Gardasil may cause increased risk of cervical cancer

WildBoots

"Would you consent to giving your child a vaccine that caused an increased risk of cancer? That may be exactly what you are doing when you consent to Gardasil.According to Information the manufacturer of this vaccine presented to the FDA prior to approval, if a person has already been exposed to HPV 16 or 18 prior to injection Gardasil increases the risk of precancerous lesions, or worse, by 44.6%.This documentation was presented on the 18th of May 2006.
That statement bears repeating, if you have been exposed to HPV 16 or 18 prior to injection and take the vaccine, you increase your risk of precancerous lesions, or worse, by 44.6%".


http://www.examiner.com/x-40801-Vaccines-Examiner~y2010m6d30-Warning-Gardasil-may-cause-increased-risk-of-cervical-cancer

This vaccine is being used in Ireland. I wonder if the parents of all those who have received it so far were informed about the possible risks before they signed the consent forms?

El Weirdo

Dr Wakefield?

MagicMarker

''precancerous'' doesn't sound like cancer to me.

WildBoots

WildBoots wrote: »

This vaccine is being used in Ireland. I wonder if the parents of all those who have received it so far were informed about the possible risks before they signed the consent forms?

If it were, do you think it would have been read?
Most people will just sign.

WildBoots

Deleted User wrote: »

If it were, do you think it would have been read?
Most people will just sign.

I think the information should be available on the consent form, if people choose to ignore it then they have no one to blame but themselves if something goes wrong.

Mickeroo

something like 1000 kids died in california last year from whooping cough because their parents paid attention to this kind of thing and didnt get them vaccinated. Remember, stupidity kills. Not saying this is the same, could be true but don't take it for granted that it is.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ColdandFlu/whooping-cough-epidemic-california-lax-vaccination-blame/story?id=11000305

(link coutresy of Zillah over on A&A)

opinion guy

Ok that 'article' you linked says this:

examiner.com wrote:

Now, Merck's research is indicating that Gardasil may also 'provide cross-protection' against other strains of HPV that are closely related to HPV 16 and 18. (see this article on Medpage Today) This means prior exposure to these additional strains may pose an increased risk for cervical cancer also, if combined with vaccination.

This is stated without giving any evidence at all. This is entirely speculation. This is an appalling piece of 'journalism'

My name is URL

opinion guy wrote: »

Ok that 'article' you linked says this:



This is stated without giving any evidence at all. This is entirely speculation. This is an appalling piece of 'journalism'

Examiner.com is notoriously sensationalist and under-referenced

OP has a bit of history in posting medical scare stories too

I'm not saying they should all be ignored as scare-mongering, some are truly shocking.. like the ties between the WHO and pharma companies

ElaElaElano

At first glance I thought it said Gardaí may increase risk of cervical cancer...thought I'd clicked on indymedia instead of boards.

bleg

I can't find any academic paper that backs up this story.



People, don't believe any of the healthcare journalists, they are full of bull****.


OP is a liar.

OutlawPete

My name is URL wrote: »

.. like the ties between the WHO and pharma companies

How dare you suggest a link

I suppose you also think that the Center of Disease Control aren't totally independent of Pharama either.

Why, the CDC had a great Director for years, Dr. Julie Gerberding.

Amazing woman she was. I really wish she'd have stuck around.

Her work was amazing and sure she sided with Pharma on many issues but she was always objective and fair.

Many people accused her of being "tight" with certain pharmaceutical companies, but I never saw any evidence of that.

Wonder what ever happened to her, we really need someone like her to keep Pharma in check.

bonerm

El Weirdo wrote: »

Dr Wakefield?

Oh come on! That's not fair.

His name is Mr.Wakefield.

ScumLord

WildBoots wrote: »

"Would you consent to giving your child a vaccine that caused an increased risk of cancer?

Yes, I can't think of anything I'd rather do right now.

WildBoots

bleg wrote: »

I can't find any academic paper that backs up this story.



People, don't believe any of the healthcare journalists, they are full of bull****.


OP is a liar.

Did you see this?

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4222B3.pdf

ORLY?

WildBoots wrote: »

Did you see this?

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4222B3.pdf

That's a big document. Can you specifically point out the part that says previous HPV exposure combined with the vaccine increases the risk of lesions compared to previous exposure and no vaccination?

Dinner

Ok so apparently it increases the risk by 44.6%, but what is the actual risk of getting it though?

Bit useless giving the amount the risk is increased by without putting it in any sort of context.

ORLY?

