Cancer Prevention
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » EDS Lounge

free skin care · Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:55 pm

Lacy... I'm not going to argue with you...

If you don't see anything concerning in the Merck's literature, the after marketing VAERS reports or the videos of the completely disabled and dead girls... then there you go... Decision made based on everything out there.

free skin care · Sun Sep 29, 2013 3:04 pm

ClaudiaFE wrote:

Lacy... I'm not going to argue with you...

If you don't see anything concerning in the Merck's literature, the after marketing VAERS reports or the videos of the completely disabled and dead girls... then there you go... Decision made based on everything out there.

AMEN to your post Claudia ~ you are one smart cookie Very Happy

free skin care · Sun Sep 29, 2013 3:22 pm

ClaudiaFE wrote:

Lacy... I'm not going to argue with you...

If you don't see anything concerning in the Merck's literature, the after marketing VAERS reports or the videos of the completely disabled and dead girls... then there you go... Decision made based on everything out there.

Sure, we can drop it, provided we concur on the following:

1) What the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is:

A system of reporting, set up by the FDA and CDC for adverse effects that may be associated with vaccines. It is voluntary, although medical personnel are encouraged to file reports whenever a negative event happens shortly after vaccination; patients and/or their parent(s) can also use the system. Duplicate filings are therefore possible for each adverse effect. No prescription drug or biological product is completely free from some side effects, but less than 15% of the reports filed with VAERS are considered serious. All serious filings (hospitalizations, life-threatening illnesses, or deaths) are investigated and follow-up information (additional medical, laboratory, and/or autopsy records) is collected. The inclusion of events in VAERS data does not infer causality. For any reported event, no cause and effect relationship has been established. The event may have been related to an underlying disease or condition, to medications being taken concurrently, or may have occurred by chance.

http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/READMEAugust2013.pdf

2) Negative side effects during clinical testing of Gardasil vaccine:

Prior to approval for use on the general public, clinical trials are carried out to determine negative consequences of vaccines. In order to determine which adverse effects are due to the vaccine versus random negative events, control groups are used. In the case of Gardasil, 2 control groups are used; the first set of subjects received the same basic ingredients as the experimental group minus the actual vaccine; the 2nd group received saline. Everyone involved in the trial is unaware of who is receiving what, until the final data is statistically analyzed after the trial concludes. Both the experimental group and the control groups had negative side effects; that is to be expected. When comparing controls vs vaccine there was no statistical difference though.

The most serious adverse effects during the trial of 29,323 subjects included 40 deaths; 21 (0.1%) in the gardasil group and 19 (0.1%) in the placebo/control group. These include motor vehicle accident (5 GARDASIL and 4 control), drug overdose/suicide (2 GARDASIL and 6 control), gun shot wound (1 GARDASIL and 3 control), and pulmonary embolus/deep vein thrombosis (1 GARDASIL and 1 control). In addition, there were 2 cases of sepsis, 1 case of pancreatic cancer, 1 case of arrhythmia, 1 case of pulmonary tuberculosis, 1 case of hyperthyroidism, 1 case of post-operative pulmonary embolism and acute renal failure, 1 case of traumatic brain injury/cardiac arrest, 1 case of systemic lupus erythematosus, 1 case of cerebrovascular accident, 1 case of breast cancer, and 1 case of nasopharyngeal cancer in the group that received GARDASIL; 1 case of asphyxia, 1 case of acute lymphocytic leukemia, 1 case of chemical poisoning, and 1 case of myocardial ischemia in the AAHS control group; and 1 case of medulloblastoma in the saline placebo group. When negative events are distributed equally across groups, there is no statistical difference between the groups. The trial basically says the chance of having a seriously negative event happen to you is the same whether you get the vaccine or not.

When looking at other potential side effects associated with vaccination, the most common were headace, fever, nausea, dizziness; and injection-site pain, swelling, erythema, pruritus, and bruising. This occurred more often with the vaccination group vs controls (1%+ more often). Fainting is also possible, so patients are injected while sitting and then observed for 15 minutes to watch for any adverse reactions, including allergic responses.

Negative side effects and adverse effects of vaccination are always investigated during clinical trials prior to approval. The VAERS reporting system is also in place to collect data of negative events, although the system is not without flaws. All medical interventions have some risks; nothing is perfect. Of course the diseases that vaccines prevent also have negative side effects, and those exceed the negatives associated with vaccinations. The benefits of vaccination always outweigh the risks on the general population level; for an individual, the benefits outweigh the risks the vast majority of the time (unforseen negatives are always a possibility).

http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf

I don't watch youtube videos anymore; I found a lot of them were highly misleading and not very factual. There are far more reliable sources of information online and from other valid sources. Of course, you are free to select whatever source of information you choose.

free skin care · Sun Sep 29, 2013 6:45 pm

Here's the reason we have cancer: Our world is polluted, EMFs exist everywhere, we have GMOs in our food sources, organic is not truly 100% organic, our government supports what the chemical giants want, flouride is promoted to prevent cavities yet it depletes iodine as well as magnesium stores in the body. Futhermore, consumption of coffee, soda, and other carbinated beverages deplete the body even moreso. Water treatment involves using chlorine in our water, further depleting the body. Bromides found in bakery items, most boxed pastas, citris flavored carbinated beverages, plastics, chemical based body lotions, strawberries sprayed with Pesticides (specifically methyl bromide all deplete these essential minerals.

