Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

From our friends of Gardasil

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by pro-pilot, Dec 17, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Interestingly enough, here is some clear evidence to show of the propaganda behind Gardasil of vaccination program.

    Was emailed a reference to this doco. Which is interesting in the use of terminology and language.

    Refer to page 8, and specifically section VI (6).


    Vaccines all carry a cocktail of random RNA and DNA which have unknown effects on specific peoples biochemistry with a high potential for allergies, cancers and various triggering of genetically latent disorders.

    The reason / logic for vaccines is if you are willing to take the risk of longer term damages and exposure to off-set near almost certain effects of either epidemic or prevailing conditions then it may be worth it. But most people are never informed of this.

    How trusting we are!

  2. Correction, MOST people are informed of the possible side effects of both vaccines and everyday antibiotics etc.
    The chance of one of the more severe side effects is like 1 in 10000.
    Anaphalatic shock is far more common and deadly than developing a longterm side effect.

    Yes if your that 10000th person you get dealt a shitty blow, but the other 9999 are protected and hence the decrease of most of the nasty's, in the 'industrialized' nations that can imunize there populations, and let us travel to the unlucky 3rd world countrys with relative safety.

    Being ex service's I have been vaccinated alot more than the average 'traveller' ever will, I was also a medic who administered alot of the 'cocktails' to fellow personel, before during and after deployment.

    Personally I'd take the risk of vaccination, against the risk of catching one of the more exotic nasty's getting around anyday.
  3. Well said Bob, this is the rationale behind me getting all my kids vaccinated.

    Polio, rubella etc are fcuking bad news.
  4. Obviously you didn't read the quote:

    'VI. Statement of the basis for disagreement with the present classification status
    [21 CFR § 860.123(a)(5) ]
    The basis of this reclassification request is that the present regulatory classification of HPV DNA
    tests as devices intended for use in identifying and typing HPV infection to stratify women at
    risk for cervical cancer, thus assigned to class I II, requiring submission and approval of PMAs
    [2], is no longer appropriate because continued designation of low-to-moderate risk HPV DNA
    test devices as class III devices contradicts the current understanding of HPV infection and its
    relationship to the development of cervical cancer . Based on new scientific information
    published in the past 15 years, it is now generally agreed that identifying and typing HPV
    infection does not bear a direct relationship to stratification of the risk for cervical cancer
    . Most
    acute infections caused by HPV are self-limiting [1, 4-7] . It is the persistent HPV infection that
    may act as a tumor promoter in cancer induction [8-11] . Identifying and typing HPV is an
    important tool for following patients with persistent HPV infection. Repeated sequential transient
    HPV infections, even when caused by "high-risk" HPVs, are characteristically not associated
    with high risk of developing squamous intraepithelial lesions, a precursor of cervical cancer .

    A woman found to be positive for the same strain (genotype) of H PV on repeated testing is
    highly likely suffering from a persistent HPV infection and is considered to be at high risk of
    developing precancerous intraepithelial lesions in the cervix . It is the persistent infection, not the
    virus, that determines the cancer risk .
  5. PRO - we have a vaccination schedule to prevent disease. I am fully vaccinated, my girls are fully vaccinated for their age. My niece recently had Gardasil and had no reaction, therefore I will have no hesitation getting my daughters Gardasil.

    My niece got Whooping Cough when she was 7 weeks old - 1 week off vaccinating. Many adults have the virus but don't know, only people up to date with their tetanus injections are immune.

    CON - I was overdue for Tetanus, due to pregnancy and a bad memory, so I went to get my Tetanus booster in February, 7 years late. I had a localised reaction which caused a raised red rash around the injection site (my thigh). Turns out I am immune to Tetanus and didn't need a booster after all. So now I still have brown pigmentation at the injection site 10 months later. I have to get blood tests before anymore vaccinations to check my levels and avoid a repeat. But that's ok cause I really don't mind getting needles!! :)
  6. yes I skipped over most of the drivel, I've got better things to do with my time than read the volumes of material you think we all like to read, I only brushed over this one, as the content is very close to home for me and my kids.

    Both my kids have had these inoculations and will happily have any more offered up, as i said I and they would rather take the chance of side effects, if there is a chance of NOT developing cancer at some stage later in life.

    You see both them and I had to sit back helplessly and watch my wife and there mother suffer through a long / painful and fatal cancer @ 36.
    Since her passing in 1999 we have also watched my father / mother / grandfather / uncle / father in law and a cousin all pass away from cancer.

    So as you can see, if there is a chance a vaccination may prevent them from becoming a family statistic, they will take the risk involved happily.
  7. Pro
    you need to go out and get LAID

    You are turning into a boring version of D-Stump.
  8. Well, as before, you didn't read the FDA document.

