says Sean Kehoe of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. "We have to keep with the positive message that there is far more benefit than risk."

But what about the parents? And here I have to acknowledge a personal interest. We are not so good at coolly considering the public health risk-benefit calculations. We try to be rational, but can't help wondering if our daughter will be the next Natalie Morton.

When the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine scare was triggered by a paper from Dr Andrew Wakefield and colleagues from the Royal Free hospital in London, who suggested a link to autism, my second daughter had not yet had the booster jab given at four years old. Nervously, in spite of my own belief in what the public health experts were saying, I delayed it. In the end, she had it during the catch-up campaign, was the only girl in the class to be called out for her jab, and fainted from the anxiety.

Now she is due to have the cervical cancer vaccine. Her older sister has had the first two of three doses. Last week, before Natalie died, I signed the permission form and sent it to school. This time, I did not hesitate. My 25-year-old niece was diagnosed with cervical cancer last year. After surgery, she seems clear, but will need regular check-ups. No cancer is anything other than horrible and we live in fear that it will return.

The risk-benefit calculation I made, with my daughters, was easy. But without cancer staring you in the face, it's harder, as many parents know. "People are very bad at estimating their own risk of anything. The fact that lots of people play the lottery shows that," says Dr Anne Szarewski of the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine in London. "People have a completely distorted idea of risk. Sometimes they think it is much higher and sometimes they think it is much lower than it is."

She has examined many women with abnormalities that could be the precursor to cervical cancer and has no doubt about the vaccine's value, but she acknowledges how much tougher it is to make the choice for someone you love rather than for yourself. "Deciding for your daughter is a much more difficult decision," she says.

Many parents will have been reassured by NHS Coventry's statement that Natalie died because of an unknown medical problem. Many will find that scary too, just as some of us had moments of rising panic when we heard that children had died of swine flu only because of a health problem their parents had no clue about.

One often undetected condition is an irregular heart rhythm. Alison Cox, chief executive of Cardiac Risk in the Young, says it strikes without warning, can be triggered by fear or over-excitement and causes, in this country, about 12 deaths a week in under-35s. "In 80% of kids, the first symptom is sudden death," she says. She cites the example of an 18-year-old who died while cutting her birthday cake. Not every underlying condition can be screened for, but this one – an irregular heart rhythm – can.

There are no easy answers. There is no test that can rule out every conceivable medical problem. In the end, we all have to make a very personal decision, and what's worse is that we make it for our children and if anything happens to them, we will never forgive ourselves. But there are risks whatever we decide. My daughter could suffer some unexpected, incredibly rare reaction to the HPV vaccine, or she could, in a few years, have unprotected sex and develop cervical cancer, which could kill her or destroy her chances of having a family. I've made my choice and I'm sticking by it.

JanineRoberts

United Kingdom
19 Posts

Posted - 10/03/2009 :  15:45:00  Show Profile  Visit JanineRoberts's Homepage  Reply with Quote
HPV VACCINE MYSTERIES


By Janine Roberts

There are two licensed HPV vaccines in the world.
Merck makes Gardasil. It contains proteins said to come originally from four different types of HPV. By early 2008 over 10 million doses had been distributed, three-quarters of these in the USA. These are thought to be earning the company over $1 billion a year – at $360 a course of three injections, far more than is charged for the common vaccines The other is Cervarix, made by Smith Klein Beecham, not yet licensed for use in the USA (as of May 2008). It contains proteins said to come from 2 different types of HPV. Both vaccines contain aluminium adjuvants. Both manufacturers recommend that women are still regularly scanned for cervical cancer – thus the vaccine does not save costs. In fact these scans give women far better protection than do the vaccines.
On December 10th, 2008 a Nobel Prize was awarded for finding HPV and proving its link to cervical cancer to Dr Harad zur Hausen of the German Cancer Center in Heidelberg.
However there is a mystery here. All viruses are made by cells – but he failed to find a way to persuade cells to make his virus


“THE VACCINE WITHOUT A VIRUS.”

