> Good job California. Of course, it is not a true mandate, because > parents have the option of opting out of the life-saving vaccine.
Requiring 11-year olds to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease conveys the message that they are expected to be sexually active at that age or soon after, and that is not a message I want conveyed to my daughter. A government mandate to be vaccinated against a disease which is not spread by casual contact in schools is an unwarranted intrusion into family life.
Beliavsky wrote: > On Jul 11, 8:25 am, Jeff <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> wrote: >> JOHN wrote: >>> http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sb533.html >> Good job California. Of course, it is not a true mandate, because >> parents have the option of opting out of the life-saving vaccine.
> Requiring 11-year olds to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted > disease conveys the message that they are expected to be sexually > active at that age or soon after, and that is not a message I want > conveyed to my daughter.
The reality is that many 11-year girls will soon be sexually active.
A government mandate to be vaccinated against
> a disease which is not spread by casual contact in schools is an > unwarranted intrusion into family life.
Beliavsky wrote: > On Jul 11, 8:25 am, Jeff <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> wrote: >> JOHN wrote: >>> http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sb533.html >> Good job California. Of course, it is not a true mandate, because >> parents have the option of opting out of the life-saving vaccine.
> Requiring 11-year olds to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted > disease conveys the message that they are expected to be sexually > active at that age or soon after, and that is not a message I want > conveyed to my daughter.
I was vaccinated against rubella when I was eleven or twelve, and it wouldn’t even have occurred to me to see this as a message that I was expected to get pregnant in the imminent future. I had the sense to grasp that this was something that was meant to protect me for life so that if and when I was pregnant at some undetermined far-off future point, I would be protected then. Kids have a lot more sense than we often give them credit for. ;-)
This is not to say that I can’t think of any reasons to be potentially wary of the vaccine (currently, we’re in the Catch-22 stage of not knowing whether there will be long-term effects and not having any great way of finding out other than trying it out), just that I don’t see this as one of them.
> A government mandate to be vaccinated against > a disease which is not spread by casual contact in schools is an > unwarranted intrusion into family life.
On Jul 11, 2:40 pm, Sarah Vaughan <nanny…@samael.demon.co.uk> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Beliavsky wrote: > > On Jul 11, 8:25 am, Jeff <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> JOHN wrote: > >>>http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sb533.html > >> Good job California. Of course, it is not a true mandate, because > >> parents have the option of opting out of the life-saving vaccine.
> > Requiring 11-year olds to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted > > disease conveys the message that they are expected to be sexually > > active at that age or soon after, and that is not a message I want > > conveyed to my daughter.
> I was vaccinated against rubella when I was eleven or twelve, and it > wouldn’t even have occurred to me to see this as a message that I was > expected to get pregnant in the imminent future. I had the sense to > grasp that this was something that was meant to protect me for life so > that if and when I was pregnant at some undetermined far-off future > point, I would be protected then. Kids have a lot more sense than we > often give them credit for. ;-)
> This is not to say that I can’t think of any reasons to be potentially > wary of the vaccine (currently, we’re in the Catch-22 stage of not > knowing whether there will be long-term effects and not having any great > way of finding out other than trying it out), just that I don’t see this > as one of them.
> > A government mandate to be vaccinated against > > a disease which is not spread by casual contact in schools is an > > unwarranted intrusion into family life.
> On that, I agree with you.
> All the best,
> Sarah
> –http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com
> "That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" – P. C. Hodgell
Even some who helped invent this vaccine are against mandating it. Concerns about safety effectivenress and other concerns. Previously posted From Medical news today "Requiring HPV Vaccination For School-Age Girls For Upcoming School Year ‘Too Soon,’ Researcher Says" 6/26/07 "It is premature to require middle-school age girls to receive Merck’s human papillomavirus vaccine Gardasil for the upcoming school year, Doug Lowy — head of the National Cancer Institute’s Laboratory of Cellular Oncology and one of the scientists responsible for the development of the vaccine — said on Wednesday, CQ HealthBeat reports (Bartolf, CQ HealthBeat, 6/20).’ full story fair and balanced… Thanks Vince link http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=75047&nfid=rss...
They say a mandate would mean about a billion a year in sales . Thanks Vince
On Jul 11, 3:48 pm, bigvince <Vince.Mirag…@gmail.com> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Jul 11, 2:40 pm, Sarah Vaughan <nanny…@samael.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Beliavsky wrote: > > > On Jul 11, 8:25 am, Jeff <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> JOHN wrote: > > >>>http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sb533.html > > >> Good job California. Of course, it is not a true mandate, because > > >> parents have the option of opting out of the life-saving vaccine.
> > > Requiring 11-year olds to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted > > > disease conveys the message that they are expected to be sexually > > > active at that age or soon after, and that is not a message I want > > > conveyed to my daughter.
> > I was vaccinated against rubella when I was eleven or twelve, and it > > wouldn’t even have occurred to me to see this as a message that I was > > expected to get pregnant in the imminent future. I had the sense to > > grasp that this was something that was meant to protect me for life so > > that if and when I was pregnant at some undetermined far-off future > > point, I would be protected then. Kids have a lot more sense than we > > often give them credit for. ;-)
> > This is not to say that I can’t think of any reasons to be potentially > > wary of the vaccine (currently, we’re in the Catch-22 stage of not > > knowing whether there will be long-term effects and not having any great > > way of finding out other than trying it out), just that I don’t see this > > as one of them.
> > > A government mandate to be vaccinated against > > > a disease which is not spread by casual contact in schools is an > > > unwarranted intrusion into family life.
> > On that, I agree with you.
> > All the best,
> > Sarah
> > –http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com
> > "That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" – P. C. Hodgell
> Even some who helped invent this vaccine are against mandating it. > Concerns about safety effectivenress and other concerns. Previously > posted From Medical news > today > "Requiring HPV Vaccination For School-Age Girls For Upcoming School > Year ‘Too Soon,’ Researcher Says" 6/26/07 "It is premature to > require middle-school age girls to receive Merck’s human > papillomavirus vaccine Gardasil for the upcoming school year, Doug > Lowy — head of the National Cancer Institute’s Laboratory of > Cellular > Oncology and one of the scientists responsible for the development of > the vaccine — said on Wednesday, CQ HealthBeat reports (Bartolf, CQ > HealthBeat, 6/20).’ full story fair and balanced… > Thanks Vince link http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=75047&nfid=rss...
