Anti-vaxxers

njs030

Gatling wrote: »

Actually exactly true,

the full post from cancer UK which is only based off one area in England




There are no UK-wide statistics available for cervical cancer survival by stage.

Survival statistics are available for each stage of cervical cancer in one area of England. These are for women diagnosed between 2002 and 2006.

Stage 1

Around 95 out of 100 women (around 95%) will survive their cancer for 5 years or more after diagnosis.

Stage 2

More than 50 out of 100 women (more than 50%) will survive their cancer for 5 years or more after diagnosis.

Stage 3

Almost 40 out of 100 women (almost 40%) will survive their cancer for 5 years or more after diagnosis.

Stage 4

5 out of 100 women (5%) will survive their cancer for 5 years or more after being diagnosed.

No where does it say that 30% of women that are diagnosed die though which was kyliths claim.
Cancer uk specifically say that other factors affect deaths, such as age, family history, race and smear tests.

Gatling

notjustsweet wrote: »

No where does it say that 30% of women that are diagnosed die though which was kyliths claim.
Cancer uk specifically say that other factors affect deaths, such as age, family history, race and smear tests.

But from an Irish site

In Ireland, approximately 300 women in Ireland are diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer each year and over 90 women die from the disease. Cervical cancer is the second most common cause of death due to cancer in women aged 25 to 39 years.

Which equates to 30%

kylith

notjustsweet wrote: »

No where does it say that 30% of women that are diagnosed die though which was kyliths claim.
Cancer uk specifically say that other factors affect deaths, such as age, family history, race and smear tests.

I took the statistics from Cancer Research UK and the American Cancer Society and have quoted what they said verbatim. Of course other factors will effect mortality rates.

Regardless, cancer is more likely than a reaction to the vaccine. If I were eligible for it I'd be first in the queue.

_Whimsical_

kylith wrote: »

A 0.15% chance of a reaction to the vaccine and a .74% chance of worry, heartbreak, months of chemo, radiotherapy, and surgery (including hysterectomy). With a 30% chance that those won't work.

You are 5.6 times more likely to be diagnosed with cervical cancer than suffer a reaction to the vaccine.

That again depends upon the reaction one might have to the vaccine. For example the girl I know of is bedbound for over 2 years and using a wheelchair for hospital visits. Her future prognosis is unknown, she is receiving no treatment, she doesn't know if there'll ever be treatment. She does have a syndrome that can be clinically diagnosed, there's no doubt she is ill, there is doubt over the cause.

Cervical cancer is completely preventable with regular smears. Not a single person should be dying of it anymore. There is no excuse for ignorance of the importance of regular testing. It's even provided free and reminder letters are sent to your home.

If you allow for the possibility of adverse reaction to the vaccine, which there is some, ts very difficult to fully engage with a risk /benefit analysis because there are so many factors to consider. It isn't just as simple as the numbers might suggest.

ancapailldorcha

Again, most adverse reactions are a tiny minority. You talk about regular smear tests but how much is a lifetime of those going to cost? A lot more than the vaccine I'm guessing or else the government wouldn't be providing it.

njs030

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Again, most adverse reactions are a tiny minority. You talk about regular smear tests but how much is a lifetime of those going to cost? A lot more than the vaccine I'm guessing or else the government wouldn't be providing it.

Well the girls still need a lifetime of smear tests.

The vaccine is proven to last for 9 years, it's given to 12 year old girls so it's gone by the time they are 21....
It is 'hoped' immune memory will protect them for longer but there's no proof.

_Whimsical_

notjustsweet wrote: »

Well the girls still need a lifetime of smear tests.

The vaccine is proven to last for 9 years, it's given to 12 year old girls so it's gone by the time they are 21....
It is 'hoped' immune memory will protect them for longer but there's no proof.

That seems to be true, from what I'm reading no one seems to be saying this will replace smear testing as it doesn't cover every single version of the virus that might cause cancer either.

Gatling

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

.

Cervical cancer is completely preventable with regular smears. Not a single person should be dying of it anymore. There is no excuse for ignorance of the importance of regular testing. It's even provided free and reminder letters are sent to your home.

