Gardasil HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed

[Guest guest]

- Make sure you have an empty stomach before watching....

>

>

> Once again... this makes me very happy! The truth is coming out!

What could be better than that?! I forward this kind of stuff to

everyone I know. I'll never stop looking for the truth and I'l never

stop telling everybody what I find out.

[Guest guest]

I really, really hate to say it, but I think we should be cautious in forwarding

this. He takes some of the letter out of context and generalizes a lot HPV does

cause mutations that can lead to cancer. Should we expose our children to a

vaccine that could harm and may not decrease the rate of infection dramatically?

Of course not. I think that this type of misinformation just makes those of us

who choose not to vax look like we don't know what we are talking about. There

is too much good science and literature out there to pass along something that

will just build the drug company's argument that we don't know we are using junk

science. I wonder that too about the merck expose letter. To me, it seems too

far out. I wonder sometimes if the drug companies put things like that out

there, just to later prove it wrong and make us look bad.

Re: Gardasil HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed

- Make sure you have an empty stomach before watching....

>

>

> Once again... this makes me very happy! The truth is coming out!

What could be better than that?! I forward this kind of stuff to

everyone I know. I'll never stop looking for the truth and I'l never

stop telling everybody what I find out.

[Guest guest]

vaccines are POPULATION CONTROL !!!!

roger

crystal musselman <autumntwilight1981@...> wrote:

I really, really hate to say it, but I think we should be cautious in

forwarding this. He takes some of the letter out of context and generalizes a

lot HPV does cause mutations that can lead to cancer. Should we expose our

children to a vaccine that could harm and may not decrease the rate of infection

dramatically? Of course not. I think that this type of misinformation just makes

those of us who choose not to vax look like we don't know what we are talking

about. There is too much good science and literature out there to pass along

something that will just build the drug company's argument that we don't know we

are using junk science. I wonder that too about the merck expose letter. To me,

it seems too far out. I wonder sometimes if the drug companies put things like

that out there, just to later prove it wrong and make us look bad.

Re: Gardasil HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed

- Make sure you have an empty stomach before watching....

>

>

> Once again... this makes me very happy! The truth is coming out!

What could be better than that?! I forward this kind of stuff to

everyone I know. I'll never stop looking for the truth and I'l never

stop telling everybody what I find out.

[Guest guest]

Quite possibly, but instead of making ourselves look like extremist conspiracy

theorists, I would prefere that we fight fire with fire and prove our stance

through science, research, and the countless testimonies of parents and children

that suffer from vaccines. Any information that is put out by the

" anti-vaccination " movement should be concrete. You can bet that the CDC, FDA,

and pharmacuetical companies will easily have this for lunch. We shouldn't take

anyone's word on anything. We need to do the research and read the studies for

ourselves and our children. I hope I don't sound b%^ & *y, that is not my intent.

Re: Gardasil HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed

- Make sure you have an empty stomach before watching....

>

>

> Once again... this makes me very happy! The truth is coming out!

What could be better than that?! I forward this kind of stuff to

everyone I know. I'll never stop looking for the truth and I'l never

stop telling everybody what I find out.

[Guest guest]

If you go to his online report he has links to the FDA documents. Did

you review these and find something to be wrong. I know his video had

his own opinion added in, but was his information accurate?

Tara

[Guest guest]

I agree with you Chyrstal. Go here, it may make you feel better.

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

I really, really hate to say it, but I think we should be cautious in

forwarding this. He takes some of the letter out of context and generalizes a

lot HPV does cause mutations that can lead to cancer. Should we expose our

children to a vaccine that could harm and may not decrease the rate of infection

dramatically? Of course not. I think that this type of misinformation just makes

those of us who choose not to vax look like we don't know what we are talking

about. There is too much good science and literature out there to pass along

something that will just build the drug company's argument that we don't know we

are using junk science. I wonder that too about the merck expose letter. To me,

it seems too far out. I wonder sometimes if the drug companies put things like

that out there, just to later prove it wrong and make us look bad.