> They say a mandate would mean about a billion a year in sales . > Thanks Vince- Hide quoted text –
> – Show quoted text –
Vince, how is it a mandate if ANY parent can exclude their child? It can be a mandate if it isn’t Mandatory. Look it up.
>> Good job California. Of course, it is not a true mandate, because >> parents have the option of opting out of the life-saving vaccine.
>Requiring 11-year olds to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted >disease conveys the message that they are expected to be sexually >active at that age or soon after, and that is not a message I want >conveyed to my daughter. A government mandate to be vaccinated against >a disease which is not spread by casual contact in schools is an >unwarranted intrusion into family life.
Be sure to be listening and paying attention when your daughters tell you that they are about to have their first sexual experiences and want you to arrange for them to have the vaccine. I am sure that they will tell you, particularly as they go to a school where such activity does not ever take place. — Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
> On Jul 11, 3:48 pm, bigvince <Vince.Mirag…@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 11, 2:40 pm, Sarah Vaughan <nanny…@samael.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Beliavsky wrote: >>>> On Jul 11, 8:25 am, Jeff <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> JOHN wrote: >>>>>> http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sb533.html >>>>> Good job California. Of course, it is not a true mandate, because >>>>> parents have the option of opting out of the life-saving vaccine. >>>> Requiring 11-year olds to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted >>>> disease conveys the message that they are expected to be sexually >>>> active at that age or soon after, and that is not a message I want >>>> conveyed to my daughter. >>> I was vaccinated against rubella when I was eleven or twelve, and it >>> wouldn’t even have occurred to me to see this as a message that I was >>> expected to get pregnant in the imminent future. I had the sense to >>> grasp that this was something that was meant to protect me for life so >>> that if and when I was pregnant at some undetermined far-off future >>> point, I would be protected then. Kids have a lot more sense than we >>> often give them credit for. ;-) >>> This is not to say that I can’t think of any reasons to be potentially >>> wary of the vaccine (currently, we’re in the Catch-22 stage of not >>> knowing whether there will be long-term effects and not having any great >>> way of finding out other than trying it out), just that I don’t see this >>> as one of them. >>>> A government mandate to be vaccinated against >>>> a disease which is not spread by casual contact in schools is an >>>> unwarranted intrusion into family life. >>> On that, I agree with you. >>> All the best, >>> Sarah >>> –http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com >>> "That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" – P. C. Hodgell >> Even some who helped invent this vaccine are against mandating it. >> Concerns about safety effectivenress and other concerns. Previously >> posted From Medical news >> today >> "Requiring HPV Vaccination For School-Age Girls For Upcoming School >> Year ‘Too Soon,’ Researcher Says" 6/26/07 "It is premature to >> require middle-school age girls to receive Merck’s human >> papillomavirus vaccine Gardasil for the upcoming school year, Doug >> Lowy — head of the National Cancer Institute’s Laboratory of >> Cellular >> Oncology and one of the scientists responsible for the development of >> the vaccine — said on Wednesday, CQ HealthBeat reports (Bartolf, CQ >> HealthBeat, 6/20).’ full story fair and balanced… >> Thanks Vince link http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=75047&nfid=rss...
>> They say a mandate would mean about a billion a year in sales . >> Thanks Vince- Hide quoted text –
>> – Show quoted text –
> Vince, how is it a mandate if ANY parent can exclude their child? > It can be a mandate if it isn’t Mandatory. Look it up.
Vince has trouble with complex concepts like being able to opt out makes it non-mandatory.
"Sarah Vaughan" <nanny…@samael.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f7386o$c6k$1$>
> I was vaccinated against rubella when I was eleven or twelve, and it > wouldn’t even have occurred to me to see this as a message that I was > expected to get pregnant in the imminent future. I had the sense to grasp > that this was something that was meant to protect me for life so that if > and when I was pregnant at some undetermined far-off future point, I would > be protected then. Kids have a lot more sense than we often give them > credit for. ;-)
You do realize that it doesn’t protect you for life though, only about 10 years or so. As part of my pre-pregnancy bloodwork when I told the gp we were trying, was to test me for rubella antibodies. I was no longer immune and had to have a booster shot. She said that vaccinations usually need boosters every 10 years because the immunity wears off. just a FYI in case you didn’t know.
> You do realize that it doesn’t protect you for life though, only about 10 > years or so. As part of my pre-pregnancy bloodwork when I told the gp we > were trying, was to test me for rubella antibodies. I was no longer immune > and had to have a booster shot. She said that vaccinations usually need > boosters every 10 years because the immunity wears off. just a FYI in case > you didn’t know.
Sarah is a GP, so she’s probably well informed about this, I’m well aware that different vaccines work in different ways and need different number of shots to get lifelong or relevant time period immunity (bear in mind that a lot of diseases are much more dangerous to older people so even if pregnancy is a big concern life long immunity is probably still the aim). My understanding is that rubella given as part of MMR with 2 injections at different times, usually does provide life long immunity, that doesn’t mean it’s not a sensible thing to test for, but given how few women do present for pre pregnancy check ups, the check is usually done during early pregnancy blood work (I’m not sure what they’d actually do if it came back negative at this stage, the vaccine can’t be given in pregnancy and as the disease has a long incubation period, if there did happen to be an outbreak you’d probably be aware of it too late to avoid exposure). Tetanus, is one that I think is still recommended for every 10 years, though I don’t think that is practiced much and instead it’s given when wounds occur.
Stormlady wrote: > "Sarah Vaughan" <nanny…@samael.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:f7386o$c6k$1$> >> I was vaccinated against rubella when I was eleven or twelve, and it >> wouldn’t even have occurred to me to see this as a message that I was >> expected to get pregnant in the imminent future. I had the sense to grasp >> that this was something that was meant to protect me for life so that if >> and when I was pregnant at some undetermined far-off future point, I would >> be protected then. Kids have a lot more sense than we often give them >> credit for. ;-)
> You do realize that it doesn’t protect you for life though, only about 10 > years or so. As part of my pre-pregnancy bloodwork when I told the gp we > were trying, was to test me for rubella antibodies. I was no longer immune > and had to have a booster shot. She said that vaccinations usually need > boosters every 10 years because the immunity wears off. just a FYI in case > you didn’t know.