Wise up people, radiation, invasive tests like biospies and vaccinations cannot prevent cancer better than a healthy lifestyle which includes replacing the vital minerals essential to life!!!

free skin care · Sun Sep 29, 2013 8:26 pm

aprile wrote:

Here's the reason we have cancer: Our world is polluted, EMFs exist everywhere, we have GMOs in our food sources, organic is not truly 100% organic, our government supports what the chemical giants want, flouride is promoted to prevent cavities yet it depletes iodine as well as magnesium stores in the body. Futhermore, consumption of coffee, soda, and other carbinated beverages deplete the body even moreso. Water treatment involves using chlorine in our water, further depleting the body. Bromides found in bakery items, most boxed pastas, citris flavored carbinated beverages, plastics, chemical based body lotions, strawberries sprayed with Pesticides (specifically methyl bromide all deplete these essential minerals.

Wise up people, radiation, invasive tests like biospies and vaccinations cannot prevent cancer better than a healthy lifestyle which includes replacing the vital minerals essential to life!!!

Silly girl, cancer has existed long before pollution, EMFs, GMOs, "chemicals", fluoridated or treated water, carbonated beverages, bromide-laden baked goods, "chemical-based" cosmetics, pesticides and (perhaps even) coffee. Back in the good-old days, all foods were truly organic. Here's just one example of cancer existing prior to all the modern day "evils" you incorrectly identify as the cause of cancer:

http://www.news-medical.net/health/History-of-Breast-Cancer.aspx

A healthy lifestyle does not prevent cancer; it may reduce the chance of developing cancer though.

free skin care · Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:27 am

Lacy53 wrote:

aprile wrote:

Here's the reason we have cancer: Our world is polluted, EMFs exist everywhere, we have GMOs in our food sources, organic is not truly 100% organic, our government supports what the chemical giants want, flouride is promoted to prevent cavities yet it depletes iodine as well as magnesium stores in the body. Futhermore, consumption of coffee, soda, and other carbinated beverages deplete the body even moreso. Water treatment involves using chlorine in our water, further depleting the body. Bromides found in bakery items, most boxed pastas, citris flavored carbinated beverages, plastics, chemical based body lotions, strawberries sprayed with Pesticides (specifically methyl bromide all deplete these essential minerals.

Wise up people, radiation, invasive tests like biospies and vaccinations cannot prevent cancer better than a healthy lifestyle which includes replacing the vital minerals essential to life!!!

Silly girl, cancer has existed long before pollution, EMFs, GMOs, "chemicals", fluoridated or treated water, carbonated beverages, bromide-laden baked goods, "chemical-based" cosmetics, pesticides and (perhaps even) coffee. Back in the good-old days, all foods were truly organic. Here's just one example of cancer existing prior to all the modern day "evils" you incorrectly identify as the cause of cancer:

http://www.news-medical.net/health/History-of-Breast-Cancer.aspx

A healthy lifestyle does not prevent cancer; it may reduce the chance of developing cancer though.

Lacy - Agreed, I'm sure breast and other cancers existed long before the industrial revolution. However, I am making the direct coerelation between the alarming rise in breast cancer rates from 1960 of 1 in 20 to 1 in 7 in 2012. You can't deny that all of the things I mentioned, including increasing promotion of mammography to younger women where the breast is tightly compressed and radiated on an annual basis. How could you?

According to Dr. Charles Simone, a former clinical associate in immunology and pharmacology at the National Cancer Institute,
"Mammograms increase the risk for developing breast cancer and raise the risk of spreading or metastasizing an existing growth." AND
Dr. Samuel Epstein, one of the top cancer experts: "The premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each 1 rad exposure increasing breast cancer risk by about 1 percent, with a cumulative 10 percent increased risk for each breast over a decade's screening."

Further to the point about the effects of our toxic world, the NY Times reported an increase of breast cancer in younger women.
Noteworthy from this article:

Quote:

Dr. Archie Bleyer, a clinical research professor in radiation medicine at the Knight Cancer Institute at the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland who helped write the study, said scientists needed to verify the increase in advanced breast cancer in young women in the United States and find out whether it is occurring in other developed Western countries. “This is the first report of this kind,” he said, adding that researchers had already asked colleagues in Canada to analyze data there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/health/advanced-breast-cancer-may-be-rising-among-young-women-study-finds.html

Lastly, there's no denying that you need to vigilant to protect yourself and the health of your your family. One of the things that is so underestimated is the importance of a healthy immune system to fight this diease. That is why it is so mind boggling to me that modern medicine uses radiation and chemotherapy which virtually destroys the immune system. Smh. hmm

~Aprile

free skin care · Mon Sep 30, 2013 12:07 pm

Lacy53 wrote:

aprile wrote:

Here's the reason we have cancer: Our world is polluted, EMFs exist everywhere, we have GMOs in our food sources, organic is not truly 100% organic, our government supports what the chemical giants want, flouride is promoted to prevent cavities yet it depletes iodine as well as magnesium stores in the body. Futhermore, consumption of coffee, soda, and other carbinated beverages deplete the body even moreso. Water treatment involves using chlorine in our water, further depleting the body. Bromides found in bakery items, most boxed pastas, citris flavored carbinated beverages, plastics, chemical based body lotions, strawberries sprayed with Pesticides (specifically methyl bromide all deplete these essential minerals.