Measles, mumps, rubella, polio – all the usual childhood vaccines are produced from cell cultures, for viruses are products of cells. But there is something very different about the HPV vaccines. They do not contain any HPV! Scientists have not discovered how to persuade any cells to produce the putative virus for use in a vaccine – not even the skin cells supposed to produce it in the ‘wild,’ nor the cervical cancer cells supposed infected by it.
Extraordinarily HPV is not claimed to be present at any point during vaccine production. The International Agency for Research on Cancer reports that the human papillomaviruses (HPV) “cannot be propagated in tissue culture.”
These HPV vaccines are instead the product of a new synthetic vaccine industry based, not on isolating viruses, but on reproducing protein molecules presumed identical to those from the outer coat of an HPV virus – i.e. from the hypothetical virus that itself cannot be produced.
Why are these proteins themselves thought to exist? Extremely sensitive laboratory tools, variants of one called PCR or Polymerase Chain Reaction, have made it possible to study fragments of genetic code found among broken up cellular material. What they have detected in human tissue are tiny fragments of codes from these protein molecules. It is then presumed that a virus introduced these molecules – and so the vaccine contains manufactured versions of these proteins in the hope of generating antibodies against them and thus against this hard-to-find virus.
These proteins are named officially as “Virus-Like Particles’ (VLP), even thou’ this is like calling bricks ‘a house’. To make Gardasil, these are multiplied in yeast cell cultures, or for Cervarix multiplied in bacterial cultures. Fluid from these yeast or bacterial cultures containing these particles is then used as vaccine. There is no way to filter out the smallest particles in any vaccine, so these vaccines remain certainly contaminated with bits of yeast fungi or bacteria, plus whatever additives are used - and thus Gardosil is not officially recommended to those who are sensitive to yeast!
The HPV vaccines have added to them an aluminium ‘adjuvant’ said to provoke our immune cells into producing antibodies for longer. It is a metamorphic form of aluminium in the shape of tiny sharp needle-like crystals. These our immune cells attempt to digest, but cannot. The needles instead stick inside them. No wonder these crystals activate our cell’s immune systems! Recently this aluminium adjuvant has been linked by French scientists to many cases of a painful and disabling polio-like disease.