I don’t know whether rubella immunisation protects for life (that was a figure of speech ) but it almost always protects for longer than ten years. I’ve had to look at a lot of routine bloods on pregnant women in my time, including a lot of checks for rubella immunity. In that time, I’ve only ever come across one woman in whom the vaccine had worn off. (Which would make you the second.)
Of course, it may be a bit more common in the US, because the women whose rubella results I’ve been looking at have largely been the women who’ve been vaccinated at the age of around 11 or 12, whereas the US has had it as part of the infant immunisations for much longer. Maybe that extra ten years means that there’s more chance of the jab wearing off – it would be interesting to look at some comparative statistics. Anyway, as Anne said, it’s now part of the MMR with booster, so hopefully cases like that will become even rarer.
On Jul 12, 8:24 am, Beliavsky <beliav…@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 12:05 am, "Stormlady" <d…@email.me> wrote:
> <snip>
> > You do realize that it doesn’t protect you for life though, only about 10 > > years or so.
> How long does Gardasil protect against HPV?
The facts are no one can tell how effective Gardasil is at preventing cancer; certainly much less than most think . A recent Wall Street Journal article made that point. Amid growing concerns as to safety and effectiveness the Texas Legislature repealed Gov .Perrys executive order mandating HPV vaccine for all sixth grade girls ;these concerns are outlined in the April 16 "the Wall Street Journal" article questioning the effectiveness of Gardasil Mercks HPV vaccine. Gardasil been "dogged with uncertainty’ as to it’s effectiveness read more http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=67980&nfid=rss... These and other concerns caused the Texas repeal. The feeling was summed up by Republican Rep. Dennis Bonnen bristled at the governor’s criticism of his bill.
"We should not and are now not going to offer the 165,000 11-year- olds in Texas up to be the study group for Merck to find out what the implications of this vaccine would be for these girls," he said.". source Perry won’t vetovirus vaccinnations bill. May 8 2007 , Liz Ann Peterson, A.P. Fox link http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May08/0,4670,TexasCervicalCancer,00 ….
The same point was made in the New England Journal of Medicine "Policymakers, clinicians, and parents have a keen sense of urgency about HPV vaccination. On one hand, the vaccine has high efficacy against certain HPV types that cause life-threatening disease, and it appears to be safe; delaying vaccination may mean that many women will miss an opportunity for long-lasting protection. On the other hand, a cautious approach may be warranted in light of important unanswered questions about overall vaccine effectiveness, duration of protection, and adverse effects that may emerge over time. HPV vaccination has the potential for profound public health benefit if the most optimistic scenario of effectiveness is realized. " http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/19/1991
It ‘s a little technical but basically it says that the amount this vaccine will reduce cancer is unknown. The only think known for sure is that mandating this vaccine will be very profitable for the maker. Thanks Vince
bigvince wrote: > On Jul 12, 8:24 am, Beliavsky <beliav…@aol.com> wrote: >> On Jul 12, 12:05 am, "Stormlady" <d…@email.me> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> You do realize that it doesn’t protect you for life though, only about 10 >>> years or so. >> How long does Gardasil protect against HPV?
> The facts are no one can tell how effective Gardasil is at preventing > cancer; certainly much less than most think . A recent Wall Street > Journal article made that point.
Actually, the article was misleading. It focused on teens who already were infected with HPV, which we hope the 11-year olds aren’t.
Anyway, if you want accurate information on the vaccine, go here:
> and effectiveness the Texas > Legislature repealed Gov .Perrys executive order mandating HPV > vaccine for all sixth grade girls ;these concerns are outlined in the > April 16 "the Wall > Street Journal" article questioning the effectiveness of > Gardasil Mercks HPV vaccine. Gardasil been > "dogged with uncertainty’ as to it’s effectiveness read > more > http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=67980&nfid=rss... > These and other concerns caused the Texas repeal. The feeling was > summed up by Republican Rep. Dennis Bonnen bristled at the governor’s > criticism of his bill.
> "We should not and are now not going to offer the 165,000 11-year- > olds > in Texas up to be the study group for Merck to find out what the > implications of this vaccine would be for these girls," he said.". > source Perry won’t vetovirus vaccinnations bill. May 8 2007 , Liz Ann > Peterson, A.P. Fox link http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May08/0,4670,TexasCervicalCancer,00 > ….
> The same point was made in the New England Journal of Medicine > "Policymakers, clinicians, and parents have a keen sense of urgency > about HPV vaccination. On one hand, the vaccine has high efficacy > against certain HPV types that cause life-threatening disease, and it > appears to be safe; delaying vaccination may mean that many women will > miss an opportunity for long-lasting protection. On the other hand, a > cautious approach may be warranted in light of important unanswered > questions about overall vaccine effectiveness, duration of protection, > and adverse effects that may emerge over time. HPV vaccination has the > potential for profound public health benefit if the most optimistic > scenario of effectiveness is realized. " http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/19/1991
> It ‘s a little technical but basically it says that the amount this > vaccine will reduce cancer is unknown. The only think known for sure > is that mandating this vaccine will be very profitable for the > maker. Thanks Vince
Note from Ilena Rosenthal: May God protect our daughters from ths fiasco in the making … and all the PR flacks who are all over the internet trying to sell this debacle.
To watch fools like Jeffrey P Utz, selling this unproven and potentially dangerous and deadly unnecessary vaccination as "safe" … shows how infiltrated Usenet is with the Pharma / Quackwatch flacks. In this case, they use a man who after having a "restricted" medical license for a handful of years … came to Usenet and the blogworld to tell everyhow how great vaccinations are.
Judicial Watch Uncovers Three Deaths Relating to HPV Vaccine
More information is always necessary before jumping on any new treatment. Since we are speaking of our daughters, this is a warning we cannot afford to ignore.
Read this on Judicial Watch’s Web Site
Event Reports Obtained from FDA Detail 1,637 Adverse Reactions to Gardasil
(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released documents obtained from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, detailing 1,637 reports of adverse reactions to the vaccination for human papillomavirus (HPV), Gardasil. Three deaths were related to the vaccine. One physician’s assistant reported that a female patient "died of a blood clot three hours after getting the Gardasil vaccine." Two other reports, on girls 12 and 19, reported deaths relating to heart problems and/or blood clotting.