Wise up people, radiation, invasive tests like biospies and vaccinations cannot prevent cancer better than a healthy lifestyle which includes replacing the vital minerals essential to life!!!

Silly girl, cancer has existed long before pollution, EMFs, GMOs, "chemicals", fluoridated or treated water, carbonated beverages, bromide-laden baked goods, "chemical-based" cosmetics, pesticides and (perhaps even) coffee. Back in the good-old days, all foods were truly organic. Here's just one example of cancer existing prior to all the modern day "evils" you incorrectly identify as the cause of cancer:

http://www.news-medical.net/health/History-of-Breast-Cancer.aspx

A healthy lifestyle does not prevent cancer; it may reduce the chance of developing cancer though.

Silly girl, every disease has existed since the dawn of human kind ,cause disease is there to protect the body,it has a biological meaning.

So taking drugs to treat disease is foolish.

Remineralization and healthy pshychological lifestle is the key.IT PREVENTS CANCER.

Cancer in the stomach can easily happen to animals when they are in lack of available food and they fear their survival.
So their stomach begins to function even more and developing growths which help the stomach to assimilate more efficiently the nutrients.

Once the animal has found again food sources the
cancer vanishes.
This analysis obeys viewing diseases in a cause-effect context.

free skin care · Mon Sep 30, 2013 1:46 pm

Quote:

Remineralization and healthy pshychological lifestle is the key.IT PREVENTS CANCER.

Very interesting quote. In fact, EFT (Emotional Freedom Technique) is said to help when people are holding onto hurt, anger, sadness from loss of a loved one. It has been proven that these things can all contribute to cancer. Also, when a patient receives a diagnosis of cancer, often times the stress exacerbates the situation. There is so much to learn with respect to how the body responds to emotions, and these waters have been pretty much unchartered by the medical profession.

free skin care · Mon Sep 30, 2013 4:27 pm

For me this is the bottom line:

The American Cancer Society states:

"Cervical cancer was once one of the most common causes of cancer death for American women.The cervical cancer death rate declined by 74% between 1955 and 1992.

The main reason for this change is the increased use of the Pap test. This screening procedure can find changes in the cervix before cancer develops. It can also find early cervical cancer in its most curable stage. The death rate from cervical cancer continues to decline by nearly 4% a year. Cervical cancer tends to occur in midlife."

According to the FDA Gardasil approval announcement:

"For most women, the body’s own defense system will clear the virus. Infected women do not develop related health problems. However, some HPV types can cause abnormal cells on the lining of the cervix that years later can turn into cancer."
____________________________

So why the hell the rush for irresponsible fast track science...$$$$
If you can’t see it for what it is... I’ve got some swampland I’d like you to look at.

The two biggest moneymakers in the world are... Cosmetics (beauty) and Toys (our children.) Loving parents will give their children just about anything to make them happy, AND... will do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to protect their children. Gardasil could just turn out to be the biggst money making vacine ever introduced to the public.

The scary thing is; Gardasil targets the entire female population of mothers to be ...all the while KNOWING the testing for Gardasil was/is NOT complete?

Who, reading this, can find ANY research regarding the long-range effect of this vaccine? There isn’t any!

Seriously... what the hell was the rush?

Where are all the people dropping like flies from HPV that would warrant fast track science. The ONLY death’s I’ve heard about regarding HPV are the girls who have been injected with Gardasil... trying to prevent HPV.

Gardasil NEVER should have been launched until ALL the facts were in.

What parent in their right mind would have handed over their 9,11 year old child for the series of these shots if they were actually told the truth, maybe something like...
We really don’t know the long term effects of this vaccine at this point…we’ll just simply have to wait and see… now… tell your daughter to lie down...many children pass-out from the shot. Oh…. and she may… now I’m saying may continue to pass out daily… until… she doesn’t.

free skin care · Mon Sep 30, 2013 10:42 pm

Deb Crowley wrote:

....What parent in their right mind would have handed over their 9,11 year old child for the series of these shots....

Good point.
_______________________________

And a sample of a Q&A from Gardasil Support Group @

http://www.drugs.com/answers/support-group/gardasil/questions/

1/8/13
"Question - I got my first Gardasil shot about five days ago, and I fainted shortly after. I am thirteen years old and in the 8th grade. Yesterday, exactly 4 days after I got the shot, I fainted again. I've been having absolute terrible anxiety/mood swings ever since I got the shot, as well as loss of appetite, light headedness, and headaches ever since. Could this all be side affects from the shot?
Answer - Hi Cayla- Since you are 13 years old , I believe that you should refer to your parents for help with the answer to this question, perhaps he 3 or 2 of you should return to the doctor who performed the shot and tell the doctor what has been happening and wether [sic] or not the fainting is related to the shot. You are awful young to be taking this on by yourself. Please call your doctor office and ask them for help, as a web site may not be the best place for something as serious as what is occurring to you. I hope you understand that, keep us posted, good luck! RC4"

(Good luck??? oh yeah, some *support group*!! )

__________________________________

Yet, here’s, also, an interesting read, in reference, perhaps, to your query on *fast-tracking* the drug:

http://www.drugs.com/news/researchers-tie-increased-throat-cancer-cases-hpv-infection-47720.html

(The beginning paragraphs…see link to read further about the study)

Researchers Tie Increased Throat Cancer Cases to HPV Infection

THURSDAY Sept. 26, 2013 -- The sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV) may be behind the sharp rise in cases of throat and mouth cancers among young American adults, researchers say.

