Developer Of Hpv Vaccines Comes Clean, Warns Parents: Giant Deadly Sca

[Lilllabettt]

science based medicine people. science. based. medicine.

[CrossCuT]

I wonder how many people thought that way when the first Thalidomide babies were born? The C.D.C says the most severe reaction from the flu vaccine is Guillain-Barre Syndrome, GBS, which causes temporary to permanent neurological damage, has been associated with only one type of influenza vaccine. The CDC cites studies suggesting chances of acquiring GBS from current vaccines is less than one in a million.  Wish I could find a lottery with those odds !....

 

I personally know a customer of mine who became paralyzed, losing the use of both his arms and legs from a flu vaccine. It took him over two years to regain the use of his limbs. He had no recourse as the paper he signed listed that as a possible side effect...

 

In truth most of these cures and preventative vaccines are rushed out for the good of the Pharm companies, big money sometimes outweighs other considerations...

 

Has anyone ever heard the side effects of the popular Bi-polar drug Abilify? This is a link to that list as its far to long to try to write or copy here, http://www.drugs.com/sfx/abilify-side-effects.html , funny thing on the TV commercial they repeat most of these and add at the end " in rare cases death"

 

ed
 

 

When people see that Guillain-Barre Syndrome notice on the CDC website I understand why they get scared. Guillain-Barre Syndrome is an autoimmune disease that is not caused by the vaccine; people will already have a predisposition to it. Guillain-Barre Syndrome is caused by an immune response however such as a vaccine, an infection, or whathaveyou.

If you believe you may have Guillain-Barre Syndrome or you know a relative who has it, please see a doctor. 

[CrossCuT]

Id also like to add that the WORST reaction that the flu vaccine will cause is redness, pain, and/or swelling around the injection site as well as feeling more tired a couple days due to your immune response building antibodies.

 

The more severe reactions that the CDC cites (allergic reaction, GBS) are not caused by the vaccine, they are a result of individual biology. If someone is allergic to eggs, they should NOT get the flu shot because this virus or antigens in particular are grown in chicken embryo cell lines. And like I said above, if you are at all concerned about either of these two things or believe that you  might have an allergy or you believe GBS runs in your family please get checked out. If you receive the all clear then you have no fear of getting the flu shot.

[CatherineM]

When my foster son went in the Navy, one recruit per rotation got GBS.

[CrossCuT]

Also found this expert from an article on allergies.

 

 

Myth 4: If you have an egg allergy, you should never get a flu shot.

This is a hot topic right now, Stukus says, as it is every flu season. Allergists understand the confusion: Egg embryos from chickens are indeed used to grow viruses in the production of several vaccines, like influenza, rabies, yellow fever and MMR. So these vaccines may indeed include tiny bits of egg protein, which sounds worrisome to someone with an egg allergy (or the parent of a kid with an egg allergy).

But unless people have a history of a severe reaction called anaphylaxis in response to eating eggs, flu shots are safe for people with egg allergies. Even in people who have severe allergic reactions to egg, the vaccine is still likely to be safe, but a referral to an allergist is recommended before getting a flu shot. (An egg-free vaccine, called Flublok, is also now available.)

As for the other major vaccinations — MMR is safe for anyone with a history of egg allergy, but rabies and yellow fever are not.

http://www.today.com/health/allergy-myths-busted-guess-what-you-didnt-know-about-gluten-8C11545200

[Gabriela]

FYI: The CDC just called my house conducting a childhood vaccination survey. (No kidding.)

 

I told them I'm a pious Catholic with 20 kids and none of them are vaccinated because vaccinations are of the devil.

[AnneLine]

Curiousing... :evil:   :hehe2:

 

I dunno about this.   I do think some of the terror about vaccines is just that -- terror.   Mostly they are good things that save lives.  We owe Edward Jenner a huge debt of gratitude for helping us wipe out smallpox.  Kids and adults don't have to be terrified to go swimming each summer because of polio....