MAKING A VACCINE FOR AN ABSENT VIRUS

Why is HPV thought to cause cancer? Because Harald zur Hausen found protein-linked genetic codes in wart cells he associated with cervical cancer. He simply then assumed these proteins must come from a virus. To quote the Nobel Foundation, “he thought that human tumour cells, if transformed [made cancerous] by a virus, would harbour viral genetic information integrated into the host’s genome.” He thus searched the genomes of these cells for fragments of code that might have come from a protein in HPV, despite him not finding the putative virus itself in these cancer cells.
But – how could he know these codes were from a virus, without identifying and analysing it after producing it in a cell culture? Normally viruses need to be produced in considerable numbers in a cell culture before they can be studied and their genetic codes identified.
Having initially failed to find his virus among cervical cancer cells, he theorized that his virus might also cause plantar warts. He thus studied these warts’ DNA. The Nobel Foundation reports: “HPV particles had been identified in plantar warts with electron microscopy,” By this it meant that particles resembling HPV in shape had been found, as that is all such microscopy can reveal.
But, he claimed to have so accurately identified his samples of genetic code from warts that they could now be used as ‘PCR probes’ to identify HPV codes in the human genome. “Plantar [warts] cRNA was used as a probe.”
When he found different DNA codes in plantar warts, this was easily explained. He said they must be from different HPV strains. “This led to the identification of multiple HPV strains.” As viruses are strangely classified into the same species if their genetic codes differ by less than 20% (despite there being only a 3% variation in genetic codes between chimps and ourselves), he was thus able to label many different codes as from HPV strains.
Thus “Negative samples from African patients with cervical cancer led to an extensive search for additional HPV types.” De Hausen thus “identified” over 100 types of ‘HPV’ including a few found in cervical cancers.
By identifying so many proteins presumed from various versions of his virus, he could conclude ‘in about 90% of cases DNA and transcripts of specific HPV types are regularly detected in biopsies from cervical cancer and its precursor lesions.’ But 85% of the ‘HPV’ codes he identified were only found in warts and not in cancers. This he explained away by speculating that the human immune system must have defeated this 85% before they could cause cancers!
But, the genetic codes he thought must be from dangerous versions of HPV, since he detected a DNA fragment from them among cervical cancer cells, remarkably did not seem to remain dangerous for long.
He reported “approximately 90% of the HPV16 and HPV18 positive tissues became negative within two years.” In other words these proteins – and presumably his virus – naturally vanished.
What need was there then for a vaccine against them?
It got worse – or should have done – for his theory. He then found 99.2% of the human cells containing his “HPV DNA” did not develop cancer! He pressed on with his vaccine against HPV regardless.
Why did he think these codes must be from proteins unique to his virus? We have to say, “presumed,” as less than 1% of viruses have so far been analysed so logically it is impossible for us to be certain that any protein is unique to any type of virus. Virology is riddled with such uncertainties and guesswork. In any case, finding these codes in cancer cells does not mean that they cause the cancers. The cells may be producing these codes and proteins for entirely different purposes
In his theory, human skin cells make these proteins to build HPV – but this process has never been observed in the laboratory. We thus have a pile of bricks but no building.
The ‘P’ of HPV stands for papillomavirus. This is described as containing a double strand of circular DNA 8 kb long. So far some seventy different proteins guessed to be from variants of this virus have been identified in human tissues, and some 20 in animals.
But where exactly did Van Hausen find these genetic codes? He did not find them in viruses, but in the human genome as mostly found in wart tissue. He did not find there the whole code of his virus, but part of the code needed to make protein molecules that he postulated were used by cells to build the exterior of his virus. He postulated from this that the virus must exist and have transported this code to our genomes. But the codes he identified as from HPV were then found to be in nearly all of us, so it is hard to distinguish these sequences from our normal DNA. It turned out, as he discovered with PCR tests, that nearly 80% of healthy human American females have these proteins.
But, how could he then explain that far less than 1% of these women get cervical cancer? Furthermore, an antibody test for the virus proved difficult to develop as ‘antibodies to early HPV proteins have been detected in patients with HPV-associated diseases as well as in healthy individuals.’ This suggests that these proteins belong to humans as such – not to a virus at all.
So, how can these proteins be linked to the cancer? The Nobel Foundation noted that when ‘experiments were made in dogs and rabbits using purified papilloma virus structural proteins (these) resulted in effective protection against the primary infection.” But then, surely this does not exclude the possibility that our bodies make these proteins as a protection against cancer? Our bodies frequently make protein molecules as “messengers” to carry out important tasks. Why presume that these must come from a virus?
I found it astonishing to discover that these proteins were presumed pathogenic after an experiment in which these proteins (not the virus) ‘were transiently transfected into HeLa [cervical cancer] Cells’ and these cells began to die in increased numbers. The experimenters counted the cancer cells that died after exposure to these proteins. Their death rate went up by ‘about 5%.’ From this it was deduced that the proteins were dangerous! But to what? Surely to cancer cells – why then conclude they might cause cancers!
Trying to find another reason to call these proteins dangerous, some HPV scientists suggested they might hinder a cellular protein called p53 that helps protect us from cancers. “The E6 protein (thought to come from a certain form of HPV) binds to p53 and this interaction results in a decrease in the half-life of p53 within cells.” But, they also found these ‘HPV’ proteins protect cells from cancers! Perhaps our cells do not need so much p53 when these HPV’ proteins are present, since they carry out the same task of protecting us from cancers?
Many retroviruses are reported to have strong anti-tumour effects. It seems cells use retroviral particles to transport genetic codes to damaged cells in order to help them repair themselves – or to induce apoptosis, natural death, in the damaged cells.
This might explain why nearly 80% of adult western females have these proteins without getting cancers. ‘By age 50, approximately 80% of U.S. women have or have had a genital HPV infection.’
The entire focus of research up until now has been on discovering if these proteins might cause diseases – not on discovering if they might be valuable to us in some way – such as protecting women from cervical cancer.
If this is so, then it is utterly counterproductive to make a vaccine designed to produce antibodies against these proteins, for, if this were achieved, it would make the body attack itself and destroy the very proteins that protect us. .
As for these ‘dangerous HPV’ proteins, they are identified in the lab by finding short and presumed unique segments of their genetic codes, as follows: (These letters are sequences of 4 nucleotides.)

HPV-16 type-specific sequencing primer 5'-GCTGCCATATCTACTTCAGA-3'
HPV-18 type-specific sequencing primer 5'-GCTTCTACACAGTCTCCTGT-3'
HPV -6 type-specific sequencing primer 5'-GTGCATCCGTAACTACATCTT-3'
HPV -11 type-specific sequencing primer 5'-GTGCATCTGTGTCTAAATCTG-3'

But the paper that gives this information, also says that the “majority of multiple HPV infections are transient”, “vary among patient populations and are influenced by the stage of carcinogenesis “ and that “in 93% of initially infected women, the same viral type is not detected upon re-examination four menstrual cycles later,” In other words, the proteins thought from HPV do not stay the same in cervical cancer patients. Is this because waves of different HPV viruses are attacking – or because cells make different types of these proteins according to needs?
An earlier paper by Peter Duesberg et al reported: “no subset of viral DNA is consistently found or expressed in HBV-positive tumours. Only 11-19% of tumors in HBV positive patients express some viral antigens, compared to 26-61% expressing them in surrounding non-tumorous tissues” Again, this could be explained if these proteins are there to protect.
However despite spending many millions of dollars in trying to prove this virus the cause of these cancers, most of the scientists in this field have been forced to conclude that the virus by itself cannot be the cause of cervical cancer. They are now looking for a toxin or other factor that triggers the cancers.

