Number of Adverse Reaction Reports for the HPV Vaccine Gardasil double those of the second most reported shot

by Godofredo Tue Oct 27, 2015 22:52

INEFFICACY OF THE HPV VACCINE SEEN BY DOCTOR OF DEEP PERÚ
From its inception until the appearance of uterine cervical carcinoma (UCC) takes a average of 25-30 years; the research of this vaccine have begun in 2000. It is evident that the scientific efficacy of this new vaccine will be determined the years 2025 – 2030.
HPV not causes definitely the (CCU); at the onset of this disease involves multiple risk factors, including the suspected HPV, but scientifically is proven by epidemiology and statistics that the sex is what generates this disease. Nix in 100.000 nuns found not any UCC.
http://www.portalesmedicos.com/publicaciones/articles/1...iolog.,.
There are not scientific researchs; stadistic, epidemiologic, citologic, histologic, colpocopic and clinic to demostrate that the HPV produce the cervical cance, are publishing. whitout scierntific sustentance.
To accept that a virus or a bacteria causes a infection disease must unfailingly fulfill the five Koch’s postulate
http://www.xatakaciencia.com/salud/los-postulados-de-koch
1 – The agent must be present in every case of the disease and absent from healthy.
2 – The agent must not appear in other diseases.
3 – The agent to be isolated in pure culture from disease lesions.
4 – The agent of causing disease in a susceptible animal being inoculated.
5 – The agent must again be isolated lesions in experimental animals.
http://es.scribd.com/doc/44558220/MICROBIOLOGIA-1
Consequently, HPV not fulfill not any principle of Koch’s postulates. by not meeting this postulate, that is accepted as dogma in medicine, scientifically we must be ensure that the HPV is not the causative agent to the UCC..
Until May 2013 Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting Syntem (VAERS) published that the vaccines against the HPV caused only in Unites States 138 muertes and 30020 adverse events; 947 disabled: 12 males, 924 females and 11sex unknown; 4050 advers graves: 106 males, 3883 females and 57 unknown sex; 527 abnormal PAP smears, 214 dysplasia cervical and cervical cancer 214. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System secure that only the !% to 10% are denounced https://dub104.mail.live.com/default.aspx#n=1521802 http://holyhormones.com/vaccinations/hpv-vaccine/hpv-va...e-eve…
http://therefusers.com/?s=cervarix
The Vaccine efects advers reactions (VAERS) ensures that only complaint between 1% to 10% of the adverse effects produced by this evil vaccine;this figures shown are calculated according to the statements of the VAERS: to 10%.
http://www.noticiero.enkoria.com/2011/diez-menores-que-...accio…
http://www.pop.org/content/merck-researcher-admits-gard...again…
Dr. Harper, who contributed to the development of the vaccine by Merck, reports that the vaccine was not investigated in children under 15 years and the vaccine given to children under 11 years is a big public experiment.
http://offtheradar.co.nz/vaccines/53-researcher-diane-h...-gard…
The vaccine was approved to give girls uncontaminated with HPV, Dr. Howenstinc ensures that the women are vaccinated with HPV contaminated, have the possibility to acquire a 44.6% CCU
http://www.newswithviews.com / Howenstine/james170.htm.
Merck did not disclose that the vaccine was transgenic, the Sane Vax has discovered, which is transgenic because it has been found that the vaccine is contaminated with DNA recombinant vaccine Gardasil (DNArPVH) and has raised its concerns to the president of the FDA Margaret Hamburg. The FDA replied that the vaccine will not cause any damage transgenic
http://real-agenda.com/2011/09/16/vacuna-gardasil-conta...dn-re…
http://bolsonweb.com.ar/diariobolson/detalle.php?id_not...26075
A vaccinated child was ill with rheumatoid arthritis, which is an autoimmune disease. 24 hours after vaccination and found that the aluminum adhered to DNArPVH, two years after vaccination and in autopsy 6 months after death in a New Zeland girl Jazmine Renata which had recibed this deadly vaccines
http://www.mecfsforums.com/index.php?topic=9331.0
Management time to get market approval of a drug the FDA is at least three years, it is a drug for cancer 15 years, but the authorization Merck had only six months and the European Medicines Agency (EMA in English) only 9 months: To introduce the vaccine are using the marketing of fear
http://mujeresenaccion.over-blog.es/article-vph-la-vacu...ting-… http://mujeresenaccion.over-blog.es/article-vph-la-vacuna -of-marketing-of-fear-67210961.ht
HPV is ubiquitous; lives in wild and domestic animals, pollute us from birth, is on the doorknobs, on towels, on nails, on fomites, in gloves and specula of gynecologists,. sexual intercourse is not the only means of contamination.
http://spa.myhealthygood.com/cancer-cervical-vacuna-con...nvest…
HPV also lives in the 400 nm outermost of our skin and mucous membranes. ,
If it live in our skin, our immune system produces cellular and humoral immunity is acquired or that our body is self vaccinatinge by PVHs living on our skin and mucous ..
http://www.conganat.org/seap/bibliografia/HPVToday/HPVT...P.pdf
The PVHs is not distributed uniformly worldwide. It has been found that in Canada HPV 18 only reaches 3%; is more often HPV 31, in my country Peru no studies have determined that HPV types predominate; Gardasil contains 225 mcg. aluminum and Cervarix 500 mcg, that produce the Alzheimer, Parkinson and autism, produce too neurotoxic and immune system disorders (Blaylock 2012) and polisorbato 80, a powerful contraceptive, that in experimental animals produces sterility, atrophy of the testicles and disturbance organic and funtional of the organs of the reproduction; is carcinogenic and mutagenic; also contains sodium borate considered poison unused in medicinal preparations (NLM)
http://www.telefonica.net/web2/paramahamsa/vacunaninosa....html http://detenganlavacuna.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/gardas...arix/
Have been discovered to date 200 types of HPV; HPV is not infectious, contagious; the intercourse is not only that the persons is contaminated
http://quimicaclinicauv.blogspot.com/2006/08/virus-del-....html http://www-lab.biomedicas.unam.mx/smpv/queeshpv.htm
On 22-11-2010 FDA approved Gardasil for males aged 9 to 26 to prevent warts and cancer to the anus, is overkill
http://real-agenda.com/2011/09/16/vacuna-gardasil-conta...dn-re…
http://salud.aollatino.com/2011/02/02/aprueba-fda-nueva...vacun…
For the reasons from deep Peru Huancayo, I believe that this vaccine is a fraud?, a robbery?, a swindle?, a rough joke?, a crime?, a shame?, a scam?
The HPV is not scientifically proved for the moment that produce the UCC its effectiveness shall be verified just the years of 2025-2030.
Dr. Godofredo Arauzo
E mail: godo.ara@gmail.com