Randi J. Airola, © 517-819-5926

[Guest guest]

Yes, his information was more out of context than wrong. He leads you to draw

an opinion that isn't supported by what the document actually says. He is

saying that HPV does not cause cancer nor is even associated with it. The FDA

documents he listed says that, " most infections are short-lived and not

associated with cervical cancer " . This is true, and not new information.

However he takes it out of context by saying that the FDA states, " that HPV is

'not associated with cervical cancer.' " This is simply not true. See how the

first part of the sentence is cut off, leading someone to come to an inaccurate

conclusion. There is plenty of evidence that cervical cancer is most frequently

the result of mutations caused by HPV. Other cancers as well are linked to HPV.

For most people, HPV is a transient virus that the body is able to overcome.

However, in some people the virus runs rampant, causing frequent outbreaks and

increased cell destruction and

possible mutations. It's comparable to Polio, for most people it is a simple

infection, but in some it can cause paralysis (just different complications).

Later, he says, " HPV vaccines actually cause precancerous lesions in women. "

This is another half-truth. The study he is looking at evaluates the the

efficacy of the vaccine for a number of different groups of people. If you are

going to use research to prove that the vaccine is ineffective or actually

causes the disease it was meant to protect against, this isn't the best study to

use. In this study, the vaccine is quite effective, it protected most patients

from the 4 types of HPV in the vaccine between 90-100% of the time. It of

course did not prevent HPV from other strains. The incidence where cervical

cancer rates (CIV 2/3) went up was only in women who were HPV+ on day 1 of the

study. Of course there is going to be higher rates of cancer in these women

during the course of the study, because, as all other research I have found also

shows, HPV causes/contributes to cervical lesions and cancer. The one thing

this does say is that it should be

contraindicated in women that already have HPV, and all women/girls that are

considering this vaccine should be tested!!! It may speed up the rate at which

HPV causes mutations. Probably because it effects the immune system, my guess

of course.

I personally would never subject my child to the risks of this vaccine for a

sexually transmitted disease. I think it is ridiculus, but why smudge the

truth, when the truth is out there, and it is good enough on its own? We don't

need any legitimate reasons for the government or big business to discredit our

argument. If there is real science out there to show me that HPV is not

associated with cancer, I would love to see it. It gives me one more reason to

share with people about why I choose not to vaccinate. But, this " report " and

its video does not do that.

OK, done with my rant!

Crystal

Re: Gardasil HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed

If you go to his online report he has links to the FDA documents. Did

you review these and find something to be wrong. I know his video had

his own opinion added in, but was his information accurate?

Tara

[Guest guest]

I agree he was drawing conclusions that were not specifically stated.

What I got out of the article, after going to his additional links,

is that people should be tested before and after getting the vaccine

because there is a rather large increased rate of getting cancer in

people who already had HPV when getting the vaccine. (If they don't

test, there will be a certain percentage of people who already have

HPV that don't know it, could get cervical cancer while thinking

they are protected.)

The test for HPV is for the virus and not for cervical cancer. And

that they used to say it was a test for cervical cancer now they

can't say that and have changed their wording.

They can test for the HPV virus and if it is found to be a

persistant infection they can treat it, and with proper screening,

if caught early, is curable.

A persistant infection, not the virus itself, causes changes in the

cervix and if left untreated can cause cancer in some women. (What

determines which women will get the cancer? Would be good info to

know. Just having the infection, does not guarentee that you will

get cancer, 6-7% will if not treated. If only 6-7% with a positive

test go onto get cancer, if not treated [though if you had a

positive test why would you go untreated], you have to wonder if

there is actually some other important factor that they are missing

as to why they have a persistant infection to begin with and were

not able to clear it like over 90% of people are. Could that factor

actually be more important to whether they will develop cancer than

the HPV virus? Are they at increased risk of not being able to

clear other viruses as well?).

So, with those things in mind, why are they vaxing without testing?

And why are they vaxing at all, when really they should just be

testing and treating, if needed. Why the extra vaccine risk?