SO – WHAT IS THE MAJOR CAUSE OF THESE CANCERS?

Having failed to prove HPV the sole cause of these cancers, or warts, other factors are now being added, despite these seemingly making a vaccine against a virus more pointless.
It is now reported that: ‘HPV infection alone is not sufficient to cause cervical cancer. Host, environmental, and virological co-factors clearly exist that influence the risk of progression from HPV infection to cervical cancer. Factors that may influence progression of HPV infection to cervical cancer include young age, immunosuppression, smoking, and co-infection with herpes simplex virus or Chlamydia trachomatis.’
It is also reported: ‘The long latency period between primary infection and cancer emergence suggests that additional factors are involved in the process of tumor development: sexual behavior, immune status, genetic predispositions, nutritional status, tobacco use, socio-economical level.’
This International Agency for Research on Cancer report also states: ‘The effects of chemical or physical carcinogens on progression of papillomavirus-induced lesions have been documented in a number of studies.’
Also, the cancer develops over a decade after the presumed exposure to the virus, making a causal link very hard to establish. ‘Progression from HPV infection to invasive cancer is usually a slow process, taking 10 to 15 years.’ Given this delay, and that the vaccine development only started around 2000, the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing this cancer cannot yet be know. Why then is this vaccine now being launched?
What is the major cause of cervical cancer? I would suggest that it is more likely to be these ‘co-factors’ than a virus, particularly the toxins – as toxins are widely implicated in other human cancers – such as asbestos in mesothelioma and tobacco in lung cancer. In a safety vaccine trial in Utah, women who smoked were found have a 3.42 times greater risk of cervical cancer than had women with little exposure to tobacco smoke. Also, women whose diets were high in vegetables had half the risk of getting cervical cancer.
Incidentally, the PR firm that Merck used to help get rapid licensing for this vaccine and to persuade governments to make it compulsory with a ‘celebrity-led’ campaign, is Edelman, the same company that sought to protect cigarette companies from legislation against tobacco smoke.
It is suggested by some that ‘the long-term use of chemical-based feminine hygiene products might alter the normal bacterial environment in the uterus that protects it, which in turn induces pre-cancerous lesions.’ Douches designed to kill bacteria, may damage other cells as well. Also toxins accumulate in body tissues, and may eventually reach critical levels. The highest mortality rate from cervical cancer is in the 75-79 age group.
So – does HPV vaccine lessen our chances of getting this cancer? If the ‘co-factors’ are the main causes, then it is evident that a vaccine cannot give us immunity. We also have to ask if a vaccine is appropriate at all when a virus cannot be isolated and proven to cause the disease.
It also has to be said that there is a major reason why the vaccines cannot logically be yet proven to work– these cancers take 10 – 60 years to appear and the vaccines have only been tested for a few months before being marketed, and then only against cervical lesions and not cancers.
The Nobel Foundation felt it necessary to say on its website in December 2008: “However, discoveries whether these vaccines are effective in preventing not only against cervical lesions but also cervical cancer and death must await the collection of epidemiological data during the coming decades. In addition, the duration of the vaccine's protection is unclear: do they provide life-long immunity or will booster doses be needed? Since the vaccines aim to protect against the two virus strains that cause 70% of the cervical cancers, will other strains emerge as a major cause of the tumours?”

Yet, despite these vaccines not being proved effective against cervical cancer, health authorities are seeking to make them a mandatory ‘protection against cervical cancer!’ The USA has already made them mandatory for all new female migrants. It seems that Merck’s PR firm is clearly far more effective than is its vaccine.