As of May 11, 2007, the 1,637 adverse vaccination reactions reported to the FDA via the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) included 371 serious reactions. Of the 42 women who received the vaccine while pregnant, 18 experienced side effects ranging from spontaneous abortion to fetal abnormities.
Side effects published by Merck & Co. warn the public about potential pain, fever, nausea, dizziness and itching after receiving the vaccine. Indeed, 77% of the adverse reactions reported are typical side effects to vaccinations. But other more serious side effects reported include paralysis, Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and seizures.
"The FDA adverse event reports on the HPV vaccine read like a catalog of horrors," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Any state or local government now beset by Merck’s lobbying campaigns to mandate this HPV vaccine for young girls ought to take a look at these adverse health reports. It looks as if an unproven vaccine with dangerous side effects is being pushed as a miracle drug."
Judicial Watch filed its request on May 9, 2007, and received the adverse event reports from the FDA on May 15, 2007. Judicial Watch has posted the adverse event reports below.
(A recent study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, also questioned the general effectiveness of Gardasil.)
No. 1600 or adverse events after the Gardasil was administered. Many of the adverse events were after the patient had more than one vaccine. And many of them were minor, like swelling the size of a golf ball, which was better the next day.
Many of the adverse events are not related to the vaccines at all.
And some are reported more than once.
Jeff
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Typically … adverse reactions are known to be vastly underreported.
> 1600 or adverse events after the Gardasil was administered. Many of > the adverse events were after the patient had more than one vaccine. And > many of them were minor, like swelling the size of a golf ball, which > was better the next day.
> Many of the adverse events are not related to the vaccines at all.
"Sarah Vaughan" <nanny…@samael.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f74dnu$k03$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk…
> I don’t know whether rubella immunisation protects for life (that was a > figure of speech ) but it almost always protects for longer than ten > years. I’ve had to look at a lot of routine bloods on pregnant women in > my time, including a lot of checks for rubella immunity. In that time, > I’ve only ever come across one woman in whom the vaccine had worn off. > (Which would make you the second.)
> Of course, it may be a bit more common in the US, because the women whose > rubella results I’ve been looking at have largely been the women who’ve > been vaccinated at the age of around 11 or 12, whereas the US has had it > as part of the infant immunisations for much longer. Maybe that extra ten > years means that there’s more chance of the jab wearing off – it would be > interesting to look at some comparative statistics. Anyway, as Anne said, > it’s now part of the MMR with booster, so hopefully cases like that will > become even rarer.
The Chronic Rubella Viremia Support Group is a group of over 200 health care professionals who submitted to rubella vaccination and ended up with chronic debilitating symptoms attributable to rubella vaccine. The founder of the group, Katy Fox, RN, suspects that many other health professionals were adversely affected by the rubella vaccine. When 20/20 did a story on the subject, she says, over 600 people responded.
> "That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" – P. C. Hodgell
Yeah, but vaccination is holding up well against the truth, but every lie must die eventually, even vaccination
"In October, 1972. a seminar on rubella was held at the Department of Pathology, University Department, Austin Hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Dr. Beverly Allen, a medical virologist, gave overwhelming evidence against the effectiveness of the vaccine. So stunned was she with her investigations that it caused her, like a growing number of scientists, to question the whole area related to herd immunizations. Dr. Allen described two trials: the first trial concerned army recruits who were selected because of their lack of immunity as determined by blood tests. These men were given Cendevax, an attenuated rubella virus that is supposed to protect. They were then sent to a camp which usually has an annual epidemic of rubella. This occurred three to four months after they were vaccinated, and 80% of the so-called immune recruits became infected with rubella virus. A further trial shortly after this took place at an institution for mentally retarded people with similar effects. Additional disturbing evidence was sent to us by a Melbourne GP who was in the United Kingdom at the time that Chief Health Officer Sir Henry Yellowlees, had released a press statement (February 26, 1976) informing doctors that, in spite of high vaccination figures, there had been no detectable reduction in the number of babies born with birth defects."–Dr Archie Kalokerinos & Glen Dettman "Does Rubella Vaccination Protect?," Australian Nurses Journal, reprinted in The Dangers of Immunisation p54
JOHN wrote:
> http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sb533.html
Good job California. Of course, it is not a true mandate, because
parents have the option of opting out of the life-saving vaccine.
Jeff
On Jul 11, 8:25 am, Jeff <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> wrote:
> JOHN wrote:
> >http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sb533.html
> Good job California. Of course, it is not a true mandate, because
> parents have the option of opting out of the life-saving vaccine.
Requiring 11-year olds to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted
disease conveys the message that they are expected to be sexually
active at that age or soon after, and that is not a message I want
conveyed to my daughter. A government mandate to be vaccinated against
a disease which is not spread by casual contact in schools is an
unwarranted intrusion into family life.
Beliavsky wrote:
> On Jul 11, 8:25 am, Jeff <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> JOHN wrote:
>>> http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sb533.html
>> Good job California. Of course, it is not a true mandate, because
>> parents have the option of opting out of the life-saving vaccine.
> Requiring 11-year olds to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted
> disease conveys the message that they are expected to be sexually
> active at that age or soon after, and that is not a message I want
> conveyed to my daughter.
The reality is that many 11-year girls will soon be sexually active.
A government mandate to be vaccinated against
> a disease which is not spread by casual contact in schools is an
> unwarranted intrusion into family life.
And you have every right to decline the vaccine.
Jeff
Beliavsky wrote:
> On Jul 11, 8:25 am, Jeff <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> JOHN wrote:
>>> http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sb533.html
>> Good job California. Of course, it is not a true mandate, because
>> parents have the option of opting out of the life-saving vaccine.
> Requiring 11-year olds to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted
> disease conveys the message that they are expected to be sexually
> active at that age or soon after, and that is not a message I want
> conveyed to my daughter.
I was vaccinated against rubella when I was eleven or twelve, and it
wouldn’t even have occurred to me to see this as a message that I was
expected to get pregnant in the imminent future. I had the sense to
grasp that this was something that was meant to protect me for life so
that if and when I was pregnant at some undetermined far-off future
point, I would be protected then. Kids have a lot more sense than we
often give them credit for. ;-)
This is not to say that I can’t think of any reasons to be potentially
wary of the vaccine (currently, we’re in the Catch-22 stage of not
knowing whether there will be long-term effects and not having any great
way of finding out other than trying it out), just that I don’t see this
as one of them.