In a new study, investigators from Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit analyzed U.S. government data and found that cancers of the base of the tongue, tonsils, soft palate and pharynx among adults aged 45 and younger increased 60 percent between 1973 and 2009. Collectively, these cancers are called oropharyngeal cancer .

There was a 113 percent rise in the rate of these cancers among whites, but a 52 percent decrease among blacks during the study period. However, the five-year survival rate for these cancers remains worse for blacks than for whites and other races, the study authors found.

HPV, which can cause genital and anal warts, is the most commonly transmitted sexual infection in the United States. Usually, the immune system clears the infection, but in some cases the virus persists in the body. And persistent infection with certain HPV strains can eventually lead to cancer -- with cervical cancer the best known.

HPV can also invade the mouth during oral sex. Those infections usually cause no symptoms, but a lingering infection with a cancer-linked strain can lead to oropharyngeal cancer.

The topic was given celebrity status this summer when actor Michael Douglas announced that his stage 4 throat cancer was the result of an HPV infection that he got from oral sex.

In a hospital news release on the new research, study lead author Dr. Farzan Siddiqui, director of the Head and Neck Radiation Therapy Program in the department of radiation oncology , said, "The growing incidence in oropharyngeal cancer has been largely attributed to the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, which led to an increased transmission of high-risk HPV."

free skin care · Tue Oct 01, 2013 2:41 pm

Deb Crowley wrote:

For me this is the bottom line:

The American Cancer Society states:

"Cervical cancer was once one of the most common causes of cancer death for American women.The cervical cancer death rate declined by 74% between 1955 and 1992.

The main reason for this change is the increased use of the Pap test. This screening procedure can find changes in the cervix before cancer develops. It can also find early cervical cancer in its most curable stage. The death rate from cervical cancer continues to decline by nearly 4% a year. Cervical cancer tends to occur in midlife."

Why do some people on this thread not understand the difference between prevention and diagnosis followed by treatment? You seem to be saying prevention isn't important because the Pap test will detect pre-cancerous change. Wouldn't prevention by vaccine be better that worrying about it later in life when surgical intervention is necessary?

Deb Crowley wrote:

According to the FDA Gardasil approval announcement:

"For most women, the body’s own defense system will clear the virus. Infected women do not develop related health problems. However, some HPV types can cause abnormal cells on the lining of the cervix that years later can turn into cancer."
____________________________

So why the hell the rush for irresponsible fast track science...$$$$
If you can’t see it for what it is... I’ve got some swampland I’d like you to look at.

Why do you consider this "fast tracked" science? From reviewing the public documents filed with the FDA, the vaccine was "in the pipes" since 2001; it was approved for interstate commerce on June 8, 2006. The development of the vaccine took years prior to even approaching the FDA for tentative approval.

Deb Crowley wrote:

The two biggest moneymakers in the world are... Cosmetics (beauty) and Toys (our children.) Loving parents will give their children just about anything to make them happy, AND... will do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to protect their children. Gardasil could just turn out to be the biggst money making vacine ever introduced to the public.

Gardasil could also be the most effective preventative cancer treatment to date; we won't know until time passes and the data is collected. Also remember this vaccine is being administered internationally, not just in the US.

Deb Crowley wrote:

The scary thing is; Gardasil targets the entire female population of mothers to be ...all the while KNOWING the testing for Gardasil was/is NOT complete?

Who, reading this, can find ANY research regarding the long-range effect of this vaccine? There isn’t any!

Seriously... what the hell was the rush?

Where are all the people dropping like flies from HPV that would warrant fast track science. The ONLY death’s I’ve heard about regarding HPV are the girls who have been injected with Gardasil... trying to prevent HPV.

Gardasil NEVER should have been launched until ALL the facts were in.

What parent in their right mind would have handed over their 9,11 year old child for the series of these shots if they were actually told the truth, maybe something like...
We really don’t know the long term effects of this vaccine at this point…we’ll just simply have to wait and see… now… tell your daughter to lie down...many children pass-out from the shot. Oh…. and she may… now I’m saying may continue to pass out daily… until… she doesn’t.

Dramatic side effects are rare but, agreed, they do occur. The negative events of the vaccine should be no different from contacting the actual virus naturally; in fact, the side effects will be much milder than actually getting infected through natural exposure to the disease (whatever it is). Gardasil in not a live vaccine; it only protects those who have no prior exposure to HPV types 6, 11, 16 and 18 (if you have been exposed to those strains of HPV before, it is not a treatment).