by Mike Novack Mon Aug 24, 2015 22:39

But also when talking about risks, need to use ACTUAL statistics and not theoretical ones. For example, it might be true that for people abstaining from sex the risk of HPV might be very very low, and from those keeping tp virginity before marriage and strict monogamy after, low (no, NOT zero, and I shouldn't have to explain that to you --- THINK a moment after realizing that you are talking only about the choices/actions of ONE person)

But since religion has been mentioned, sorry, but I'm really not THAT well versed in Christian thinking. So answer this for me please. I thought among Christians it WASN'T just acts but intentions that counted. If you refrained from an evil act because of the RELIGIOUS consequences, that was being good. But if you refrained just for some practical reason, that was just being prudent, not being moral.
Since apparently there is thinking being reported that fear of HPV causing refraining from religiously condemned sexual activity would be a good thing --- well I can understand why thought good in terms of results but NOT that there was any "religious benefit".

And remember what I started with, needing to use ACTUAL statistics. So that humans COULD escape the risk of STDs by abstaining from sex, the percentage of humans doing that (refraining from sex) is rather low.

by fred Sun Aug 23, 2015 20:54

HPV is definitely a problem. Condoms offer limited protection, and certain varieties of this virus are known to cause cancer.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a DNA virus from the papillomavirus family that is capable of infecting humans. Like all papillomaviruses, HPVs establish productive infections only in keratinocytes of the skin or mucous membranes. Most HPV infections are subclinical and will cause no physical symptoms; however, in some people subclinical infections will become clinical and may cause benign papillomas (such as warts [verrucae] or squamous cell papilloma), or cancers of the cervix, vulva, vagina, penis, oropharynx and anus.[1][2] In particular, HPV16 and HPV18 are known to cause around 70% of cervical cancer cases.[3]

Over 170 types are known and more than 40 types of HPV are typically transmitted through sexual contact and infect the anogenital region (anus and genitals).[4] HPV types 6 and 11 cause genital warts.[2] Persistent infection with "high-risk" HPV types—different from the ones that cause skin warts—may progress to precancerous lesions and invasive cancer.[5] High-risk HPV infection is a cause of nearly all cases of cervical cancer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus

I think this particular vaccine has been focussed on
by catholic reactionaries because, if effective, it acts as a barrier to the HPV std
which causes genital warts in sexually active girls and boys which acts as
a huge disincentive for them to have lots of sex outside marriage.

I guess they consider genital warts to be some sort of biological chastity protection
sent from god or something.

That makes a cure or treatment against god's will I suppose.