> A government mandate to be vaccinated against
> a disease which is not spread by casual contact in schools is an
> unwarranted intrusion into family life.
On that, I agree with you.
All the best,
Sarah
–
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com
"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" – P. C. Hodgell
On Jul 11, 2:40 pm, Sarah Vaughan <nanny…@samael.demon.co.uk> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Beliavsky wrote:
> > On Jul 11, 8:25 am, Jeff <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> JOHN wrote:
> >>>http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sb533.html
> >> Good job California. Of course, it is not a true mandate, because
> >> parents have the option of opting out of the life-saving vaccine.
> > Requiring 11-year olds to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted
> > disease conveys the message that they are expected to be sexually
> > active at that age or soon after, and that is not a message I want
> > conveyed to my daughter.
> I was vaccinated against rubella when I was eleven or twelve, and it
> wouldn’t even have occurred to me to see this as a message that I was
> expected to get pregnant in the imminent future. I had the sense to
> grasp that this was something that was meant to protect me for life so
> that if and when I was pregnant at some undetermined far-off future
> point, I would be protected then. Kids have a lot more sense than we
> often give them credit for. ;-)
> This is not to say that I can’t think of any reasons to be potentially
> wary of the vaccine (currently, we’re in the Catch-22 stage of not
> knowing whether there will be long-term effects and not having any great
> way of finding out other than trying it out), just that I don’t see this
> as one of them.
> > A government mandate to be vaccinated against
> > a disease which is not spread by casual contact in schools is an
> > unwarranted intrusion into family life.
> On that, I agree with you.
> All the best,
> Sarah
> –http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com
> "That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" – P. C. Hodgell
Even some who helped invent this vaccine are against mandating it.
Concerns about safety effectivenress and other concerns. Previously
posted From Medical news
today
"Requiring HPV Vaccination For School-Age Girls For Upcoming School
Year ‘Too Soon,’ Researcher Says" 6/26/07 "It is premature to
require middle-school age girls to receive Merck’s human
papillomavirus vaccine Gardasil for the upcoming school year, Doug
Lowy — head of the National Cancer Institute’s Laboratory of
Cellular
Oncology and one of the scientists responsible for the development of
the vaccine — said on Wednesday, CQ HealthBeat reports (Bartolf, CQ
HealthBeat, 6/20).’ full story fair and balanced…
Thanks Vince link http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=75047&nfid=rss...
They say a mandate would mean about a billion a year in sales .
Thanks Vince
On Jul 11, 3:48 pm, bigvince <Vince.Mirag…@gmail.com> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Jul 11, 2:40 pm, Sarah Vaughan <nanny…@samael.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Beliavsky wrote:
> > > On Jul 11, 8:25 am, Jeff <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> JOHN wrote:
> > >>>http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sb533.html
> > >> Good job California. Of course, it is not a true mandate, because
> > >> parents have the option of opting out of the life-saving vaccine.
> > > Requiring 11-year olds to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted
> > > disease conveys the message that they are expected to be sexually
> > > active at that age or soon after, and that is not a message I want
> > > conveyed to my daughter.
> > I was vaccinated against rubella when I was eleven or twelve, and it
> > wouldn’t even have occurred to me to see this as a message that I was
> > expected to get pregnant in the imminent future. I had the sense to
> > grasp that this was something that was meant to protect me for life so
> > that if and when I was pregnant at some undetermined far-off future
> > point, I would be protected then. Kids have a lot more sense than we
> > often give them credit for. ;-)
> > This is not to say that I can’t think of any reasons to be potentially
> > wary of the vaccine (currently, we’re in the Catch-22 stage of not
> > knowing whether there will be long-term effects and not having any great
> > way of finding out other than trying it out), just that I don’t see this
> > as one of them.
> > > A government mandate to be vaccinated against
> > > a disease which is not spread by casual contact in schools is an
> > > unwarranted intrusion into family life.
> > On that, I agree with you.
> > All the best,
> > Sarah
> > –http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com
> > "That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" – P. C. Hodgell
> Even some who helped invent this vaccine are against mandating it.
> Concerns about safety effectivenress and other concerns. Previously
> posted From Medical news
> today
> "Requiring HPV Vaccination For School-Age Girls For Upcoming School
> Year ‘Too Soon,’ Researcher Says" 6/26/07 "It is premature to
> require middle-school age girls to receive Merck’s human
> papillomavirus vaccine Gardasil for the upcoming school year, Doug
> Lowy — head of the National Cancer Institute’s Laboratory of
> Cellular
> Oncology and one of the scientists responsible for the development of
> the vaccine — said on Wednesday, CQ HealthBeat reports (Bartolf, CQ
> HealthBeat, 6/20).’ full story fair and balanced…
> Thanks Vince link http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=75047&nfid=rss...
> They say a mandate would mean about a billion a year in sales .
> Thanks Vince- Hide quoted text –
> – Show quoted text –
Vince, how is it a mandate if ANY parent can exclude their child?
It can be a mandate if it isn’t Mandatory. Look it up.
The One True Zhen Jue wrote:
<…>
> Vince, how is it a mandate if ANY parent can exclude their child?
> It can be a mandate if it isn’t Mandatory. Look it up.
True. What they are mandating is that parents act like parents and make
a decision.
Jeff
Beliavsky <beliav…@aol.com> wrote:
>On Jul 11, 8:25 am, Jeff <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> JOHN wrote:
>> >http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sb533.html
>> Good job California. Of course, it is not a true mandate, because
>> parents have the option of opting out of the life-saving vaccine.
>Requiring 11-year olds to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted
>disease conveys the message that they are expected to be sexually
>active at that age or soon after, and that is not a message I want
>conveyed to my daughter. A government mandate to be vaccinated against
>a disease which is not spread by casual contact in schools is an
>unwarranted intrusion into family life.
Be sure to be listening and paying attention when your daughters tell
you that they are about to have their first sexual experiences and
want you to arrange for them to have the vaccine. I am sure that they
will tell you, particularly as they go to a school where such activity
does not ever take place.