The vaccine is effective against HPV types 16 and 18 which cause approximately 70% of cervical cancers, and against HPV types 6 and 11 which cause approximately 90% of genital warts.

You can get more information here:

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM094042

When I read posts such as this one, filled with hysteria, drama, fear and governmental or medical distrust, I always wonder what the real underlying issue is. Can someone explain it to me? What is the real issue here??

free skin care · Tue Oct 01, 2013 6:52 pm

Lacy53 wrote:

When I read posts such as this one, filled with hysteria, drama, fear and governmental or medical distrust, I always wonder what the real underlying issue is. Can someone explain it to me? What is the real issue here??

The issue is scaremongering. To put things in perspective - take a look at these links on the number of deaths from acupuncture:

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/12/BLT-10-076737-table-T1.html

https://ama.com.au/ausmed/node/1568

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/oct/18/dozens-killed-acupuncture-needles

http://edzardernst.com/2013/02/how-many-fatalities-has-acupuncture-caused-and-are-acupuncturists-in-denial/

free skin care · Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:03 pm

Keliu wrote:

Lacy53 wrote:

When I read posts such as this one, filled with hysteria, drama, fear and governmental or medical distrust, I always wonder what the real underlying issue is. Can someone explain it to me? What is the real issue here??

The issue is scaremongering. To put things in perspective - take a look at these links on the number of deaths from acupuncture:

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/12/BLT-10-076737-table-T1.html

https://ama.com.au/ausmed/node/1568

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/oct/18/dozens-killed-acupuncture-needles

http://edzardernst.com/2013/02/how-many-fatalities-has-acupuncture-caused-and-are-acupuncturists-in-denial/

Thats scare mongering.

But comparing accupuncture needles to injecting mrcury ,animal dna and who knows what is being made in the lab ,then i cant think of anything else but Rolling Eyes

free skin care · Tue Oct 01, 2013 10:34 pm

Lacy53 wrote:

Deb Crowley wrote:

For me this is the bottom line:

The American Cancer Society states:

"Cervical cancer was once one of the most common causes of cancer death for American women.The cervical cancer death rate declined by 74% between 1955 and 1992.

The main reason for this change is the increased use of the Pap test. This screening procedure can find changes in the cervix before cancer develops. It can also find early cervical cancer in its most curable stage. The death rate from cervical cancer continues to decline by nearly 4% a year. Cervical cancer tends to occur in midlife."

Why do some people on this thread not understand the difference between prevention and diagnosis followed by treatment? You seem to be saying prevention isn't important because the Pap test will detect pre-cancerous change. Wouldn't prevention by vaccine be better that worrying about it later in life when surgical intervention is necessary?

Deb Crowley wrote:

According to the FDA Gardasil approval announcement:

"For most women, the body’s own defense system will clear the virus. Infected women do not develop related health problems. However, some HPV types can cause abnormal cells on the lining of the cervix that years later can turn into cancer."
____________________________

So why the hell the rush for irresponsible fast track science...$$$$
If you can’t see it for what it is... I’ve got some swampland I’d like you to look at.

Why do you consider this "fast tracked" science? From reviewing the public documents filed with the FDA, the vaccine was "in the pipes" since 2001; it was approved for interstate commerce on June 8, 2006. The development of the vaccine took years prior to even approaching the FDA for tentative approval.

Deb Crowley wrote:

The two biggest moneymakers in the world are... Cosmetics (beauty) and Toys (our children.) Loving parents will give their children just about anything to make them happy, AND... will do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to protect their children. Gardasil could just turn out to be the biggst money making vacine ever introduced to the public.

Gardasil could also be the most effective preventative cancer treatment to date; we won't know until time passes and the data is collected. Also remember this vaccine is being administered internationally, not just in the US.

Deb Crowley wrote:

The scary thing is; Gardasil targets the entire female population of mothers to be ...all the while KNOWING the testing for Gardasil was/is NOT complete?

Who, reading this, can find ANY research regarding the long-range effect of this vaccine? There isn’t any!

Seriously... what the hell was the rush?

Where are all the people dropping like flies from HPV that would warrant fast track science. The ONLY death’s I’ve heard about regarding HPV are the girls who have been injected with Gardasil... trying to prevent HPV.

Gardasil NEVER should have been launched until ALL the facts were in.

What parent in their right mind would have handed over their 9,11 year old child for the series of these shots if they were actually told the truth, maybe something like...
We really don’t know the long term effects of this vaccine at this point…we’ll just simply have to wait and see… now… tell your daughter to lie down...many children pass-out from the shot. Oh…. and she may… now I’m saying may continue to pass out daily… until… she doesn’t.

Dramatic side effects are rare but, agreed, they do occur. The negative events of the vaccine should be no different from contacting the actual virus naturally; in fact, the side effects will be much milder than actually getting infected through natural exposure to the disease (whatever it is). Gardasil in not a live vaccine; it only protects those who have no prior exposure to HPV types 6, 11, 16 and 18 (if you have been exposed to those strains of HPV before, it is not a treatment).

The vaccine is effective against HPV types 16 and 18 which cause approximately 70% of cervical cancers, and against HPV types 6 and 11 which cause approximately 90% of genital warts.

