Gardasil reactions must be taken seriously
in [Health]
|
From: JohnDoe on 23 May 2007 05:22 JOHN wrote: > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:bmK4i.3820$Ud7.1284(a)trnddc08... > > > >>>'Associated' isn't cause, and they haven't proven they do cause cancer. >> >>I believe that the US National Cancer Institute knows more about this than >>you: >> >>http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV > > > Pharma shill, well know for fraud > > "The fact is that all of the studies that have been supervised by the > National Cancer Institute should now be re-examined by congressional > committees to see wether or not there is real corruption in all of > them."--Ralph Moss http://www.whale.to/c/moss.html > > >>> Vancouver neuroscientist Chris Shaw shows a link between the aluminum >>>hydroxide used in vaccines, and symptoms associated with Parkinson's, >>>amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease), and >>>Alzheimer's >> >>A link is not proof of cause. > > > Hardly safe as water as you were claiming > > >>We'll have to disagree on what are biased organizations. > > > the CD is a pharma shill, obviously, whereas I don't have any bias as I have > no financial interest in vaccination or not vaccinating Your bias isn't financial. Your bias is that you simply support anything, the insaner the better, that goes against the findings of modern science, medical or other.
From: bigvince on 23 May 2007 10:11 On May 23, 5:22 am, JohnDoe <d...(a)spam.me> wrote: > JOHN wrote: > > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:bmK4i.3820$Ud7.1284(a)trnddc08... > > >>>'Associated' isn't cause, and they haven't proven they do cause cancer. > > >>I believe that the US National Cancer Institute knows more about this than > >>you: > > >>http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV > > > Pharma shill, well know for fraud > > > "The fact is that all of the studies that have been supervised by the > > National Cancer Institute should now be re-examined by congressional > > committees to see wether or not there is real corruption in all of > > them."--Ralph Mosshttp://www.whale.to/c/moss.html > > >>> Vancouver neuroscientist Chris Shaw shows a link between the aluminum > >>>hydroxide used in vaccines, and symptoms associated with Parkinson's, > >>>amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease), and > >>>Alzheimer's > > >>A link is not proof of cause. > > > Hardly safe as water as you were claiming > > >>We'll have to disagree on what are biased organizations. > > > the CD is a pharma shill, obviously, whereas I don't have any bias as I have > > no financial interest in vaccination or not vaccinating > > Your bias isn't financial. Your bias is that you simply support > anything, the insaner the better, that goes against the findings of > modern science, medical or other.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - So lets actually look at the science before we turn 11 year olds into test tubes...from NEJM article.. "HPV Vaccination - More Answers, More Questions" George F. Sawaya, M.D., and Karen Smith-McCune, M.D., Ph.D. "In this issue of the Journal, reports on two large, ongoing, randomized, placebo-controlled trials show the effect of this vaccine on important clinical outcomes," ....the article places the 14% reduction in perspective....."Given the rarity of incident cervical cancer, preinvasive cervical lesions with high invasive potential are used in contemporary studies as surrogate outcomes for cervical cancer" now mare you do not have to be a math major to realize that 14% of a rare cancer is a very small cancer reduction. The 14% reduction small and it is also unproven.. ......now the rest is technical and needed to understand the science......again from the article ....... "Grade 1 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia indicates the presence of active HPV infection and is not considered to be precancerous; current guidelines discourage treatment of this condition.7,8 Grade 2 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia is treated in most women but is not an irrefutable cancer surrogate, since up to 40% of such lesions regress spontaneously9; current guidelines suggest that some young women with such lesions do not need to be treated.7,8 Grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, on the other hand, has the lowest likelihood of regression and the strongest potential to be invasive"...... Let me help you the best marker of which lessions will become cancerous are grade 3 lessions they are the best surrogate. the studies showed a 17% reduction in lessions but again from the journal ..... "an efficacy of 17%. In analyses by lesion type, the efficacy appears to be significant only for grade 2 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; no efficacy was demonstrable for grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ."....... In other words no evidence that this vaccine will prevent any cancer as it has shown no effect on the best surrogate. again from the article..."If grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ were the most relevant outcome, evidence was insufficient to infer the effectiveness of vaccination." the article balances the hope that this vaccine MAY be effective with caution ..., 'a cautious approach may be warranted in light of important unanswered questions about overall vaccine effectiveness, duration of protection, and adverse effects that may emerge over time.' http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/19/1991 Thanks Vince I encourage anyone interested to go to the link and read the article it will vaccinate you against anuone who wants to mislead you Do you agree with these scientist