Tara

[Guest guest]

Well generally the treatment is risky in itself. They may freeze off visible

warts, cut out parts of the cervix, burn off affected areas. Some women are

unable to carry babies after certain procedures, have preterm labor, or even the

opposite, so much scar tissue that the cervix won't open. I've seen both

firsthand, just in the last few years. It was my understanding, when I took

microbiology, that the HPV virus is different in that it (by itself) can cause

mutations in the DNA of cells. Thus causing lesions and cancer. HPV is related

to other types of cancer as well. You are right that there generally has to be

a chronic case of HPV to cause such problems. But that chronic case could last

a few months to a few decades before causing cancerous lesions, or possibly

never causing cancer. Remember that persistant infection, is infection with

HPV. So that still means that HPV is the reason that these women got cancer.

It is quite unusual (I won't

say rare) to come across a case of cervical cancer that does not involve HPV.

It would be wonderful if they could eradicate this virus. Unfortunately, I

don't believe that they can safely.

You are also right that the study did show that women who already had HPV had an

increased risk of cervical lesions after the vaccine. I actually read in the

Guardisil ad in a magazine this week that they were recommending the vaccine for

women/girls that already had one type of HPV because it would " protect " them

from the other 3 strands in the vaccine. Based on this study, that should be

clearly contraindicated. The other thing that they didn't highlight in this

expose, is that the study involved only girls over 16. They want to give this

to 9 yr. olds. Also, there is no long-term safety or efficacy studies. The

other thing, is that they took out all the women with high risk factors,

specifically those who had >4 lifetime partners. These are the women that are

at greatest risk, because HPV is sexually transmitted. My whole issue with this

" report " and the video, is that there is too much factual information out there

to use a play on words and

half-truths. We should be accurately informed by both sides of the argument.

Happy Holidays and God Bless!

Crystal

Re: Gardasil HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed

I agree he was drawing conclusions that were not specifically stated.

What I got out of the article, after going to his additional links,

is that people should be tested before and after getting the vaccine

because there is a rather large increased rate of getting cancer in

people who already had HPV when getting the vaccine. (If they don't

test, there will be a certain percentage of people who already have

HPV that don't know it, could get cervical cancer while thinking

they are protected.)

The test for HPV is for the virus and not for cervical cancer. And

that they used to say it was a test for cervical cancer now they

can't say that and have changed their wording.

They can test for the HPV virus and if it is found to be a

persistant infection they can treat it, and with proper screening,

if caught early, is curable.

A persistant infection, not the virus itself, causes changes in the

cervix and if left untreated can cause cancer in some women. (What

determines which women will get the cancer? Would be good info to

know. Just having the infection, does not guarentee that you will

get cancer, 6-7% will if not treated. If only 6-7% with a positive

test go onto get cancer, if not treated [though if you had a

positive test why would you go untreated], you have to wonder if

there is actually some other important factor that they are missing

as to why they have a persistant infection to begin with and were

not able to clear it like over 90% of people are. Could that factor

actually be more important to whether they will develop cancer than

the HPV virus? Are they at increased risk of not being able to

clear other viruses as well?).

So, with those things in mind, why are they vaxing without testing?

And why are they vaxing at all, when really they should just be

testing and treating, if needed. Why the extra vaccine risk?

Tara

[Guest guest]

Obviously there is something that makes some people more susceptible to cancer

than others. This is true with all cancers. Smoking is a huge risk factor for

cervical cancer, any cancer really. Any time you are putting toxins into your

body you are lowering your body's ability to eradicate illness and mutations.

The thing is, that for the overwhelming majority, over 90% (conservatively) of

the time, HPV has to be present. I read that certain spermicides increase your

risk of Group B Strep, HIV, and other pathogens. Maybe this goes for HPV too.

A healthy vaginal flora is important for preventing all types of infections.

Diet, exercise, healthy lifestyle, etc. always plays a factor in all cancers.