—
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
The One True Zhen Jue wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Jul 11, 3:48 pm, bigvince <Vince.Mirag…@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 11, 2:40 pm, Sarah Vaughan <nanny…@samael.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Beliavsky wrote:
>>>> On Jul 11, 8:25 am, Jeff <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> JOHN wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sb533.html
>>>>> Good job California. Of course, it is not a true mandate, because
>>>>> parents have the option of opting out of the life-saving vaccine.
>>>> Requiring 11-year olds to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted
>>>> disease conveys the message that they are expected to be sexually
>>>> active at that age or soon after, and that is not a message I want
>>>> conveyed to my daughter.
>>> I was vaccinated against rubella when I was eleven or twelve, and it
>>> wouldn’t even have occurred to me to see this as a message that I was
>>> expected to get pregnant in the imminent future. I had the sense to
>>> grasp that this was something that was meant to protect me for life so
>>> that if and when I was pregnant at some undetermined far-off future
>>> point, I would be protected then. Kids have a lot more sense than we
>>> often give them credit for. ;-)
>>> This is not to say that I can’t think of any reasons to be potentially
>>> wary of the vaccine (currently, we’re in the Catch-22 stage of not
>>> knowing whether there will be long-term effects and not having any great
>>> way of finding out other than trying it out), just that I don’t see this
>>> as one of them.
>>>> A government mandate to be vaccinated against
>>>> a disease which is not spread by casual contact in schools is an
>>>> unwarranted intrusion into family life.
>>> On that, I agree with you.
>>> All the best,
>>> Sarah
>>> –http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com
>>> "That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" – P. C. Hodgell
>> Even some who helped invent this vaccine are against mandating it.
>> Concerns about safety effectivenress and other concerns. Previously
>> posted From Medical news
>> today
>> "Requiring HPV Vaccination For School-Age Girls For Upcoming School
>> Year ‘Too Soon,’ Researcher Says" 6/26/07 "It is premature to
>> require middle-school age girls to receive Merck’s human
>> papillomavirus vaccine Gardasil for the upcoming school year, Doug
>> Lowy — head of the National Cancer Institute’s Laboratory of
>> Cellular
>> Oncology and one of the scientists responsible for the development of
>> the vaccine — said on Wednesday, CQ HealthBeat reports (Bartolf, CQ
>> HealthBeat, 6/20).’ full story fair and balanced…
>> Thanks Vince link http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=75047&nfid=rss...
>> They say a mandate would mean about a billion a year in sales .
>> Thanks Vince- Hide quoted text –
>> – Show quoted text –
> Vince, how is it a mandate if ANY parent can exclude their child?
> It can be a mandate if it isn’t Mandatory. Look it up.
Vince has trouble with complex concepts like being able to opt out makes
it non-mandatory.
"Sarah Vaughan" <nanny…@samael.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f7386o$c6k$1$>
> I was vaccinated against rubella when I was eleven or twelve, and it
> wouldn’t even have occurred to me to see this as a message that I was
> expected to get pregnant in the imminent future. I had the sense to grasp
> that this was something that was meant to protect me for life so that if
> and when I was pregnant at some undetermined far-off future point, I would
> be protected then. Kids have a lot more sense than we often give them
> credit for. ;-)
You do realize that it doesn’t protect you for life though, only about 10
years or so. As part of my pre-pregnancy bloodwork when I told the gp we
were trying, was to test me for rubella antibodies. I was no longer immune
and had to have a booster shot. She said that vaccinations usually need
boosters every 10 years because the immunity wears off. just a FYI in case
you didn’t know.
> You do realize that it doesn’t protect you for life though, only about 10
> years or so. As part of my pre-pregnancy bloodwork when I told the gp we
> were trying, was to test me for rubella antibodies. I was no longer immune
> and had to have a booster shot. She said that vaccinations usually need
> boosters every 10 years because the immunity wears off. just a FYI in case
> you didn’t know.
Sarah is a GP, so she’s probably well informed about this, I’m well
aware that different vaccines work in different ways and need different
number of shots to get lifelong or relevant time period immunity (bear
in mind that a lot of diseases are much more dangerous to older people
so even if pregnancy is a big concern life long immunity is probably
still the aim). My understanding is that rubella given as part of MMR
with 2 injections at different times, usually does provide life long
immunity, that doesn’t mean it’s not a sensible thing to test for, but
given how few women do present for pre pregnancy check ups, the check is
usually done during early pregnancy blood work (I’m not sure what they’d
actually do if it came back negative at this stage, the vaccine can’t be
given in pregnancy and as the disease has a long incubation period, if
there did happen to be an outbreak you’d probably be aware of it too
late to avoid exposure). Tetanus, is one that I think is still
recommended for every 10 years, though I don’t think that is practiced
much and instead it’s given when wounds occur.
Cheers
Anne
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Stormlady wrote:
> "Sarah Vaughan" <nanny…@samael.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:f7386o$c6k$1$>
>> I was vaccinated against rubella when I was eleven or twelve, and it
>> wouldn’t even have occurred to me to see this as a message that I was
>> expected to get pregnant in the imminent future. I had the sense to grasp
>> that this was something that was meant to protect me for life so that if
>> and when I was pregnant at some undetermined far-off future point, I would
>> be protected then. Kids have a lot more sense than we often give them
>> credit for. ;-)
> You do realize that it doesn’t protect you for life though, only about 10
> years or so. As part of my pre-pregnancy bloodwork when I told the gp we
> were trying, was to test me for rubella antibodies. I was no longer immune
> and had to have a booster shot. She said that vaccinations usually need
> boosters every 10 years because the immunity wears off. just a FYI in case
> you didn’t know.
I don’t know whether rubella immunisation protects for life (that was a
) but it almost always protects for longer than
figure of speech
ten years. I’ve had to look at a lot of routine bloods on pregnant
women in my time, including a lot of checks for rubella immunity. In
that time, I’ve only ever come across one woman in whom the vaccine had
worn off. (Which would make you the second.)
Of course, it may be a bit more common in the US, because the women
whose rubella results I’ve been looking at have largely been the women
who’ve been vaccinated at the age of around 11 or 12, whereas the US has
had it as part of the infant immunisations for much longer. Maybe that
extra ten years means that there’s more chance of the jab wearing off –
it would be interesting to look at some comparative statistics. Anyway,
as Anne said, it’s now part of the MMR with booster, so hopefully cases
like that will become even rarer.