HPV VACCINE SAFTY TRIALS

The safety trials on which Merck relies when it says its vaccine is safe were only over a period of 18 months with children, and four years with adults, far less time than it takes a cervical cancer to develop. Furthermore, the control group were given a “placebo” containing the same aluminium adjuvant as in the vaccine, making the results unreliable as the control group might contain people who react against this aluminium.
Merck also warns that its vaccine is not for women who are “already infected” with one or more of the 4 proteins it’s vaccine guards against. It states that for such women, adding more of these in synthetic forms through vaccination is highly hazardous. It increases the risk of precancerous cervix lesions by 44.6%! “Injection of HPV vaccines into women who have concurrent vaccine-relevant HPV type infections may increase the risk, by 44.6%, of developing high-grade precancerous lesions in the cervix.”
Yet, despite this serious warning, women are criminally not being tested for the presence of these proteins before being offered the vaccine. This is highly irresponsible, in my view. The danger they have reported suggests that the synthetic proteins in the vaccine will upset the body’s natural process of protection, but Merck seems to have no explanation for this at all.
It’s safety trials also revealed that the arm muscles into which it is injected, strongly react against it. Pain, swelling, itching, bruising and inflammation were reported frequently. MS, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and severely disabling muscle pains have also been linked to the aluminium adjuvant. The vaccine may also contain free DNA fragments – reported by senior UK and US vaccine scientists to be possible causes of cancer and autoimmune diseases.
Merck has warned that its vaccine
1. “Has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity.” (In other words, Merck cannot guarantee that its vaccine will not cause cancers!)
2. “The safety and efficacy of Gardasil have not been evaluated in children younger than 9 years” – or “in adults above 26 years.” (Most cervical cancer cases are in women above 35.)
3. “The administration of Gardasil with other vaccines (other than Hepatitis B) has not been studied.’
4. “It is not known whether GARDASIL can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or if it can affect reproductive capacity."
Because of the lack of testing in older women, the FDA on June 25, 2008 denied Merck's application to market Gardasil to women aged over 27.
Dr Diane Harper, who helped develop this vaccine, came out to say on CBS television news on 7th May 2008 that making the vaccine compulsory was wrong as “the vaccine has not been out long enough for us to have post-marketing surveillance to really understand what all the potential side effects are going to be.” Since June 8th, 2006, when this vaccine was approved for use in the USA, over 8,000 possible side effects have been reported, including 18 deaths.
One news organization summed it up thus: ‘"Anaphylactic shock," "foaming at mouth," "grand mal convulsion," "coma" and "now paralyzed" are a few of the startling descriptions included in a new federal report describing the complications from Merck & Co.'s Gardasil medication for sexually transmitted human papillomavirus – which has been proposed as mandatory for all schoolgirls’ and which is now widely used in the UK and other parts of the world.
Here are 3 official reports of grave possible side effects observed in patients:
‘Severe form of Guillain-Barré syndrome after HPV vaccine . . . Respiratory failure with prolonged mechanical ventilation and tracheotomy tube placement . . . vital capacity deteriorated on day 3 . . . able to move only jaw and eyes.’
“Information has been received . . . concerning an approximately 19-year-old female who was vaccinated IM with a first dose of Gardasil. Subsequently, the patient was diagnosed with Guillain-Barré Syndrome and was hospitalized. The patient’s Guillain-Barré Syndrome persisted . . . Guillain-Barré Syndrome was considered to be disabling and immediately life-threatening.’
“A 18-year-old female patient was vaccinated with the first dose of Gardasil . . . In the evening of the same day she was found unconscious (or liveless) [sic] by the mother. Resuscitation was performed by the emergency doctor but was unsuccessful, i.e. the patient finally died . . . The cause of death of this patient remains totally unclear.’
Many such cases now remain to be investigated – and yet the vaccine continues to be promoted and the inventor continues to be celebrated as a Nobel Laureate.

END


Janine Roberts

author of 'Fear of the Invisible'
How scared should you be of Viruses and Vaccines...
Go to Top of Page

Seonaid

United Kingdom
1367 Posts

Posted - 10/04/2009 :  15:54:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thank you for this Janine.
And congratulations on an amazing book. I'm still reading it - a lot of info to take in - but it is blowing my mind away.
Go to Top of Page

cjloveday

United Kingdom
1 Posts

Posted - 10/04/2009 :  22:05:35  Show Profile  Send cjloveday an AOL message  Reply with Quote
I am a new member but would like to add my name to the list of concerned parents re: Cervical Vaccine.
My daughter (18) received the first vaccine in June. She was not asked to remain behind for 10/15 mins afterwards, nor was she asked if she was alone and driving (she was), neither was she advised of the "possible" risks. approx 10 mins into a 15 min journey she passed out at the wheel of her car - it hit a central bollard and overturned twice, fortunately she received only minor bruises and soreness. She was lucky another vehicle or pedestrian was not affected.