HPV is no different. There are probably genetic factors that increase

susceptibility as well, just as in other cancers. Even with all of these

possibilities, the presence of HPV, is the #1 risk factor. Wow, I almost feel

like I'm defending the vaccine.

Please know that I'm not. I'm actually extremely against it. I'm just more

against misinformation.

Merry Christmas,

Crystal

Re: Gardasil HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed

If only 6-7% with a positive

test go onto get cancer, if not treated [though if you had a

positive test why would you go untreated], you have to wonder if

there is actually some other important factor that they are missing

as to why they have a persistant infection to begin with and were

not able to clear it like over 90% of people are. Could that factor

actually be more important to whether they will develop cancer than

the HPV virus? Are they at increased risk of not being able to

clear other viruses as well?).

Tara

[Guest guest]

Hi, I am new here. I have a 13 year old with vaccine induced autism who is

nearly recovered. I live in the Chicago area and now take my kids to a

non-vaccinating practice called Homefirst (the medical director puts on a great

vaccine safety seminar bi-monthy, if anyone is interested).

Most people do not know that DES (diethylstillbestrol) exposure is also linked

to cervical cancer. DES was given to pregnant women for many years, and the

children born to these women (known as DED Daughters and Sons) suffer from

significantly higher rates of many diseases, including cervical cancer. There

were many legal cases involving DES over the years, and the defendent in most of

the cases was Eli Lilly.

crystal musselman <autumntwilight1981@...> wrote:

Obviously there is something that makes some people more susceptible

to cancer than others. This is true with all cancers. Smoking is a huge risk

factor for cervical cancer, any cancer really. Any time you are putting toxins

into your body you are lowering your body's ability to eradicate illness and

mutations. The thing is, that for the overwhelming majority, over 90%

(conservatively) of the time, HPV has to be present. I read that certain

spermicides increase your risk of Group B Strep, HIV, and other pathogens. Maybe

this goes for HPV too. A healthy vaginal flora is important for preventing all

types of infections. Diet, exercise, healthy lifestyle, etc. always plays a

factor in all cancers. HPV is no different. There are probably genetic factors

that increase susceptibility as well, just as in other cancers. Even with all of

these possibilities, the presence of HPV, is the #1 risk factor. Wow, I almost

feel like I'm defending the vaccine.

Please know that I'm not. I'm actually extremely against it. I'm just more

against misinformation.

Merry Christmas,

Crystal

Re: Gardasil HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed

If only 6-7% with a positive

test go onto get cancer, if not treated [though if you had a

positive test why would you go untreated], you have to wonder if

there is actually some other important factor that they are missing

as to why they have a persistant infection to begin with and were

not able to clear it like over 90% of people are. Could that factor

actually be more important to whether they will develop cancer than

the HPV virus? Are they at increased risk of not being able to

clear other viruses as well?).

Tara

[Guest guest]

Absolutely, DES daughters are 40 times more likely to get cervical/vaginal

cancer! The type of cancer is different though. It is clear cell

adenocarcinoma. DES exposure is also linked to uterine abnormalities,

infertility, and premature birth. Women who are at risk for DES exposure were

typically born between 1930-1975. However, there has been some research that

DES can affect the daughters of DES daughters as well.

Re: Gardasil HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed

If only 6-7% with a positive

test go onto get cancer, if not treated [though if you had a

positive test why would you go untreated], you have to wonder if

there is actually some other important factor that they are missing

as to why they have a persistant infection to begin with and were

not able to clear it like over 90% of people are. Could that factor

actually be more important to whether they will develop cancer than

the HPV virus? Are they at increased risk of not being able to

clear other viruses as well?).

Tara

[Guest guest]

the vaccine.

> Please know that I'm not. I'm actually extremely against it.

I'm just more against misinformation.

>

Thanks for sharing!

I did a bit more reading after I posted yesterday and did see that

info about being at more risk if you smoked or if you have had a

past infection or STD.

Something else I noticed was that there were a number of peole who

quit the study, but I didn't see if it gave reasons. I am thinking

it would be important to know if any of the people left because of

an adverse reaction and didn't want to continue and since they

didn't continue, they wouldn't be counted in the study. Any

thoughts on this?