 

BUT.... I also have a very healthy skepticism about the value of some vaccines... and the ONLY times I have gotten the flu have been the years that I took the vaccine.   My health professional blandly assures me that it was pure coincidence... and that I would have gotten it worse if I Hadn't had the shot.... but ya know... I'm not so sure.

 

What I DO know for sure is that I had a first hand look at a vaccine gone wrong at my very first job.  The Manager in our department who was a guy who was probably in his late 40's  (seemed old to me, but I was only 18....) took a routine Swine Flu vaccine.   And had a bad reaction.  A REALLY bad reaction.... In fact, he never could move his right arm again.  Nor most of the right side of his body.  Nor speak clearly.  And he ended up having to take an early retirement.   There were a lot of people who had that reaction in 1973-4.  And it has made me VERY wary of flu vaccinations.

 

And a lot of guys going into the military get routinely ordered to take a huge number of vaccinations... and well, it just doesn't work out too well for some of them.  Like the brother of one of my friends.  Who now is in a box under 6 feet of dirt.

 

So, yes, I get the scientific part, but it is awful hard to ignore stuff like that... it also is empirical evidence....

 

I keep up the major ones, my boosters for rabies, etc. are in order...  but NO I don't take that flu vaccine.  Not interested.

[AnneLine]

And as far as the HPV... I am not convinced it is really about preventing cancer... I think it is much more about tacitly being part of a package with condoms and or other devices and pills and 'you can do what you want, just be careful' instructions. 

 

That sells our kids short... and sets them up for really serious problems down the road. 

 

But I don't have kids, I might feel differently if I did..... I could be wrong....

[Lilllabettt]

yeah, but anecdotal evidence does not meet the definition of empirical evidence. It's not really "evidence" in the scientific sense of the word.

science has important limits but helping us to know what is best practice in terms of medicine is not one of them.

 

I think with the gardasil a lot of the resistance is from the idea that women who get cervical cancer are hypersexual, promiscuous, or "dirty." i.e., If i'm not dirty, my daughter isn't dirty, we are not "those" kind of people, then we do not need the vaccine.

[AnneLine]

Good points, Lilllabettt... and you are right, I offered an anecdotal rather than an empirical argument.  Yup.  :paperbag:

[Maggyie]

Lilla I absolutely agree most of the anti-hpv stuff is driven by "purity" concerns! In fact I remember reading a LifeSite News article that specifically harped on this.

 

In fact - giving your daughter the vaccine doesn't mean you're assuming she'll have premarital sex.

 

It means you're NOT assuming you are raising a sinless child or that she will marry a sinless man. It means you don't think your daughter should pay for being sexually active with her life or her body parts.

 

I mean is that really part of our message on sexuality - don't do it or else you might get cancer and die a horrible painful death? BOO, scary? And then we are surprised when young people reject Christian values as little more than prudery.

 

I was a virgin on my wedding night and I had to deal with this.The small mindedness on this is so sad.

 

[Gabriela]

Actually, anecdotal evidence does meet the definition of "empirical" evidence:

 

empirical |emˈpirikəl|

adjective

based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic...

 

All empirical means is "observed" as opposed to "arrived at by logic/reason without observation".

 

"Scientific" evidence, on the other hand, is in fact a different thing.

 

Scientists have a nasty habit of ignoring rapidly mounting evidence—"anecdotal evidence"—provided by patients and the general public. If it wasn't discovered in a double-blind medical experiment, most scientists ignore it. Until someone's conscience starts to bother them and they decide to design an experiment that could actually catch what the public's been griping about for decades. And then, waddayaknow, they find it.

 

To dismiss all forms of knowing/evidence as hysterical or unreliable purely because they were not generated in a lab or by people credentialed with PhDs ("phuds", as we like to call them around my department) is intellectually arrogant. "Average people" are perfectly capable of generating knowledge for themselves from experience. In fact, that's all we had to go on for most of history. Yeah, that generated a lot of incorrect beliefs and very bad problems, but science has done the same. I don't dismiss the value of science and I am really happy to have it. I readily acknowledge it has solved a lot of problems and made our lives considerably better. But I don't think blindly following whatever doctors are feeding the public as the scientific plat du jour is wise, either. As AnneLine says, some level of skepticism is not only healthy—it saves lives. Science is not infallible.