    Can't help those who are convinced I suppose.
  9. You got kids?
    If you do:
    You immunised them?
    Are you prepared to wear the consequences?
    Do you practise what you preach?

    If not why are you trying to convince us parents otherwise?
    give it up ffs.
  10. I've been aware of the above for decades, but our GP still made a point of explaining it before vaccinating Molly.

    The point you are ignoring is that vaccination constitutes a risk minimization system.

    The chances of getting the diseases (along with the harm they cause) that the vaccines stop are magnitudes higher than are the chances of getting the diseases that the vaccines can cause by side effect.

    That seems a fairly simple choice to me (and a majority of people in this thread it seems)... and you are entitled not to vaccinate yourself so why they big song and dance about it?

    The above is of course a comment about vaccines in general, and if scientific evidence (rather than a claim) is presented that the odds are balanced the other way for a particular vaccine well then fine, I'm sure doctors will stop using it once that is clear.

    It isn't clear at this point that that is in fact the case.
  11. The FDA document cleary states that the HPV virus is not linked to cervical cancer.

    This is not my opinion, i've shown you the link to the official site.

    I am just interested if the very need for this vaccine is to prevent a specific type of limited cervical cancer, and the very fundemental agent has been shown not to be the trigger, what is this serum actually preventing?
  12. dont forget ladies and gents, this is the int3rw3bz, where all links are 100% factual, true and accurate! :roll:

    oh, and for the record.
    nothing scientific is factual. it is all adopted probable theory, until proven (this happens often) otherwise ;)

  13. it is the persistence of the infection, as caused by the HPV virus. It might not be directly related but it is near as makes no difference.

    you even quoted it
  14. The FDA document clearly *claims* that the HPV virus is not linked to cervical cancer, that makes it FDA opinion.

    At this point in time that isn't the opinion of the relevant medical authorities in Australia.

    Any particular reason I should believe one over the other?
  15. Because Pro pilot has a PhD therefore he is correct and you HAVE to read his links.
  16. Hey, im not forcing this on anyone. Jab away. I am providing you official medical links to a recognised government site! :roll:

    My point is that there is a lot of hype around this vaccine that is promoted and paid for by the drug company, kline glaxo.

    Here, the docket listed from the FDA, seeks to re-classify the testing for HPV.
    It clearly has researched the matter and quote:

    The FDA news release of
    March 31, 2003 acknowledges that "most infections (by HPV) are short-lived and not associated
    with cervical cancer", in recognition of the advances in medical science and technology since
    1988. In other words, since 2003 the scientific staff of the FDA no longer considers HPV
    infection to be a high-risk disease when writing educational materials for the general public

    whereas the regulatory arm of the agency is still bound by the old classification scheme that had
    placed HPV test as a test to stratify risk for cervical cancer in regulating the industry.

    Ok, so don't yell at me. Ask your GP or find some other docs. that don't agree.

    This is just interesting in the sense of what we are told by the media. And whats available from an offical government medical site.

    Have also checked the reference list:

    [4] Jacobs MV, Walboomers JM, Snijders PJ, Voorhorst FJ, Verheijen RH, Fransen-
    Daalmeijer N, Meijer CJ . Distribution of 37 mucosotropic HPV types in women with
    cytologically normal cervical smears: the age-related patterns for high-risk and lowrisk
    types. Int J Cancer 2000 ; 87:221-7.
    [5] Herrero R, Hildesheim A, Bratti C, Sherman ME, Hutchinson M, Morales J,
    Balmaceda I, Greenberg MD, Alfaro M, Burk RD, Wacholder S, Plummer M,
    Schiffman M . Population-based study of human papillomavirus infection and cervical
    neoplasia in rural Costa Rica . J N atl Cancer Inst 2000 ; 92:464-74.
    ~ [6] Molano M, Posso H, Weiderpass E, van den Brule AJ, Ronderos M, Franceschi S,
    Meijer CJ, Arslan A, Munoz N ; HPV Study Group HPV Study . Prevalence and
    determinants of HPV infection among Colombian women with normal cytology . Br J
    Cancer 2002 ; 87 :324-33.
    [7] Rousseau MC, Pereira JS, Prado JC, Villa LL, Rohan TE, Franco EL . Cervical
    coinfection with human papillomavirus (HPV) types as a predictor of acquisition and
    persistence of HPV infection. J Infect Dis 2001 ; 184 :1508-17 .
    [8] Wallin KL, Wiklund F, Angstrom T, Bergman F, Stendahl U, Wadell G, et al . Typespecific
    persistence of human papillomavirus DNA before the development of
    invasive cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 1999; 341 :1633-8 .
    [9] Kjaer SK, van den Brule AJ, Paull G, Svare El, Sherman ME, Thomsen BL, Suntum
    M, Bock JE, Poll PA, Meijers CJ .Type specific persistence of high risk human
    papillomavirus (HPV) as indicator of high grade cervical squamous intraepithelial
    lesions in young women : population based prospective follow up study. BMJ 2002 ;
    325 :572-6.
    [10] Cuschieri KS, Cubie HA, Whitley MW, Gilkison G, Arends MJ, Graham C,
    McGoogan E. Persistent high risk HPV infection associated with development of
    cervical neoplasia in a prospective population study . J Clin Pathol 2005 ; 58:946-50 .
    Brummer 0, Hollwitz B , Bohmer G, Kuhnle H , Petry KU . Human papillomavirustype
    persistence patterns predict the clinical outcome of cervical intraepithelial
    neoplasia. Gynecol Oncol 2006 ; 102: 517-22.
    [12] Copy of October 30 , 2006 letter from Dr . S. H . Lee to Dr. SI Gutman , seeking
    guidance to submission of a 510(k) for HPV PCR reagent.
    [13] Manuscript by SH Lee et al . titled " Human Papillomavirus Genotyping by DNA
    Sequencing-The Gold Standard HPV Test for Pat ient Care.
    [14] VRBPAC Background Document : GardasilT"" HPV Quadrivalent Vaccine. May 18,
    2006 VRBPAC Meeting www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-
    4222B3 .pdf
    [15] Kjaer SK , van den Brule AJ , Bock JE, Poll PA, Engholm G, Sherman ME ,
    ~ Walboomers JM, Meijer CJ . Human papillomavirus- the most significant risk
    determinant of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia . Int J Cancer 1996; 65 :601 -6 .
    [16] HC2 HPV DNA Test-REF 5196-1220 Digene Corporation , Gaithersburg , MD
    20878 USA 2005 .
    [17] Gogola J, Van Dinh T, Lucci JA 3rd, Smith E, Hannigan EV. Human papillomavirus
    testing for triage in a referral population . J Low Genit Tract Dis 2001 ; 5:29-32.
    ~ [18] ACOG Practice Bulletin No . 61 Human Papillomavirus . Obstet Gynecol
    2005; 105 :905-18.
    [19] Wu HH , Al len SL, Kirkpatrick JL , Elsheikh TM . Reflex high-risk human papilloma
    virus DNA test is useful in the triage of women with atypical squamous cells cannot
    exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion . Diagn Cytopathol 2006 ; 34:707-
    [20] Hinchliffe SA, van Velzen D, Korporaal H , Kok PL , Boon ME. Transience of cervical
    HPV infection in sexually active , young women with normal ce rvicovaginal cytology .
    Br J Cancer 1995 ; 72:943-5 .
    [21] Brown DR , Shew ML, Qadadri B, Neptune N , Vargas M, Tu W, Juliar BE, Breen TE,
    Fortenberry JD. A longitudinal study of genital human papillomavirus infection in a
    cohort of closely followed adolescent women. J Infect Dis 2005 ; 191 : 182-92 .
    [22] Cuschieri KS, Cubie HA, Whitley MW, Seagar AL, Arends MJ, Moore C , Gilkisson
    G , McGoogan E. Multiple high risk HPV infections are common in cerv ical neoplasia
    and young women in a cervical screening population . J Clin Pathol 2004 ; 57:68-72.
  17. You may have grabbed the wrong end of the stick on this one. I will agree that many HPV infections may not lead to cervical cancer but I will apply your logic to a comparable case.

    brief exposure to sunlight may not lead to malignant melanoma leads to exposure to sunlight does not cause malignant melanoma

    Therefore due to self interested hype we are being ripped off by companies producing sunscreen. :roll: I think you would agree that is ridiculous.

    Incidentally, the list of papers you quoted don't support your case either. The common thread amongst them is that cervical cancer is more prevalent amongst women suffering HPV.

  18. +1
  19. Again for every opinion.


    Although experts still believe that UVB is responsible for much of the skin damage caused by sunlight -- especially sunburn -- UVA may be an important factor in photoaging and skin cancers. Most sunscreens do a good job blocking UVB, but fewer sunscreens filter out most of the UVA, so they do not help to prevent the beginnings of melanoma formation.

    Most sunscreens do not protect the skin from the longer UVA wavelengths. And that may be critical to the creation of skin cancer. Approximately 65% of melanomas and 90% of basal and squamous cell skin cancers are attributed to UV exposure.



    The analysis found that 84 percent of 785 sunscreen products with an SPF rating of 15 or higher offer inadequate protection from the sun’s harmful rays, or contain ingredients with safety concerns.

    This ground-breaking research is based on nearly 400 peer-reviewed studies of the 17 sunscreen chemicals approved for use in the U.S., an analysis of sunscreen ingredient toxicity linked to 60 industry and government databases on chemical hazards, coupled with customized, product-by-product assessments of protection from both UVA and UVB radiation.



    There is much the media probably don't tell you.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.