And as with other vaccine studies, I was having a tough time getting

over the fact that they were comparing Gardasil with a placebo that

I believe was a Hep B vaccine. So in the chart when it says that

there are about 60% adverse effects for both, it doesn't seem to

give us any info except to say that both vaccines have a 60% adverse

effects rate. Can we know any real info from this since there is no

real placebo?

I guess these are the same problems that they have with all vaccine

studies.

Tara

[Guest guest]

According to the research I've looked at (and it's been awhile, so I

could be wrong here) there was not enough evidence to confirm or

refute a link between DES Exposure and squamous cell carcinoma of the

cervix. I suspect if there were strong scientific evidence it would

not get published or it would be " tweaked " in the same manner the CDC

altered the thimerosal epidemiology. And although the link between

clear cell adenocarcinoma and DES is known, nobody seems to be

talking about that.

One of the vaccine safety advocates I work closely with has received

reports of young girls who have never been sexually active developing

cervical cancer after receiving the series of Gardasil immunizations.

I know many, many women who have had cervical cancer or pre-cancer

that did not test positive for HPV nor were considered high risk for

cervical cancer... My mother and myself included (and I am a DES

Daughter). Many of these women that I know who've had cancer or pre-

cancerous dysplasia are mothers of children with autism, so I

strongly suspect that it has much more to do with impaired folate

metabolism and/or methylation than many realize. It's just a hunch.

> Obviously there is something that makes some people more

susceptible to cancer than others. This is true with all cancers.

Smoking is a huge risk factor for cervical cancer, any cancer really.

Any time you are putting toxins into your body you are lowering your

body's ability to eradicate illness and mutations. The thing is, that

for the overwhelming majority, over 90% (conservatively) of the time,

HPV has to be present. I read that certain spermicides increase your

risk of Group B Strep, HIV, and other pathogens. Maybe this goes for

HPV too. A healthy vaginal flora is important for preventing all

types of infections. Diet, exercise, healthy lifestyle, etc. always

plays a factor in all cancers. HPV is no different. There are

probably genetic factors that increase susceptibility as well, just

as in other cancers. Even with all of these possibilities, the

presence of HPV, is the #1 risk factor. Wow, I almost feel like I'm

defending the vaccine.

> Please know that I'm not. I'm actually extremely against it. I'm

just more against misinformation.

>

> Merry Christmas,

>

> Crystal

>

> Re: Gardasil HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed

>

> If only 6-7% with a positive

> test go onto get cancer, if not treated [though if you had a

> positive test why would you go untreated], you have to wonder if

> there is actually some other important factor that they are missing

> as to why they have a persistant infection to begin with and were

> not able to clear it like over 90% of people are. Could that factor

> actually be more important to whether they will develop cancer than

> the HPV virus? Are they at increased risk of not being able to

> clear other viruses as well?).

>

> Tara

>

>

[Guest guest]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK97CHQZhq0 & feature=related***Gardasil HPV Vaccine Hoax ExposedAnd then, go tohttp://cosmos.bcst./up/player/popup/?rn=4226712 & cl=10575066 & src=newsDoctors Want Boys ro Get Gardasil ShotFri Nov 7Gardasil is the first vaccine ever developed to prevent a cancer. By blocking the transmission of a sexually transmitted virus, the vaccine is able to prevent most cases of cervical cancer. Dr. Mallika Marshall reports. =====In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

[Guest guest]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK97CHQZhq0 & feature=related***Gardasil HPV Vaccine Hoax ExposedAnd then, go tohttp://cosmos.bcst./up/player/popup/?rn=4226712 & cl=10575066 & src=newsDoctors Want Boys ro Get Gardasil ShotFri Nov 7Gardasil is the first vaccine ever developed to prevent a cancer. By blocking the transmission of a sexually transmitted virus, the vaccine is able to prevent most cases of cervical cancer. Dr. Mallika Marshall reports. =====In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.