[GregorMendel]

:welcome: DanKegel. And I do believe that many vaccines are necessary & wonderful, but I have often wondered how detrimental it can be to some children to give their systems a bundle of vaccines all at once...& to be honest, I don't trust the HPV vaccine as it only targets a small number of the viruses (I mean, what are the odds of it actually protecting a person!)...I feel pretty much the same about the flu vaccine, but I do receive it since I work in the medical field. :)

While there are many serotypes of HPV, Gardasil is a quadrivalent vaccine that prevents infection by serotypes 6, 11, 16, and 18 which represent the two most common non-oncogenic and two most common oncogenic (associated with cancer) types. It is in this way that Gardisil is effective at preventing early malignant growths, and thus cancers, associated with HPV 16 and 18, by "only" being quadrivalent.

[GregorMendel]

I wonder how many people thought that way when the first Thalidomide babies were born? The C.D.C says the most severe reaction from the flu vaccine is Guillain-Barre Syndrome, GBS, which causes temporary to permanent neurological damage, has been associated with only one type of influenza vaccine. The CDC cites studies suggesting chances of acquiring GBS from current vaccines is less than one in a million. Wish I could find a lottery with those odds !....

I personally know a customer of mine who became paralyzed, losing the use of both his arms and legs from a flu vaccine. It took him over two years to regain the use of his limbs. He had no recourse as the paper he signed listed that as a possible side effect...

In truth most of these cures and preventative vaccines are rushed out for the good of the Pharm companies, big money sometimes outweighs other considerations...

Has anyone ever heard the side effects of the popular Bi-polar drug Abilify? This is a link to that list as its far to long to try to write or copy here, http://www.drugs.com/sfx/abilify-side-effects.html , funny thing on the TV commercial they repeat most of these and add at the end " in rare cases death"

ed

Thalidomide is exactly why the FDA has developed such strict requirements for drug development and proving efficacy on the part of manufacturers since 1962. There will always be a risk that unknown side effects will come to light when the drug hits market or that companies may be able to hide unfavorable findings, but these risks have been greatly reduced through regulation by the FDA, which mandates post-market (Phase 4) trials of all new drugs and the most intense scrutiny of a company's documentation imaginable. It is simply not possible to rush out a new drug, and even if it was, the fines and lawsuits that would accompany shoddy development would be pennies compared to the loss of the average $1 Billion dollars and 10 years required to bring a drug to market.

[Lilllabettt]

Actually, anecdotal evidence does meet the definition of "empirical" evidence:

 

empirical |emˈpirikəl|

adjective

based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic...

 

All empirical means is "observed" as opposed to "arrived at by logic/reason without observation".

 

I have to disagree. What we refer to as anecdotal "evidence" is not really "evidence" - so it cannot be "empirical evidence" -- it may have an empirical character but it is not actually empirical evidence.  I mean evidence in the strict definition of the term, not the squishy colloquial version.  The key term in the definition you provide is "verifiable." Another way of saying verifiable is replicable. Replicability is central to the concept of empiricism.

 

For example, if I see a black cat and stub my toe, my anecdotal experience suggests to me that seeing black cats is correlated with stubbing toes. It is empirical in that I experienced/observed it. But it can't be called empirical evidence -- it is not actually any kind of evidence. Despite my experience there remains no verifiable evidence that black cats are correlated with stubbed toes.

 

We also have a superfluity of anecdotes suggesting alien visitation of earth, elvis living in utah, and big foot stomping around Appalachia. The data is empirical in that people have observed or experienced things which suggest to them that aliens are on earth, elvis lives and big foot likes beef jerky.  None of these experiences are empirical evidence. None of them are verifiable or replicable. 

 

Vaccine safety is a well studied area, but I have yet to see a single article in a peer-reviewed journal with results that call into question the safety statistics put out by the CDC, APA, etc. Links or it didn't happen.  There is the risk of confirmation bias, yes, but it doesn't follow that we can then say the lack of evidence is itself evidence.