HPV - Cervical CancerFollow

Ambrya you are the one asking the questions, why don't you answer them? Cause your non argument rests on them. Or are you making an argument from a position of ignorance again and asking others to prove/disprove your points?

And the toxicity isn't identical--it's significantly higher

No, it's not.

Because he's the one posting the "statistic" why shouldn't he be the one to prove that they are actually applicable to the point he is trying to make, which is that the vaccine is less harmful than the disease when used in children?



I'm not asking others to do anything--frankly their opinions and arguments are irrelevent, because it has never been my intention to either seek advice nor to offer it. I've stated my position on the subject as it pertains to my own actions and choices. I did so in an effort to explain why I find myself on the fence regarding question of a possible mandate regarding the HPV vaccine. I didn't list my reasoning to sway anyone, or try to convince anyone to make the same choice I am making, only to explain my personal reasoning for my personal choices and my personal position on the issue of the HPV vaccine.

That others feel some perverse need to challenge that choice and position, when it applies to them not at all, is something of a mystery.

After reading this debate, I'm just going to sit over here in the corner and don my /tinfoil hat.

False. VAERS exists because vaccines can be harmful. Vaccines have been taken off the market because they were PROVEN harmful. The question is not whether they are harmful, but to what extent.




That may be the case with SOME vaccines, but many of the vaccines being mandated now are not being mandated because the disease they are protecting against is one which poses a risk of death to a large portion of the population, especially in the population they are being mandated for (again, HepB is a prime example.)



And you can inject them with known toxic substances, the full effects of which are, at best, unclear! WOOHOO!

But it is mercury, MERCURY!!!!! Someone think of the children!!!!

which completely ignores that mercury can come in states that are not life threatening. Such as the fillings in your teeth.

Silly woman, lrn2reason!

This has not been the case in my experience, because when I was interviewing pediatricians and my own physician, it was made clear to me that I would have to REQUEST thimerosal-free vaccines.

And, again, thimerosal is not the end of the toxic agents found in vaccines.

Actually, fillings leech mercury throughout the lifetime, especially when they're relatively new, which is why they don't recommend pregnant women have dental work done at certain points in the pregnancy, and why it's not a great idea for breastfeeding mothers either.

Oh I guess we should leave your personal journal then.



People replying to a post in a forum, what a mystery.

1) If a breastfeeding woman DID eat 10 cans of tuna in 6 months, not all of that mercury, or even most of it, would be passed to the child--though some would. This is, again, why seafood is recommended in limited quantities for pregnant and breastfeeding women. So, no, the risk isn't equivalent--not by a long shot. Not all the mercury in the tuna would go to the child in that case--but all the mercury from the vaccines does.

2) How many times do I have to say that many--perhaps even most these days--of these vaccines are not against diseases that pose a significant risk of death or even permanent injury? The justification for them is weak at best.




1) There are few long-term reviews actually done on vaccines. Most of the testing and observation to determine their "safety" is done over a matter of days, and doesn't address the complications that crop up over the following weeks or even months following the vaccination. The article you have quoted isn't even conducted by observing children in the post-vaccination period--it's just a review of the literature on the subject.

2) If your "fear sells" rationale were correct, then my doctor would be pushing vaccinations on me--he'd make a load of cash doing it. Instead, he's advising against them, because he's done his research and decided they aren't safe enough that he can responsibly recommend them to his patients. Non-profit organizations such as the National Vaccine Information Center, whose founders are people whose kids were injured and disabled by vaccines, aren't trying to make a quick buck--they're out there to educate and spread awareness.

On the other hand, fear of "OMGZ! Hepatitis B!!!!" is making big bucks for the pharmaceutical companies. Cuts both ways. I bet Merck has made a lot more money peddling fear than the author of my book.



Edited, Feb 8th 2007 4:43pm by Ambrya

Which would matter if the book were my only--or even my primary--source of information. Which it's not. My primary information is coming from sources providing it free of charge, for the purpose of spreading awareness.

And, again, I notice you don't address the idea that maybe, just maybe, it's possible that pharmaceutical companies are making more money off fear-mongering than a single author of a single book could ever hope to.

And the CDC and FDA aren't biased, when the decision-makers are the ones profitting from the approval of drugs?

Again, cuts both ways. If I have to take the word of someone, I'll take the word of the person who stands to profit least.

Oh, no, it's much more blatant than kickbacks. These guys hold stock in the companies whose products they are evaluating and hold patents for the drugs they are evaluating.

As I said earlier in this thread, the results of the Congressional inquiry into the rotavirus vaccine that was removed from the market after it caused life-threatening intestinal blockages and killed at least one child:




It's not just "someone's word," it's published studies with real facts and statistics.
[/quote]

Most of the studies being done into the safety of the vaccines are being done by the pharmceutical companies themselves, and those which aren't are not being done on a scale and for a time frame that can adequately assess the possible risks. The studies are not revealing the whole picture.