The insurance company says she's to blame as no-one else was involved and so will pay a heavy premium next year - I am pursuing this with the surgery - to no avail to date.

I believe the ordinary person does have a reasonable cause for concern and that financial and political interests are taking priority.

How can we ensure the press are aware of all of these cases?

Chris Loveday
Go to Top of Page

jacquia

United Kingdom
111 Posts

Posted - 10/05/2009 :  09:26:39  Show Profile  Send jacquia an AOL message  Reply with Quote
Hi Chris I have tried to email you via Jabs but there is an internal error with your email.

I have received an email about you this morning from Grace Filby. I understand that Jackie Fletcher from JABS has cut and pasted the contents of the email through the private system to you.

Grace Filby
http://www.relax-well.co.uk/HPV.html

EMAIL ME FOR GRACE FILBY'S TELEPHONE NUMBER


Here is my email, as the internal error may stop you contacting me jacquia1@hotmail.co.uk

Your story needs to go public as it is very worrying, your daughter could have died and killed others and nobody would have associated Cervarix as the cause, it would have been a definite cover up!



Napoleon once said: "There are two ways of moving men--interest or fear". Probably the most effective way of cajoling the public into submitting to vaccination is the employment of 'scare tactics'.
Go to Top of Page

peter1955

United Kingdom
31 Posts

Posted - 10/07/2009 :  14:45:53  Show Profile  Send peter1955 an AOL message  Reply with Quote
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Seonaid[/i]
[br]Thank you for this Janine.
And congratulations on an amazing book. I'm still reading it - a lot of info to take in - but it is blowing my mind away.



I'm interested in the number of lengthy posts on this forum which turn out to be extracts from people's books.

I think there are two possibilities:

1) They are dedicated seekers after truth keen to get their message out as widely as possible

2) they are exploiting parents' fears about the health of their children in order to make money for themselves.

You decide!

Go to Top of Page

john

United Kingdom
608 Posts

Posted - 10/07/2009 :  17:17:43  Show Profile  Visit john's Homepage  Send john an AOL message  Reply with Quote
Easy: 1) They are dedicated seekers after truth keen to get their message out as widely as possible. Money made from books of that nature is peanuts, and what idiot would write a book like that to make money?

This is the medical industry to a T: 'they are exploiting parents' fears about the health of their children in order to make money for themselves.' The vaccine industry runs on fear, otherwise no one would vaccinate. And each vaccine generates around a $1Billion in sales plus the huge industry feeding off vaccine injuries, eg Asthma drugs, eczema drugs, ear infections etc: It is estimated that medical costs and lost wages because of otitis media amount to $5 billion a year in the United States

"BCG is a goldmine for ear, nose and throat specialists."--Dr Jean Elmiger MD http://www.whale.to/vaccine/otitis.html

"I have lectured all over the world... I have always had a special interest in newspapers. All of them have one thing in common, there is always some reference made to some epidemic in some part of the world. For instance, two years ago, one paper referred to a polio epidemic in Holland. For the past three years, our newspapers have commented on the diphtheria epidemic in Russia. By these means, the population is constantly threatened with epidemics, they have been made to fear them, and the reports always conclude: "Go and get vaccinated".--Dr Buchwald MD

"Dr. med Martin Hirte writes on page 20 of his book 'Vaccination--Pro and Contra': "To create fear among parents to strengthen their motivation to vaccinate is an important part of the publicity used to promote vaccinations. A whole branch of research is examining the question: 'What level of fear needs to be created to appear as convincing as possible?'"---Dr Buchwald (The Decline of Tuberculosis despite "Protective" Vaccination by Dr. Gerhard Buchwald M.D. p104)

"Yet our medically controlled Health Boards cook up fake epidemics, create panics for profit, such as the ones in Kansas City in 1921, Pittsburgh in 1924, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington in 1925. An effort was also made to create a panic in New York in 1925, but due to the open fight against it by the New York Evening Graphic, the Commissioner of Health called it off."--Herbert Shelton DC