You can get more information here:

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM094042

When I read posts such as this one, filled with hysteria, drama, fear and governmental or medical distrust, I always wonder what the real underlying issue is. Can someone explain it to me? What is the real issue here??

Lacy said: Why do some people on this thread not understand the difference between prevention and diagnosis followed by treatment?

Lacy - For those who have responded - they totally get it. I've read the whole thread.
It comes down to different philosophies. The vaccine has potential to cause issues and there may be more issues that comes to light and that's what they're saying.
As you mentioned Lacy - your daughter has the vaccine so I'm sure you're protecting that right and feel defensive and concerned about it. I would too. It's a choice Lacy - You want it - others think it's too radical ~~ reasons stated. Lots of people chose the vaccine - others made decisions not to based on their research and thought process. Everyone follows their own path.

free skin care · Tue Oct 01, 2013 11:57 pm

sister sweets wrote:

Lacy - For those who have responded - they totally get it. I've read the whole thread.
It comes down to different philosophies. The vaccine has potential to cause issues and there may be more issues that comes to light and that's what they're saying.
As you mentioned Lacy - your daughter has the vaccine so I'm sure you're protecting that right and feel defensive and concerned about it. I would too. It's a choice Lacy - You want it - others think it's too radical ~~ reasons stated. Lots of people chose the vaccine - others made decisions not to based on their research and thought process. Everyone follows their own path.

I believe the issue is wider than just one vaccine. It's the entire medical profession and the advances of modern science.

As for your comment, "vaccine has potential to cause issues" - there is not one thing in this entire world that is issue free, not one. When I was a small child I fell off my bike and required a Tetanus shot - I had a severe reaction to it. I don't notice Tetanus getting a bad rap. Seriously, nothing is 100% safe for everyone. So what's all the hysteria about?

free skin care · Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:15 am

Keliu wrote:

sister sweets wrote:

Lacy - For those who have responded - they totally get it. I've read the whole thread.
It comes down to different philosophies. The vaccine has potential to cause issues and there may be more issues that comes to light and that's what they're saying.
As you mentioned Lacy - your daughter has the vaccine so I'm sure you're protecting that right and feel defensive and concerned about it. I would too. It's a choice Lacy - You want it - others think it's too radical ~~ reasons stated. Lots of people chose the vaccine - others made decisions not to based on their research and thought process. Everyone follows their own path.

I believe the issue is wider than just one vaccine. It's the entire medical profession and the advances of modern science.

As for your comment, "vaccine has potential to cause issues" - there is not one thing in this entire world that is issue free, not one. When I was a small child I fell off my bike and required a Tetanus shot - I had a severe reaction to it. I don't notice Tetanus getting a bad rap. Seriously, nothing is 100% safe for everyone. So what's all the hysteria about?

What's the issue? When drugs and vaccinations come with more side effects and warnings than guarantees THATS the issue. Not to mention, not ALL deaths get reported as a result of those drugs or vaccines. Yes, this is a personal issue. HOWEVER, how would you feel if your MINOR daughter received a vaccination unbeknownst to you, had symptoms you could not connect to the vacccine and just thought they were flu symptoms and later died.. Again, in my mind L A W S U I T!!! Shock

free skin care · Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:38 am

aprile wrote:

When drugs and vaccinations come with more side effects and warnings than guarantees THATS the issue.

If you're suggesting that vaccines have harmed more people than they've helped - that's not a fact that has been born out by history.

free skin care · Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:53 am

At least someones talking sense:

Quote:

Irresponsible fear-mongering

Myth: The HPV vaccine has killed at least 21 girls (Mercola says 122).
Reality: Deaths have occurred after the vaccine; deaths have occurred in girls who were not vaccinated; not one single death has ever been attributed to the vaccine.

Myth: The vaccine has caused 9749 adverse reactions.
Reality: No serious adverse reactions have been attributed to the vaccine.

Myth: It has caused 10 miscarriages.
Reality: It has not been linked to miscarriages. Sure, 10 individuals may have had miscarriages after getting the vaccine, but the baseline rate of miscarriage is higher than that in women who have not been vaccinated.

Note: these 3 claims were based on reports to VAERS (the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System). VAERS only lists things that happened after vaccination; it doesn’t mean they were caused by vaccination. Relying on VAERS data is a post hoc ergo propter hoc error in reasoning. 57,000,000 doses of the vaccine have been administered, yet no deaths or serious adverse reactions have been linked to the vaccine.

Myth: It hasn’t been properly tested.
Reality: It was tested in thousands of girls before marketing, and the after-market experience with 57,000,000 doses constitutes a further test.

Myth: It hasn’t been shown to reduce the rate of cervical cancer.
Reality: It takes a couple of decades for those cancers to appear. Meanwhile, it has reduced the rate of the infections that cause those cancers, so it would be amazing if it had no impact.

Myth: It only covers a few strains of the virus.
Reality: Yes, but those are the ones that matter.

Myth: It will lead to promiscuity.
Reality: More than one study has shown that it doesn’t.