Dinner wrote: »

Ok so apparently it increases the risk by 44.6%, but what is the actual risk of getting it though?

Bit useless giving the amount the risk is increased by without putting it in any sort of context.

One step at a time. Where has this actually been shown to be true?

Dinner

ORLY? wrote: »

One step at a time. Where has this actually been shown to be true?

Of course, I probably should have mentioned 'supposing it is true' in my post somewhere.

ORLY?

ORLY? wrote: »

That's a big document. Can you specifically point out the part that says previous HPV exposure combined with the vaccine increases the risk of lesions compared to previous exposure and no vaccination?

I see now where the article pulls it's baseless assertion from. Have you read the document WildBoots? If you have you must surely see where the 44.6% figure comes from and why it is completely wrong to state that vaccination in those with previous exposure carries a 44.6% increase in the risk of developing lesions.

Ruu_Old

Dispirin may cause headaches, side effects include dizziness, loss of eyesight, blood clots or fatality!

opinion guy

bleg wrote: »

I can't find any academic paper that backs up this story.



People, don't believe any of the healthcare journalists, they are full of bull****.


OP is a liar.

To be fair now. Most of the healthcare journalists don't understand the science they are reporting on.

And also to be fair - calling the Op a liar is petty and insulting. Its safe to assume the OP actually believes what they are posting - which may make him/her misguided, but does not actually make him/her a liar.

OutlawPete wrote: »

How dare you suggest a link

I suppose you also think that the Center of Disease Control aren't totally independent of Pharama either.

Why, the CDC had a great Director for years, Dr. Julie Gerberding.

Amazing woman she was. I really wish she'd have stuck around.

Her work was amazing and sure she sided with Pharma on many issues but she was always objective and fair.

Many people accused her of being "tight" with certain pharmaceutical companies, but I never saw any evidence of that.

Wonder what ever happened to her, we really need someone like her to keep Pharma in check.

Hmm if you want something shady here's a story for you in these videos:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/08/22/FDA-has-the-Audacity-to-Claim-Mercury-is-Completely-Harmless.aspx

press escape to get rid of the very annoying popup ad

bonerm wrote: »

Oh come on! That's not fair.

His name is Mr.Wakefield.

He's a surgeon now ?! :P

the_syco

opinion guy wrote: »

Hmm if you want something shady here's a story for you in these videos:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/08/22/FDA-has-the-Audacity-to-Claim-Mercury-is-Completely-Harmless.aspx

Interesting.

opinion guy

the_syco wrote: »

Interesting.

And your point is......

genericguy

OutlawPete wrote: »

How dare you suggest a link

yes, john entwistle would turn in his grave.

sligopark

ok - causes long term increase on cancer - can anyone link to studies of safety to counter this argument?

Never seen a long term study to any vaccine.

They sound good but like millions of flies eating sh1t I am still relucant to begin eating sh1t on the report of the bravado of millions

If I had kids I wouldn't vaccinate them - surely the flu scare and the various enquiries into how the WHO was duped (as were the majority of EU countries [bar Poland]) should tell the more intelligent amongst us not subscribed to the religion of medicine and pharmacology something

Has anyone see the next thing which is to vaccinate boys with gardasil?

What a pile of sh1te

unless of course you have shares

MagicMarker

sligopark wrote: »

If I had kids I wouldn't vaccinate them

Well then you would be a fool.

Mr Benevolent

OP I bet you believed the stuff about MMR and autism too, didn't you?

If I had kids I wouldn't vaccinate them

Against anything? That's just stupid.

Hope this doesn't turn into another MMR fiasco, It took a lot of pursuading to get my wife to agree to have our kids immunisied with the MMR jab a few years ago because of the scare stories going around (since debunked).

ORLY?

sligopark wrote: »

ok - causes long term increase on cancer - can anyone link to studies of safety to counter this argument?

I had a post written to explain why you are wrong but I think you're probably not interested in hearing it so I won't bother.

sligopark

Orly go ahead - whilst I might not be a medic I am reasonably well educated and able to use my mind and intellect to work through most issues rather than just jumping on a band wagon - can you or anyone else say the same?

MMR - definitely a flag but given the head of the GMC that reprimanded the wakefield guy is paid by the company producing the vaccines I think he had little room to cry vested interest

besides there are enough long term observational studies to prove those avoiding vaccines are endowed with better health scores

but hey gaysus who am I to post my opinion that vaccines aren't everything they are purported to be?