"Since people cannot be vaccinated against their will. the biggest job of a health department has always been, and always will be, to persuade the unprotected people to get vaccinated. This we attempted to do in three ways: first by education; second, by fright; and third, by pressure.
We dislike very much to mention fright and pressure, yet they accomplish more than education, because they work faster than education, which is normally a slow process.
During the months of March and April we tried education, and vaccinated only 62,000. During May we made use of fright and pressure, and vaccinated 223,000 people.
Our educational program consisted of warnings in the daily papers, small-pox posters on the streets, in stores and factories, special small-pox bulletins for all large places of employment, and special letters to all large employers from the health department and the association of commerce, calling their attention to a threatening small-pox epidemic. The radio was also made use of in this work.
As the conditions grew worse, we felt justified in using stronger measures. We had some good pictures taken of patients suffering from the confluent type of small-pox, and had posters, showing these pictures, distributed all over the city. The moving picture theatres cooperated at this time by issuing warnings on the screen.
The newspapers published daily the names and addresses of people dying from small-pox. A second letter was sent to all factories, stores, and other places of business, informing them of a rapidly approaching small-pox epidemic, and advising them to have their employees vaccinated immediately, and thereby prevent a serious financial loss to the city, which might occur if a real epidemic developed.
At this time the department was vaccinating thousands of people daily, but there were still too many who could neither be educated nor frightened into vaccination. Cases and deaths each amounted to a considerable number, and we now felt justified in using all of the power a health officer has, and if that was not enough, to get more.
We sent out a third letter to all employers requesting them to have all of their employees vaccinated and at the same time informing them that if a small-pox case developed in their place of employment in the future we would consider their place of business a menace to the health of the community and very likely place the entire establishment under quarantine until it could be cleaned up and made safe for the public. Putting this responsibility on the employer drove in thousands of anti-vaccinationists who could better afford to get vaccinated than lose their jobs. All employees co-operated very bravely with this last request, although in a few instances it was necessary to lay off old, reliable and valuable employees."-----Declaration by Dr John Koehler, Commissioner of Health of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in an article in The Wisconsin Medical Journal, November, 1925. (The Facts against Compulsory Vaccination by H. B. Anderson, 1929.)
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ploy6.html
Go to Top of Page

Seonaid

United Kingdom
1367 Posts

Posted - 10/07/2009 :  20:15:36  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I can assure you number one applies in this case. Why don't you read Janine Robert's book for yourself, and follow up all her references, before making judgmental insinuations?
Here's a taster for you -

http://www.fearoftheinvisible.com/

And some reviews of past work -

http://www.fearoftheinvisible.com/reviews
Go to Top of Page

GUS THE FUSS

United Kingdom
1469 Posts

Posted - 10/07/2009 :  23:36:32  Show Profile  Visit GUS THE FUSS's Homepage  Reply with Quote
We have all decided that's why we're still here after several years and more...

MMR RIP
Go to Top of Page

JanineRoberts

United Kingdom
19 Posts

Posted - 10/26/2009 :  02:04:53  Show Profile  Visit JanineRoberts's Homepage  Reply with Quote
peter1955 wrote: '....I'm interested in the number of lengthy posts on this forum which turn out to be extracts from people's books.
I think there are two possibilities:

1) They are dedicated seekers after truth keen to get their message out as widely as possible

2) they are exploiting parents' fears about the health of their children in order to make money for themselves.

You decide!..'


A false and assumption - I wrote this many months after finishing my book - it is not in it - if you checked you would have found out....
Janine


Janine Roberts

author of 'Fear of the Invisible'
How scared should you be of Viruses and Vaccines...
Go to Top of Page

Zechariah

USA
1 Posts

Posted - 12/08/2010 :  07:51:01  Show Profile  Send Zechariah an AOL message  Reply with Quote
Yeah The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine may prevent infection with certain species of human papillomavirus associated with the development of cervical cancer, genital warts, and some less common cancers.Two HPV vaccines are currently on the market: Gardasil and Cervarix.Both vaccines protect against the two HPV types (HPV-16 and HPV-18) that cause 70% of cervical cancers, and cause some other genital cancers; Gardasil also protects against the two HPV types (HPV-6 and HPV-11) that cause 90% of genital warts. In addition, Gardasil has been shown to prevent potential precursors to anal, vulvar, vaginal, and penile cancers. HPV vaccines are expected to protect against HPV induced cancers of these areas as well as HPV induced oral cancers.