Myth: Mike Adams, the “Health Ranger,” says the FDA knew as early as 2003 that the HPV virus was not linked to cervical cancer.
Reality: What is he smoking? The entire scientific community accepts the strong evidence of a link.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/cunnilingus-michael-douglass-cancer-and-the-hpv-vaccine/

This is the situation in Australia (the first country to introduce the vaccinations). BTW the vaccine has been very well received here (it's provided free of charge as part of our national health care). I can't recall any bad press or negativity towards the programme.

http://www.tga.gov.au/safety/alerts-medicine-gardasil-070624.htm

free skin care · Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:02 am

How many vaccinations have you get Keliu?

I have done the one that they were giving to EVERYBODY including school kids and i really REGRET it.

I wish i was vaccine free from the beginning.

Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:55 am

More recent controversy:

HPV Vaccine Seen Differently by Japan and the US
http://www.tokyotimes.com/2013/hpv-vaccine-seen-differently-by-japan-and-the-u-s/

HPV: To vaccinate or not to vaccinate (Israel)
http://www.jpost.com/Health-and-Science/HPV-To-vaccinate-or-not-to-vaccinate-326711

Related articles mentioned in the JPost newspaper above:

HPV Vaccine Policy: At Odds With Evidence-Based Medicine?
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/757789?src=sttwit
http://dropbox.curry.com/ShowNotesArchive/2012/01/NA-382-2012-02-12/Assets/Vaccine$/Annals%20of%20Medicine%20HPV.pdf

HPV vaccine linked to deaths
http://www.junkscience.co.uk/tag/dr-chris-shaw/

Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:33 am

Lacy53 wrote:

Can someone explain it to me? What is the real issue here??

Here is another perspective that might be helpful:

HPV vaccine: why aren’t Canadians buying in?
http://www.cwhn.ca/en/networkmagazine/hpvvaccinewhyarentcanadiansbuyingin?page=show

This is interesting:

McGill launches major study on prevention of HPV transmission
A new study by McGill’s Division of Cancer Epidemiology will test a revolutionary way of preventing the transmission of the human papillomavirus (HPV) through the use of a topical gel applied during sexual activity.
http://publications.mcgill.ca/reporter/2013/01/mcgill-launches-major-study-on-prevention-of-hpv-transmission/
http://www.mcgill.ca/catch/

free skin care · Wed Oct 02, 2013 12:48 pm

Keliu wrote:

aprile wrote:

When drugs and vaccinations come with more side effects and warnings than guarantees THATS the issue.

If you're suggesting that vaccines have harmed more people than they've helped - that's not a fact that has been born out by history.

It's happened more than once in history where the media (driven by the pharmaceutical industry pressure) creates mass hysteria that an epidemic flu virus exists (when it does not) encouraging people to get vaccinated. This is all in the name of "prevention" when in fact, there are a ton of strains of the flu out there at any given time. Vaccination will NOT prevent you from getting the flu, but you might just get flu-like symptoms and other side effects from it. The ONLY reason for this mass hysteria is so that BIG PHARMA gets paid. We all know it. Especially those of us who live in the United States unless we've been living under a rock. To prevent the flu virus or other diseases, you need a strong immune system to fight back. There are no quick fixes... You must eat from the earth organic and GMO free diet, drink lots of pure water, exercise, supplement with mierals when needed, avoid toxins in your world as much as possible and release any toxic emotions.

free skin care · Wed Oct 02, 2013 1:14 pm

Lacy53 wrote:

Why do some people on this thread not understand the difference between prevention and diagnosis followed by treatment? You seem to be saying prevention isn't important because the Pap test will detect pre-cancerous change. Wouldn't prevention by vaccine be better that worrying about it later in life when surgical intervention is necessary?

sister sweets wrote:

Lacy - For those who have responded - they totally get it. I've read the whole thread.
It comes down to different philosophies. The vaccine has potential to cause issues and there may be more issues that comes to light and that's what they're saying.
As you mentioned Lacy - your daughter has the vaccine so I'm sure you're protecting that right and feel defensive and concerned about it. I would too. It's a choice Lacy - You want it - others think it's too radical ~~ reasons stated. Lots of people chose the vaccine - others made decisions not to based on their research and thought process. Everyone follows their own path.

You have it completely backwards! My views are not an indication of my defensiveness; I am not rationalizing my decision after-the-fact. My posts reflect my opinion of the Gardasil vaccine after researching and reading the information available. I did this prior to offering my support to my daughter's decision to get the vaccine. I'm not worried that it was the wrong thing to do, if that's what you are implying when you say I am "concerned about it". Regardless of the issue, any discussion I have at EDS is factual and is not influenced by my personal experiences. Anecdotes are not evidence or proof of anything; they are just personal stories that apply to the person retelling their own experience and are laden with bias and recall errors. I prefer to present the facts on an issue as determined by the experts; my own personal anedote was just an aside to let you know where I stand on the HPV vaccination issue.

Agreed; it is a choice to vaccine against HPV, and I stated that earlier in the discussion even before anyone else did. But any decision you make should be an informed one, not based on misinformation, half-truths or outright lies. There are so many dramatic statements being made about this vaccine and the adverse-effects reports that I have to believe that some people either don't understand what they are reading (they are misinformed) or they are being misled by certain articles/websites that they use as sources of information. So no Sis, it's not a matter of "different philosophies"; I see it as a matter of misinformation.