ORLY?

sligopark wrote: »

Orly go ahead - whilst I might not be a nedic I am reasonably well educated and able to use my mind and intellect to work through most issues rather than just jumping on a band wagon - can you or anyone else say the same?

MMR - definitely a flag but given the head of the GMC that reprimanded the wakefield guy is paid by the company producing the vaccines I think he had little room to cry vested interest

besides there are enough long term observational studies to prove those avoiding vaccines are endowed with better health scores

but hey gaysus who am I to post my opinion that vaccines aren't everything they are purported to be?

Okay then, let's look at the what we know. Is there any evidence that HPV vaccines cause cancer? Not that I've seen. If you can show it to me I'll have a look. What we have here is someone making a baseless claim that it causes cancer and now you want long term trials to see if it causes cancer. Why cancer? Why not longterm trials to see if it causes ulcerative collitis or arthritis or blindness or any other randomly generated affliction I can think of. This article is BS, it's scare tactics with no evidence.

K-9

Some of the people who scare monger about vaccines, scare monger about loads of things. Seems to be in their nature.

sligopark

ORLY? wrote: »

Okay then, let's look at the what we know. Is there any evidence that HPV vaccines cause cancer? Not that I've seen.

fairly simple answer here orly - there are no long term studies for ANY vaccine although again there are plenty of studies top show those avoiding vaccinations are endowed with better long term health

ORLY? wrote: »

it's scare tactics with no evidence.

I think you'll find this is the business strategy of the vaccine industry

sligopark

K-9 wrote: »

Some of the people who scare monger about vaccines, scare monger about loads of things. Seems to be in their nature.

Not me K-9 - show me the long term benefits the long term studies against those involving children that have better health having avoided vaccines

lets get from scare tactics to benefit evidence provision

MagicMarker

sligopark wrote: »

fairly simple answer here orly - there are no long term studies for ANY vaccine although again there are plenty of studies top show those avoiding vaccinations are endowed with better long term health

I think you'll find a lot of children die because of parents just like yourself.

sligopark

MagicMarker wrote: »

I think you'll find a lot of children die because of parents just like yourself.

I think you will find if you actually read any reports they don't

Piste

WildBoots wrote: »

"Would you consent to giving your child a vaccine that caused an increased risk of cancer? That may be exactly what you are doing when you consent to Gardasil.According to Information the manufacturer of this vaccine presented to the FDA prior to approval, if a person has already been exposed to HPV 16 or 18 prior to injection Gardasil increases the risk of precancerous lesions, or worse, by 44.6%.This documentation was presented on the 18th of May 2006.
That statement bears repeating, if you have been exposed to HPV 16 or 18 prior to injection and take the vaccine, you increase your risk of precancerous lesions, or worse, by 44.6%".

http://www.examiner.com/x-40801-Vaccines-Examiner~y2010m6d30-Warning-Gardasil-may-cause-increased-risk-of-cervical-cancer

This vaccine is being used in Ireland. I wonder if the parents of all those who have received it so far were informed about the possible risks before they signed the consent forms?

The Gardasil injection is meant to be given before girls become sexually active- around age 11-13, they're incredibly unlikely to have contracted the HPV virus at this age.

sligopark wrote: »

fairly simple answer here orly - there are no long term studies for ANY vaccine although again there are plenty of studies top show those avoiding vaccinations are endowed with better long term health






I think you'll find this is the business strategy of the vaccine industry

Can you cite any of these studies? Most good papers will be online.

sligopark

Piste wrote: »

Most good papers will be online.

100% correct - check them out yourself using 'google' viera schreibner is a good place to start then check out amish studies and the australian studies

ORLY?

sligopark wrote: »

there are plenty of studies top show those avoiding vaccinations are endowed with better long term health

Really? Can you link them please and I'll have a look? If I have to go looking for them myself I might not find the ones that show the best evidence for what you claim. Since you are so familiar with the papers showing the benefits of avoiding vaccination it's probably best if you can point me exactly in the direction of the ones you have read so I can assess whether I need to re-evaluate what I think I know about vaccination.

sligopark

ORLY? wrote: »

Really? Can you link them please and I'll have a look?

sligopark wrote: »

check them out yourself using 'google' viera schreibner is a good place to start then check out amish studies and the australian studies

as above orly

K-9

sligopark wrote: »

fairly simple answer here orly - there are no long term studies for ANY vaccine although again there are plenty of studies top show those avoiding vaccinations are endowed with better long term health






I think you'll find this is the business strategy of the vaccine industry

I'd love to read those reports. Genuinely interested.