Cervical cancer isn't preventable with regular smears ,
Smears can be used to detect changes in abnormal cells and allow doctors to monitor but it does not prevent cancer detect definitely but unfortunately not prevent cervical cancer

njs030

Gatling wrote: »

But from an Irish site

In Ireland, approximately 300 women in Ireland are diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer each year and over 90 women die from the disease. Cervical cancer is the second most common cause of death due to cancer in women aged 25 to 39 years.

Which equates to 30%

I think that's called statistical manipulation, they've put two separate statistics together and implied one impacts on the other!!

According to the national cancer register of Ireland the statistics are-

"Cancer of the cervix-
Number of new cases per year 277
Incidence rate (cases per 100,000 per year) 11.5
Cumulative lifetime risk of diagnosis (to age 74) 1 in 112
Percentage of all invasive cancers * 2.9%
Ranking among most common cancers * 8th
Number of deaths per year 89
Mortality rate (deaths per 100,000 per year) 3.8
Cumulative lifetime risk of death (to age 74) 1 in 333
Percentage of all cancer deaths 2.2%
Ranking among most common invasive cancer deaths 12th
Number of people with this cancer still alive, end 2014 # 3128
Number alive per 100,000 134"
http://www.ncri.ie/factsheets

A 30 risk of death is 1 in 3, it clearly says the risk of death is 1 in 333.

_Dara_

notjustsweet wrote: »

According to cancer uk
"Around 95 out of 100 women (around 95%) will survive their cancer for 5 years or more after diagnosis."

That's a lot less than 30% you quoted before.

Surviving five years post diagnosis doesn't mean absolute survival. Many people with metastatic disease have can have their lives prolonged past five years these days but they *will* eventually succumb. And many people see their disease return metatstatic. These people will probably also survive five years post diagnosis but, again, will die from the disease. Five year survival stats can be very misleading.

mrkiscool2

I'd like someone to point me to actual, scientifically certified and peer reviewed research that shows the effects of any vaccine are worse than what they help/try to prevent. I'll wait. Meanwhile, I can cite a sh1t-ton of evidence that suggest vaccines are pretty safe, with the exception of some allergic reactions.

Capt'n Midnight

jh79 wrote: »

According to their website they are certain the vaccine caused the illnesses. The best research available show this is not the case.

Their scaremongering will lead to people dying. Simple as.

The vaccine is given at the start of the school year.

Right when people who've been scattered all over come back together again , bringing with them all the germs they've collected over the summer. And lost some immunities.

Some people forget the second bit and blame all illnesses on the vaccine.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Some cancers are bastards even with regular screening. My missus is a radiographer and between doing CT scans and mammograms (screening on high risk patients outside of the standard Breastcheck program) she has seen some very aggressive cancers.

She has seen women terminally ill with breast cancer despite them attending screening. People can encounter rapid growth of the primary cancer between checks and if it spreads to secondary areas before being caught the chances of a good outcome drops.

_Dara_

Karla Future Whirlwind wrote: »

Some cancers are bastards even with regular screening. My missus is a radiographer and between doing CT scans and mammograms (screening on high risk patients outside of the standard Breastcheck program) she has seen some very aggressive cancers.

She has seen women terminally ill with breast cancer despite them attending screening. People can encounter rapid growth of the primary cancer between checks and if it spreads to secondary areas before being caught the chances of a good outcome drops.

Aye, breast cancer culture is so pervasive that people believe that early detection and treatment means a 100% cure. But between 20% and 30% of women diagnosed with early stage breast cancer will go on to develop metastatic disease which has a 100% death rate.

_Whimsical_

Gatling wrote: »

Cervical cancer isn't preventable with regular smears ,
Smears can be used to detect changes in abnormal cells and allow doctors to monitor but it does not prevent cancer detect definitely but unfortunately not prevent cervical cancer

It can prevent them becoming full cancers. You're right that smears detect changes that occur over years but those changes can be treated before they become in anyway life threatening or threaten a woman's fertility.
It would of course be wonderful if smears were no longer needed or if a vaccine, even this vaccine, completely eradicated all risk of developing cancer without risk to health though. I'm not saying cervical cancer is no big deal,just that is hard to weigh risk and benefit if you are allow for the possibility of side effects from the vaccine because of the multitude of factors involved.

Karla Future Whirlwind wrote: »

Some cancers are bastards even with regular screening. My missus is a radiographer and between doing CT scans and mammograms (screening on high risk patients outside of the standard Breastcheck program) she has seen some very aggressive cancers.