Quite frankly I am tired of all the misinformation and drama; it benefits no one and is nothing more than scaremongering. The few members of this forum who have garnered respect and have a following here (for whatever reason) have a responsibility to use their personal influence wisely; this includes educating themselves thoroughly when then speak on matters outside of their field of expertise. (don't worry Sis, I am not including myself in that select group of members with a following). Let's admit it: prevention is so much better than treatment/surgical intervention down the line. And let's also admit that a lot of teens become sexually active prior to marriage which exposes them to the HPV.

If someone has a problem with the way their state government is handling HPV vaccination (ie: giving shots to minors without informing parents, or children not being fully informed of the possible side effects prior to vaccination, aka "informed consent") then that is a completely different issue. It doesn't mean the vaccine is unsafe or unnecessary; it means the administrative policy is the problem. In that case the bureaucratic system needs to be challenged in an attempt to change that policy. It's a completely different issue!

Thanks Havana for the links on the Canadian situation regarding HPV vaccine. I found this quote interesting:

The question of immune response is important in light of Diane Harper’s question about the public health benefits. Because most cervical cancers (67 per cent) occur in women aged 30 to 59, with the average age at diagnosis being 47, it is worth noting that the PHAC report states: “studies have shown that while peak risk for HPV infection is within the first five to 10 years of the first sexual experience, a second peak” in infections is observed in women 45 and older.

free skin care · Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:25 pm

Lacy - much of the information you post comes from sources that certain members do not trust. Others are certainly entitled to that opinion. Further, history has shown us that we have been deceived and lied to again and again by the very sources that you deem as credible. Studies are often skewed, evidence presented about epidemics are often true scaremongering tactics to get more people vaccinated and on and on. That's really the crux of the matter here. Your quote below is quite amusing in that context because those of us who do present the other side, do have credible sources, yet you and others discount those sources. Even breast cancer survival rate statistics after tamoxifen use have been skewed because many times these women later die of other causes, i.e., uterine cancer. To prove my point about how statistics are skewed is a very enlightening article which appeared in the NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/our-feel-good-war-on-breast-cancer.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Quote:

Quite frankly I am tired of all the misinformation and drama; it benefits no one and is nothing more than scaremongering

Women should be informed and even fear over-biopsying and refuse to be treated for what they call "stage 0 breast cancer". We're talking about our lives here. The only scaremongering I see is coming from the other camp. ~ Aprile

free skin care · Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:06 pm

aprile wrote:

It's happened more than once in history where the media (driven by the pharmaceutical industry pressure) creates mass hysteria that an epidemic flu virus exists (when it does not) encouraging people to get vaccinated. This is all in the name of "prevention" when in fact, there are a ton of strains of the flu out there at any given time. Vaccination will NOT prevent you from getting the flu, but you might just get flu-like symptoms and other side effects from it. The ONLY reason for this mass hysteria is so that BIG PHARMA gets paid. We all know it. Especially those of us who live in the United States unless we've been living under a rock. To prevent the flu virus or other diseases, you need a strong immune system to fight back. There are no quick fixes... You must eat from the earth organic and GMO free diet, drink lots of pure water, exercise, supplement with mierals when needed, avoid toxins in your world as much as possible and release any toxic emotions.

You don't get it. The flu vaccines are developed prior to the current influenza season; the strains they fight against are best-guesses according to medical forecasts (which are based on previous years' data). Sometimes these best-guesses aren't exactly right. In that case, the vaccine is ineffective for most (but not all) people who are vaccinated. The media just disseminates the information; it doesn't create "mass hysteria". Instead it provides a public service by spreading the word of the government/medical authorities, not the pharmaceutical industry. It is only once the season has passed that data can be collected on the effectiveness of the past season's flu vaccine. It's historical data, and sometimes (but not always) the experts have made incorrect forecasts. Science isn't perfect.

Speaking of historical data and learning from the past, during the worst H1N1 pandemic in 1918 (the "Spanish Flu") it was in fact previously healthy young adults who were killed most often by the virus. Recent study of frozen cadavers of those who were victims of that pandemic have determined that strong immune reactions of young adults ravaged the body, whereas the weaker immune systems of children and middle-aged adults resulted in fewer deaths among those groups. The researchers' conclusion was that the virus kills through a cytokine storm (overreaction of the body's immune system). Strong immune systems are also responsible for deaths from allergic reactions (hypersensitivity) and are the cause of many autoimmune disorders. Immunodefiencies occur when the body's ability to fight infectious disease is compromised or entirely absent. The most likely causes include chemotherapy, malnutrition, alcoholism, HIV/AIDS or simply aging (Immunosenescence) - unless someone is born with a genetic condition which compromises their immune system.

Go ahead, "strengthen" your immune system (as if that was possible, or even desirable) by eating non-GMO foods, drinking "pure" water, exercising, supplementing with minerals, releasing "toxic" emotions and avoiding toxins in your environment. Better yet, follow the advice of the CDC and get a vaccination (if you are eligible); take preventative actions to prevent the spread of germs if you do get sick (stay at home, cover your mouth/nose when you cough or sneeze, wash your hands); listen to your doctor (MD) and take any medications that are prescribed, as directed.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/preventing.htm

Automatic Message

If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.

Click Here to join our community.

If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site.