ORLY?

sligopark wrote: »

as above orly

As I said - If I have to go looking for them myself I might not find the ones that show the best evidence for what you claim. Since you are so familiar with the papers showing the benefits of avoiding vaccination it's probably best if you can point me exactly in the direction of the ones you have read so I can assess whether I need to re-evaluate what I think I know about vaccination.

Also, the internet is a big place. I could be forever looking for them.

sligopark

ORLY? wrote: »

Also, the internet is a big place. I could be forever looking for them.

so get looking with that open mind to re-evaluate what you have blindly accepted - I am not your anti vaccine guru - I am just placing my opinion here having read a bit wider than you and K-9 have and questioning is there a wider benefit and where are the long term studies - surely vaccines are long enough available to investigate this - why haven't they given all the doubt and question about them? Surely if this could be proved it would be widely heralded and a massive push onto vaccinate all of us against every germ and virus on the planet year to year as they evolved would come about and provide bags of profit both nationally, profesionally to medics and nurses squeezing them into us (although the vaccine companies are now trying to push past this profit loss) and a benefit to mankind never to be matched

vaccines have no long term benefit - perhaps time to read wider than medical journals and those paying for press space

we are poisoning ourselves both immediately and given new viewpoints allowed via epigenetics, for the future too

MagicMarker

sligopark wrote: »

so get looking with that open mind to re-evaluate what you have bnlindly accepted - I am not your anti vaccine guru - I am just placing my opinion here having read a bit wider than you and K-9 have

vaccines have no long term benefit - perhaps time to read wider than medical journals and those paying for press space

So you're not even willing to back up your own statement? Is it because it's bullshít?

Mrmoe

sligopark wrote: »

so get looking with that open mind to re-evaluate what you have bnlindly accepted - I am not your anti vaccine guru - I am just placing my opinion here having read a bit wider than you and K-9 have

vaccines have no long term benefit - perhaps time to read wider than medical journals and those paying for press space

Yes, we should definitely avoid those pesky medical journals and medical professionals in favour of ...... geologists:eek:

Viera Scheibner (1935 – present) (real name Viera Scheibnerová) is a retired micropaleontologist (a branch of geology). From 1958 until 1968 she was assistant professor in the department of geology at Comenius University, Bratislava. Scheibner has been active in the anti-vaccination field researching, writing and giving lectures on the subject matter of vaccines and vaccinations since her retirement from the Department of Mineral Resources, New South Wales, Australia in 1987.
A great number of Doctors, Scientists, Legal professionals and other critics have questioned her qualifications, research abilities, and honesty

sligopark

MagicMarker wrote: »

So you're not even willing to back up your own statement? Is it because it's bullshít?

has anyone countered my argument yet? No - cos there is no counter.

Mrmoe wrote: »

Yes, we should definitely avoid those pesky medical journals and medical professionals in favour of ...... geologists:eek:

pesky geologists who are qualified to examine scientific documents and research.

well worht reading her stuff than taking the opinion of some jumped up idiots (reading their journals not taking in the financial overbearance of vaccine companies and taking everything in as truth and not advertisement) claiming vaccines will save us all...

geologist or not having read her stuff amongst alot of other stuff I know how to properly evalute information - do you?

MagicMarker

sligopark wrote: »

has anyone countered my argument yet? No - cos there is no counter.



pesky geologists who are qualified to examine scientific documents and research.

well worht reading her stuff than taking the opinion of some jumped up idiot claiming vaccines will save us all...

geologist or not having read her stuff amongst alot of other stuff I know how to properly evalute information - do you?

lol... just lol.

sligopark

sligopark wrote: »

I know how to properly evalute information - do you?

MagicMarker wrote: »

lol... just lol.

classic reply in the face of no argument

perhaps read her material than reposting some sh1te posted about her in an effort to back that no argument of yours

MagicMarker

Would you go to a geologist if you were sick?

Mickeroo

sligopark wrote: »

has anyone countered my argument yet? No - cos there is no counter.



pesky geologists who are qualified to examine scientific documents and research.

Yea, about geology ya mong.

MagicMarker wrote: »

lol... just lol.

+1 to that

sligopark

MagicMarker wrote: »

Would you go to a geologist if you were sick?

No of course not but I tend to avoid most GPs unless in serious trouble and then head straight to A&E

GPs tend not to know much about health and when it comes to sickness be so confused they quickly forward you to the same A&E or a consultant unless antibiotics and painkillers address the immediate problems, and when they don't and you return then you go on the A&E/consultant merry go round