This whole bead rattling angle complicates the debate somewhat

by T Sun Aug 23, 2015 20:31

I think you seem to be arguing over the trade off between the number of deaths with and without the vaccine and maybe for a serious and very contagious disease this might have some merit, but the disease or health issue in this case does not fit that criteria.

What matters is that these vaccines cause any deaths or serious injury. You don't seem to acknowledge that these companies can get very sloppy in their quality due to their arrogance as a result of being held on a high pedestal years ago and that their chief interest is the bottom line rather than safety. So it is not an either or situation.

by Mike Novack Sun Aug 23, 2015 02:45

But that it was three instances of a rare event in a week doesn't mean what you think it does.

The question would be what the time interval to contain five instances (why has to be at least five in the partition you should have learned in your "statistics 101" class --- the point being that you can't draw ANY statistical conclusion from a partition containing less than five -- analogous to trying to divide by zero)

But actually, time wouldn't here but number of vaccinations. You want to argue that the risk from the vaccine (percentage of adverse reactions) is too high relative to the percentage of unvaccinated females who would contract the virus and go on to serious consequences.

Maybe this would be clearer if we gave some example numbers. Imagine that you are back in the 14th Century during the height of the death, and some witch offered you a potion which had a one in a hundred chance of killing you, but if you survived the drug, you would be immune to the Plague. Assume that you believe the witch. Do you drink the risky potion? (a 1:100 chance of dying is high in absolute terms, but low compared to your chances against the disease).

I'll repeat, what you want to compare is numbers that would die or otherwise suffer serious consequences if all people* vaccinated (risk from the vaccine) to numbers that would die or otherwise suffer serious consequences from the disease.

* I say people because males transmit it, so that's fairest to have them share the vaccine risk. But practically speaking, the risk from the disease is very low for males (they get the warts, but lack the parts were the virus can cause cancer). That's why most programs suggest vaccinating just females. Same vaccine risk but MUCH higher disease risk.

by Martin Fri Aug 21, 2015 20:51

Regret.ie investigates very rare blood disorder reported after gardasil vaccination (3 cases reported In one week).

by Vax Wed Aug 19, 2015 12:38

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMuS5bFVEAAwcZB.jpg

by Mike Novack Tue Aug 18, 2015 14:53

You need to show the COMPARISON of risks, the total risk of the vaccine (all side effects, failure risk * disease risk, etc.) and argue that this is GREATER than the total risk of no vaccine (chances of getting the disease * percentage of serious consequences). If arguing between to vaccines, then you compare the risks for those.

Otherwise, your jumping up and down shouting about the risks of this or that vaccine is meaningless.

The pro vaccine folks are NOT saying that their vaccines are free of risks and side effects. Only that these are less than not taking the vaccine. Please note that in determining the risk of the disease, you are NOT allowed to do that under the assumption that everybody ELSE has been vaccinated. That's cheating. OF COURSE if everybody else were to be vaccinated (so very little to no chance of catching the disease) the risk of the vaccine FOR YOU is greater.

by Vax Tue Aug 18, 2015 12:02

Before I discuss Deisher’s pseudoscience about vaccines, I think it important to discuss briefly exactly how and when fetal cells are used to make vaccines. First, you need to realize that fear mongering about “fetal parts” in vaccines is, not surprisingly, a distortion of the real situation, which is that the human cell lines are used to make some vaccines. Specifically, the WI-38 cell line is a human diploid fibroblast cell line derived from a three month old fetus aborted therapeutically in 1962 in the US. Another cell line, MRC-5, was derived from lung fibroblasts of a 14 week old fetus in 1966 in the United Kingdom. These are currently the only fetal cell lines used to grow viruses for vaccines, with most other vaccines requiring cell lines from animals (which, of course, leads antivaccinationists to disparage them as “dirty” and using “monkey cells” and the like). In any case, the only commonly used vaccines in whose manufacturing these cell lines are utilized include:

Hepatitis A vaccines [VAQTA/Merck, Havrix/GlaxoSmithKline, and part of Twinrix/GlaxoSmithKline]
Rubella vaccine [MERUVAX II/Merck, part of MMR II/Merck, and ProQuad/Merck]
Varicella (chickenpox) vaccine [Varivax/Merck, and part of ProQuad/Merck]
Zoster (shingles) vaccine [Zostavax/Merck]

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/aborted-fetal-tiss...es-2/

by Fenrir Fri Aug 14, 2015 12:57

Fair play to you for raising awareness of this issue, you are really up against it in this country though. Irish people have switched their fealty from the priest to the GP now, if they dispense pills they take them without question and if they're told vaccines are safe, they take it as gospel. The people that are cautious are usually the types that will research before they commit. Hopefully you can save some people from harm.