Edited by - Zechariah on 12/13/2010 19:06:02
Go to Top of Page

nikki

1 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2011 :  00:34:58  Show Profile  Send nikki an AOL message  Reply with Quote
hi! what if you already have genital warts? can you still avail of the vaccine and would it make your warts go away? i'm on wartscide now and i'm wondering if i can still have the vaccine. but wartscide is a great treatment.
Go to Top of Page

Seonaid

United Kingdom
1367 Posts

Posted - 07/14/2011 :  22:59:33  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I'd stick with the wartscide if i were you Nikki. There's no knowing what you could end up with if you get the vaccine.

http://sanevax.org/blog/?p=2541


Go to Top of Page

Seonaid

United Kingdom
1367 Posts

Posted - 07/15/2011 :  09:52:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Also -

http://vaccineresistancemovement.org/?p=7579

VRM: Gardasil/Cervarix – A Legacy Of Shame
Go to Top of Page

Sam

105 Posts

Posted - 07/15/2011 :  12:43:47  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
http://www.hpvsupport.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11317

I AM 23 AND NEW TO THIS AND NEED THE SUPPORT TO GET THREW ALL OF THIS. I JUST HAD A PAP SMEAR IN MAY AND EVERYTHING WAS FINE I STARTED THE GARDASIL SHOT AND IT MADE ME REALLY SICK BUT I WAS LIKE ITS WORTH IT IN THE END I WENT AND GOT MY SECOND SHOT LIKE A MONTH A GO AND DIDNT GET TO SICK THIS TIME BUT ANYWAYS I JUST FOUND GENTIAL WARTS THEY ARE VERY SMALL AND JUST A FEW I HAVE ONLY HAD ONE SEX PARTNER MY ENTIRE LIFE AS SO FOR HIM TOO. MY FIANCE THINKS I HAVE CHEATED ON HIM AND I HAVENT I ASKED HIM IF HE HAD AND HE SWEARS HE DIDNT HE LIKE ILL PROVE IT TO YOU SO HE WENT TO THE DOCTOR IM AM SO UP SET I HAVE READ ONLINE A LOTA PEOPLE HAVE GOTTEN GENTIAL WARTS FROM THIS SHOT I AM SO UP SET OVER THIS NOW IM SCARED ILL GIVE IT TO HIM HE HAS NO WARTS OR ANYTHING HE WENT TO THE DOCTOR AND THEY SAID HE WAS CLEAN SO THAT LEAD HIM TO THINK IM CHEATING WHICH I WOULD NEVER DO IM SO UPSET I KNOW I KEEP SAYING THAT BUT I AM IM ABOUT TO LOSE A 7 YR RELATIONSHIP OVER A SHOT I DONT KNOW WHAT TO DO I GO TO THE DOCTOR TUESDAY FINALLY THEY MADE ME WAIT LIKE A WEEK TO GET SEEN. HAS ANYONE HAD THIS HAPPEN ? WHAT TREATMENT IS OUT THERE? HOW LONG AND HOW STRESSFUL IS IT ? HOW LONG BEFORE SEX IS SAFE?
Go to Top of Page

jabsadmin

1379 Posts

Posted - 10/21/2011 :  14:40:21  Show Profile  Visit jabsadmin's Homepage  Reply with Quote
http://sanevax.org/14-year-old-california-girl-dies-14-days-post-gardasil-vaccination-family-finds-adolescent-dead-in-bed/

14 Year old California Girl Dies 14 Days Post-Gardasil Vaccination Family Finds Adolescent Dead in Bed

October 20, 2011 By Norma

Governor Brown Signs Parent’s Worst Nightmare into Law Gives Custody of 12 Year Olds to the State

By Leslie Carol Botha, Vice President Public Relations

The fatality of a 14 year old California girl was entered into the VAERS database on August 23, 2011 – 134 days after her death in April. The latest Gardasil victim died of cardiac arrest 14 days after vaccination. According to VAERS report # 430780 , the adolescent was vaccinated on March 28, had no other life-threatening illnesses, and received no other vaccinations.

The VAERS write up includes this statement: “Found dead in bed in a.m. by family. Pathologist stated cause of death as consistent with cardiac insufficiency, due to cardiac arrhythmia, due to probable early cardiomyopathy. Child Death Review Team felt this death was consistent with a diagnosis of sudden cardiac death.”

The untimely and sad passing of this innocent previously healthy young girl now marks the 4th death post-HPV vaccination in the state of California. Janny Stokvis, VAERS Analyst for SANE Vax Inc. who found the latest VAERS fatality also reports that there have been 1548 adverse injuries* from Gardasil and Cervarix reported in the state..........................
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support © 2000-2002 Snitz Communications Go To Top Of Page
Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05