She has seen women terminally ill with breast cancer despite them attending screening. People can encounter rapid growth of the primary cancer between checks and if it spreads to secondary areas before being caught the chances of a good outcome drops.

Sadly that's true of a lot of cancers, probably most, it's definitely a big problem with breast cancers. However cervical cancers by their nature develop over many years and they can be detected long before they become cancer as we know it and can be treated /eradicated.

pitifulgod

Just to point out how credible Regret are, these are some of their researchers that they have listed. http://regret.ie/research_3.html Some of the main sources of info that are cited.

Cynthia A. Janak: Not a scientist

Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic: Claims autism caused by vaccines.

Gary Null : Aids denier and radio show host, they cite him as a doctor a lot. He's not.

Dr Ken Stoller is a doctor but a somewhat unethical one. https://www.abqjournal.com/512358/doctor-accused-of-treating-child-who-wasnt-sick.html

There's also a fair few chiropractors and such. The majority of their sources go back to quack sites which still expound the view that vaccines cause autism. Some link to legit orgs who aren't proving what they claim it does. They are the height of predatory and unethical.

Sadb

notjustsweet wrote: »

Well the girls still need a lifetime of smear tests.

The vaccine is proven to last for 9 years, it's given to 12 year old girls so it's gone by the time they are 21....
It is 'hoped' immune memory will protect them for longer but there's no proof.

You are incorrect, current research has shown that after 10 years the vaccine is still fully effective. So it's not "gone" by the time they are 21. Obviously it is not yet known if or how long the vaccine will last but so far it's still effective after 10 years.

njs030

Sadb wrote: »

You are incorrect, current research has shown that after 10 years the vaccine is still fully effective. So it's not "gone" by the time they are 21. Obviously it is not yet known if or how long the vaccine will last but so far it's still effective after 10 years.

Perhaps you could tell the ifpa they are "incorrect" then and ask them to change the information on their website.

https://www.ifpa.ie/Hot-Topics/Cervical-Cancer/Frequently-Asked-Questions

How long does the vaccine protect against HPV infection?

Studies so far show that protection lasts for at least 9 years after a full course of the vaccine.

It is expected that the vaccine will provide long term protection, through the bodies ‘immune memory’.

Sadb

notjustsweet wrote: »

Perhaps you could tell the ifpa they are "incorrect" then and ask them to change the information on their website.

https://www.ifpa.ie/Hot-Topics/Cervical-Cancer/Frequently-Asked-Questions

How long does the vaccine protect against HPV infection?

Studies so far show that protection lasts for at least 9 years after a full course of the vaccine.

It is expected that the vaccine will provide long term protection, through the bodies ‘immune memory’.

They are not incorrect, just dated. You stated that the vaccine is "gone" by the age of 21, that information is incorrect as current studies have shown that even after 6/7/8/9/10 years the vaccine is still working.
From CDC
How long does vaccine protection last?

Research suggests that vaccine protection is long-lasting. Current studies have followed vaccinated individuals for ten years, and show that there is no evidence of weakened protection over time.


https://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv-vaccine-young-women.htm

mountai

kylith wrote: »

That's a 0.15% chance of side effects.

In December 15 , at a Dail health committee meeting , it was pointed out by the HSE

---

We know we have a problem with the number of health professionals reporting adverse events post inoculation , we estimate that 90percent of such events go unreported

---

so redo your sums . on your figure of .15% up that to 1.5% , puts a different complex on things ? . The recent statement by "Wring the Hands" Harris that he wants to set up a compensation fund for "Injured" persons due to vaccinations , WTF is that all about . THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS VACCINE INJURY IN THIS COUNTRY . Its drilled into us that Gardasil is safe . Why do the HSE demand that the Merck Pil is excluded from the information given to Parents by the schools? . Doctors and nurses Refuse the Flu vaccination , Why ?? . Sorry , lets give them Chocolate and I pads . All these parents want is a fair hearing . Not once has ANYONE from HSE or Government gotten into an open debate with any member of Regret . What ere they frightened of??

ancapailldorcha

mountai wrote: »

In December 15 , at a Dail health committee meeting , it was pointed out by the HSE

---

We know we have a problem with the number of health professionals reporting adverse events post inoculation , we estimate that 90percent of such events go unreported