All the best,
Sarah
—
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com
"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" – P. C. Hodgell
On Jul 12, 12:05 am, "Stormlady" <d…@email.me> wrote:
<snip>
> You do realize that it doesn’t protect you for life though, only about 10
> years or so.
How long does Gardasil protect against HPV?
Beliavsky wrote:
> On Jul 12, 12:05 am, "Stormlady" <d…@email.me> wrote:
> <snip>
>> You do realize that it doesn’t protect you for life though, only about 10
>> years or so.
> How long does Gardasil protect against HPV?
The vaccine is too new to really know.
I think it is known to protect for a number of years, but beyond that,
there is no way to know.
Jeff
On Jul 12, 8:24 am, Beliavsky <beliav…@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 12:05 am, "Stormlady" <d…@email.me> wrote:
> <snip>
> > You do realize that it doesn’t protect you for life though, only about 10
> > years or so.
> How long does Gardasil protect against HPV?
The facts are no one can tell how effective Gardasil is at preventing
cancer; certainly much less than most think . A recent Wall Street
Journal article made that point. Amid growing concerns as to safety
and effectiveness the Texas
Legislature repealed Gov .Perrys executive order mandating HPV
vaccine for all sixth grade girls ;these concerns are outlined in the
April 16 "the Wall
Street Journal" article questioning the effectiveness of
Gardasil Mercks HPV vaccine. Gardasil been
"dogged with uncertainty’ as to it’s effectiveness read
more
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=67980&nfid=rss...
These and other concerns caused the Texas repeal. The feeling was
summed up by Republican Rep. Dennis Bonnen bristled at the governor’s
criticism of his bill.
"We should not and are now not going to offer the 165,000 11-year-
olds
in Texas up to be the study group for Merck to find out what the
implications of this vaccine would be for these girls," he said.".
source Perry won’t vetovirus vaccinnations bill. May 8 2007 , Liz Ann
Peterson, A.P. Fox link http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May08/0,4670,TexasCervicalCancer,00
….
The same point was made in the New England Journal of Medicine
"Policymakers, clinicians, and parents have a keen sense of urgency
about HPV vaccination. On one hand, the vaccine has high efficacy
against certain HPV types that cause life-threatening disease, and it
appears to be safe; delaying vaccination may mean that many women will
miss an opportunity for long-lasting protection. On the other hand, a
cautious approach may be warranted in light of important unanswered
questions about overall vaccine effectiveness, duration of protection,
and adverse effects that may emerge over time. HPV vaccination has the
potential for profound public health benefit if the most optimistic
scenario of effectiveness is realized. " http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/19/1991
It ‘s a little technical but basically it says that the amount this
vaccine will reduce cancer is unknown. The only think known for sure
is that mandating this vaccine will be very profitable for the
maker. Thanks Vince
bigvince wrote:
> On Jul 12, 8:24 am, Beliavsky <beliav…@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 12, 12:05 am, "Stormlady" <d…@email.me> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> You do realize that it doesn’t protect you for life though, only about 10
>>> years or so.
>> How long does Gardasil protect against HPV?
> The facts are no one can tell how effective Gardasil is at preventing
> cancer; certainly much less than most think . A recent Wall Street
> Journal article made that point.
Actually, the article was misleading. It focused on teens who already
were infected with HPV, which we hope the 11-year olds aren’t.
Anyway, if you want accurate information on the vaccine, go here:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/hpv/default.htm
Jeff
Amid growing concerns as to safety
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> and effectiveness the Texas
> Legislature repealed Gov .Perrys executive order mandating HPV
> vaccine for all sixth grade girls ;these concerns are outlined in the
> April 16 "the Wall
> Street Journal" article questioning the effectiveness of
> Gardasil Mercks HPV vaccine. Gardasil been
> "dogged with uncertainty’ as to it’s effectiveness read
> more
> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=67980&nfid=rss...
> These and other concerns caused the Texas repeal. The feeling was
> summed up by Republican Rep. Dennis Bonnen bristled at the governor’s
> criticism of his bill.
> "We should not and are now not going to offer the 165,000 11-year-
> olds
> in Texas up to be the study group for Merck to find out what the
> implications of this vaccine would be for these girls," he said.".
> source Perry won’t vetovirus vaccinnations bill. May 8 2007 , Liz Ann
> Peterson, A.P. Fox link http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May08/0,4670,TexasCervicalCancer,00
> ….
> The same point was made in the New England Journal of Medicine
> "Policymakers, clinicians, and parents have a keen sense of urgency
> about HPV vaccination. On one hand, the vaccine has high efficacy
> against certain HPV types that cause life-threatening disease, and it
> appears to be safe; delaying vaccination may mean that many women will
> miss an opportunity for long-lasting protection. On the other hand, a
> cautious approach may be warranted in light of important unanswered
> questions about overall vaccine effectiveness, duration of protection,
> and adverse effects that may emerge over time. HPV vaccination has the
> potential for profound public health benefit if the most optimistic
> scenario of effectiveness is realized. " http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/19/1991
> It ‘s a little technical but basically it says that the amount this
> vaccine will reduce cancer is unknown. The only think known for sure
> is that mandating this vaccine will be very profitable for the
> maker. Thanks Vince
Note from Ilena Rosenthal: May God protect our daughters from ths
fiasco in the making … and all the PR flacks who are all over the
internet trying to sell this debacle.
To watch fools like Jeffrey P Utz, selling this unproven and
potentially dangerous and deadly unnecessary vaccination as "safe" …
shows how infiltrated Usenet is with the Pharma / Quackwatch flacks.
In this case, they use a man who after having a "restricted" medical
license for a handful of years … came to Usenet and the blogworld to
tell everyhow how great vaccinations are.
http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm#Utz
http://ilena-rosenthal.blogspot.comFrom: Dr. Erika
http://www.drerika.com/blog?action=viewBlog&blogID=90826688031719301
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Judicial Watch Uncovers Three Deaths Relating to HPV Vaccine
More information is always necessary before jumping on any new
treatment. Since we are speaking of our daughters, this is a warning
we cannot afford to ignore.
Read this on Judicial Watch’s Web Site
Event Reports Obtained from FDA Detail 1,637 Adverse Reactions to
Gardasil
(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch, the public interest group that
investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released
documents obtained from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, detailing
1,637 reports of adverse reactions to the vaccination for human
papillomavirus (HPV), Gardasil. Three deaths were related to the
vaccine. One physician’s assistant reported that a female patient
"died of a blood clot three hours after getting the Gardasil vaccine."
Two other reports, on girls 12 and 19, reported deaths relating to
heart problems and/or blood clotting.
As of May 11, 2007, the 1,637 adverse vaccination reactions reported
to the FDA via the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)
included 371 serious reactions. Of the 42 women who received the
vaccine while pregnant, 18 experienced side effects ranging from
spontaneous abortion to fetal abnormities.
Side effects published by Merck & Co. warn the public about potential
pain, fever, nausea, dizziness and itching after receiving the
vaccine. Indeed, 77% of the adverse reactions reported are typical
side effects to vaccinations. But other more serious side effects
reported include paralysis, Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and
seizures.
"The FDA adverse event reports on the HPV vaccine read like a catalog
of horrors," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Any state or
local government now beset by Merck’s lobbying campaigns to mandate
this HPV vaccine for young girls ought to take a look at these adverse
health reports. It looks as if an unproven vaccine with dangerous side
effects is being pushed as a miracle drug."
Judicial Watch filed its request on May 9, 2007, and received the
adverse event reports from the FDA on May 15, 2007. Judicial Watch has
posted the adverse event reports below.
(A recent study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine,
also questioned the general effectiveness of Gardasil.)
Thanks so much for this link:
1,637 Gardasil reactions have been reported
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/GardasilVAERSReports.pdf
Typically … adverse reactions are known to be vastly underreported.
http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/
Ilena Rose wrote:
> Thanks so much for this link:
> 1,637 Gardasil reactions have been reported
> http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/GardasilVAERSReports.pdf
No. 1600 or adverse events after the Gardasil was administered. Many of
the adverse events were after the patient had more than one vaccine. And
many of them were minor, like swelling the size of a golf ball, which
was better the next day.
Many of the adverse events are not related to the vaccines at all.
And some are reported more than once.
Jeff
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Typically … adverse reactions are known to be vastly underreported.
> http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/
Jeff wrote:
> Ilena Rose wrote:
>> Thanks so much for this link:
>> 1,637 Gardasil reactions have been reported
>> http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/GardasilVAERSReports.pdf
> No.
This should be 1600 or so….
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> 1600 or adverse events after the Gardasil was administered. Many of
> the adverse events were after the patient had more than one vaccine. And
> many of them were minor, like swelling the size of a golf ball, which
> was better the next day.
> Many of the adverse events are not related to the vaccines at all.
> And some are reported more than once.
> Jeff
>> Typically … adverse reactions are known to be vastly underreported.
>> http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/gardasil_h.html
"Sarah Vaughan" <nanny…@samael.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f74dnu$k03$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk…
> I don’t know whether rubella immunisation protects for life (that was a
) but it almost always protects for longer than ten
> figure of speech
> years. I’ve had to look at a lot of routine bloods on pregnant women in
> my time, including a lot of checks for rubella immunity. In that time,
> I’ve only ever come across one woman in whom the vaccine had worn off.
> (Which would make you the second.)
Using antibodies as a measure of immunity is junk science
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/antibody.html
> Of course, it may be a bit more common in the US, because the women whose
> rubella results I’ve been looking at have largely been the women who’ve
> been vaccinated at the age of around 11 or 12, whereas the US has had it
> as part of the infant immunisations for much longer. Maybe that extra ten
> years means that there’s more chance of the jab wearing off – it would be
> interesting to look at some comparative statistics. Anyway, as Anne said,
> it’s now part of the MMR with booster, so hopefully cases like that will
> become even rarer.
Rubella vax is just another useless vaccination
http://www.whale.to/v/rubella9.html
that cripples plenty
The Chronic Rubella Viremia Support Group is a group of over 200 health
care professionals who submitted to rubella vaccination and ended up with
chronic debilitating symptoms attributable to rubella vaccine. The founder
of the group, Katy Fox, RN, suspects that many other health professionals
were adversely affected by the rubella vaccine. When 20/20 did a story on
the subject, she says, over 600 people responded.
> "That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" – P. C. Hodgell
Yeah, but vaccination is holding up well against the truth, but every lie
must die eventually, even vaccination
"In October, 1972. a seminar on rubella was held at the Department of
Pathology, University Department, Austin Hospital in Melbourne, Australia.
Dr. Beverly Allen, a medical virologist, gave overwhelming evidence against
the effectiveness of the vaccine. So stunned was she with her investigations
that it caused her, like a growing number of scientists, to question the
whole area related to herd immunizations. Dr. Allen described two trials:
the first trial concerned army recruits who were selected because of their
lack of immunity as determined by blood tests. These men were given
Cendevax, an attenuated rubella virus that is supposed to protect. They were
then sent to a camp which usually has an annual epidemic of rubella. This
occurred three to four months after they were vaccinated, and 80% of the
so-called immune recruits became infected with rubella virus. A further
trial shortly after this took place at an institution for mentally retarded
people with similar effects. Additional disturbing evidence was sent to us
by a Melbourne GP who was in the United Kingdom at the time that Chief
Health Officer Sir Henry Yellowlees, had released a press statement
(February 26, 1976) informing doctors that, in spite of high vaccination
figures, there had been no detectable reduction in the number of babies born
with birth defects."–Dr Archie Kalokerinos & Glen Dettman "Does Rubella
Vaccination Protect?," Australian Nurses Journal, reprinted in The Dangers
of Immunisation p54
"Beliavsky" <beliav…@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1184243073.277634.260070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com…
> On Jul 12, 12:05 am, "Stormlady" <d…@email.me> wrote:
> <snip>
>> You do realize that it doesn’t protect you for life though, only about 10
>> years or so.
> How long does Gardasil protect against HPV?
no vaccine protects againts anything, they just line the pockets of
allopathy
they make it up as they go along, they said one mumps vaccine protected,
then they said it was completely useless, after using it for decades
just think of all those booster shots http://www.whale.to/v/schedule.html