---

so redo your sums . on your figure of .15% up that to 1.5% , puts a different complex on things ? . The recent statement by "Wring the Hands" Harris that he wants to set up a compensation fund for "Injured" persons due to vaccinations , WTF is that all about . THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS VACCINE INJURY IN THIS COUNTRY . Its drilled into us that Gardasil is safe . Why do the HSE demand that the Merck Pil is excluded from the information given to Parents by the schools? . Doctors and nurses Refuse the Flu vaccination , Why ?? . Sorry , lets give them Chocolate and I pads . All these parents want is a fair hearing . Not once has ANYONE from HSE or Government gotten into an open debate with any member of Regret . What ere they frightened of??

A few things. Firstly, you haven't provided a source for these numbers. Secondly and more importantly, why exactly should the HSE engage with REGRET? Engaging with a fanatic lends them legitimacy. If REGRET has a legitimate point to make, it can provide studies showing that vaccines are causing injuries and suffering. But it can't.

tigger123

mountai wrote: »

In December 15 , at a Dail health committee meeting , it was pointed out by the HSE

---

We know we have a problem with the number of health professionals reporting adverse events post inoculation , we estimate that 90percent of such events go unreported

---

so redo your sums . on your figure of .15% up that to 1.5% , puts a different complex on things ? . The recent statement by "Wring the Hands" Harris that he wants to set up a compensation fund for "Injured" persons due to vaccinations , WTF is that all about . THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS VACCINE INJURY IN THIS COUNTRY . Its drilled into us that Gardasil is safe . Why do the HSE demand that the Merck Pil is excluded from the information given to Parents by the schools? . Doctors and nurses Refuse the Flu vaccination , Why ?? . Sorry , lets give them Chocolate and I pads . All these parents want is a fair hearing . Not once has ANYONE from HSE or Government gotten into an open debate with any member of Regret . What ere they frightened of??

Giving it oxygen.

I requested a meeting with the Minister of Defence about the little green men living in my shed, but he refused me time and again
WHAT IS HE AFRAID OF? WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT HIDING?

hatrickpatrick

The fact that Fidelma "fornication" Healy Eames is involved in the anti-HPV vaccine smear campaign should tell you all you need to know. There are some evil, evil people in this world who are so authoritarian in their views on sexuality that they regard the threat of getting an STI as a good thing to enforce their backwards anti-sex agenda on people. They are probably the same types who would in decades past have sent their daughters to Magdalene laundries for not being introverted enough.

I do *NOT* believe that the parents who have been convinced by this concerted anti-vax campaign to be in the same category, before anyone accuses me of such. I am directing this ire at those such as Eames who are orchestrating this campaign of fear while making very public statements outlining exactly how they feel about sexuality and personal freedom. Their views are more suited to a conservative Middle Eastern theocracy like Saudi Arabia than a liberal democracy like Ireland and they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for unnecessarily frightening parents who already have enough stress to deal with.

mountai

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A few things. Firstly, you haven't provided a source for these numbers. Secondly and more importantly, why exactly should the HSE engage with REGRET? Engaging with a fanatic lends them legitimacy. If REGRET has a legitimate point to make, it can provide studies showing that vaccines are causing injuries and suffering. But it can't.

Simple questions , have you looked up the Merck Pil?. Why is compensation being raised by Government ? . And why do Medics refuse the Flu vaccine?. Im sorry I cant do links , but the video of that meeting exists on the Dail website . I am not a liar.

Gatling

mountai wrote: »

Simple questions , have you looked up the Merck Pil?. Why is compensation being raised by Government ? . And why do Medics refuse the Flu vaccine?. Im sorry I cant do links , but the video of that meeting exists on the Dail website . I am not a liar.

A lot of medicine personal get the flu jab along with child care workers

mountai

Gatling wrote: »

A lot of medicine personal get the flu jab along with child care workers

But the MAJORITY DONT

Gatling

mountai wrote: »

But the MAJORITY DONT

Proof

njs030

mountai wrote: »

But the MAJORITY DONT

You need to back things like that up with links.

mountai

Gatling wrote: »

Proof

Look up HSE figures , Chocolate and Ipads!!!

Army_of_One

mountai wrote: »

Look up HSE figures , Chocolate and Ipads!!!

you made the claims , you provide the links.