From: bigvince on 23 May 2007 10:12 On May 23, 5:22 am, JohnDoe <d...(a)spam.me> wrote: > JOHN wrote: > > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:bmK4i.3820$Ud7.1284(a)trnddc08... > > >>>'Associated' isn't cause, and they haven't proven they do cause cancer. > > >>I believe that the US National Cancer Institute knows more about this than > >>you: > > >>http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV > > > Pharma shill, well know for fraud > > > "The fact is that all of the studies that have been supervised by the > > National Cancer Institute should now be re-examined by congressional > > committees to see wether or not there is real corruption in all of > > them."--Ralph Mosshttp://www.whale.to/c/moss.html > > >>> Vancouver neuroscientist Chris Shaw shows a link between the aluminum > >>>hydroxide used in vaccines, and symptoms associated with Parkinson's, > >>>amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease), and > >>>Alzheimer's > > >>A link is not proof of cause. > > > Hardly safe as water as you were claiming > > >>We'll have to disagree on what are biased organizations. > > > the CD is a pharma shill, obviously, whereas I don't have any bias as I have > > no financial interest in vaccination or not vaccinating > > Your bias isn't financial. Your bias is that you simply support > anything, the insaner the better, that goes against the findings of > modern science, medical or other.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - So lets actually look at the science before we turn 11 year olds into test tubes...from NEJM article.. "HPV Vaccination - More Answers, More Questions" George F. Sawaya, M.D., and Karen Smith-McCune, M.D., Ph.D. "In this issue of the Journal, reports on two large, ongoing, randomized, placebo-controlled trials show the effect of this vaccine on important clinical outcomes," ....the article places the 14% reduction in perspective....."Given the rarity of incident cervical cancer, preinvasive cervical lesions with high invasive potential are used in contemporary studies as surrogate outcomes for cervical cancer" now mare you do not have to be a math major to realize that 14% of a rare cancer is a very small cancer reduction. The 14% reduction small and it is also unproven.. ......now the rest is technical and needed to understand the science......again from the article ....... "Grade 1 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia indicates the presence of active HPV infection and is not considered to be precancerous; current guidelines discourage treatment of this condition.7,8 Grade 2 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia is treated in most women but is not an irrefutable cancer surrogate, since up to 40% of such lesions regress spontaneously9; current guidelines suggest that some young women with such lesions do not need to be treated.7,8 Grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, on the other hand, has the lowest likelihood of regression and the strongest potential to be invasive"...... Let me help you the best marker of which lessions will become cancerous are grade 3 lessions they are the best surrogate. the studies showed a 17% reduction in lessions but again from the journal ..... "an efficacy of 17%. In analyses by lesion type, the efficacy appears to be significant only for grade 2 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; no efficacy was demonstrable for grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ."....... In other words no evidence that this vaccine will prevent any cancer as it has shown no effect on the best surrogate. again from the article..."If grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ were the most relevant outcome, evidence was insufficient to infer the effectiveness of vaccination." the article balances the hope that this vaccine MAY be effective with caution ..., 'a cautious approach may be warranted in light of important unanswered questions about overall vaccine effectiveness, duration of protection, and adverse effects that may emerge over time.' http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/19/1991 Mark I to mandate an product that has not been proven is the most irresponsible act. As you could care less as to facts I encourage others to read the Journal article. Thanks Vince
From: bigvince on 23 May 2007 10:13 On May 23, 5:22 am, JohnDoe <d...(a)spam.me> wrote: > JOHN wrote: > > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:bmK4i.3820$Ud7.1284(a)trnddc08... > > >>>'Associated' isn't cause, and they haven't proven they do cause cancer. > > >>I believe that the US National Cancer Institute knows more about this than > >>you: > > >>http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV > > > Pharma shill, well know for fraud > > > "The fact is that all of the studies that have been supervised by the > > National Cancer Institute should now be re-examined by congressional > > committees to see wether or not there is real corruption in all of > > them."--Ralph Mosshttp://www.whale.to/c/moss.html > > >>> Vancouver neuroscientist Chris Shaw shows a link between the aluminum > >>>hydroxide used in vaccines, and symptoms associated with Parkinson's, > >>>amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease), and > >>>Alzheimer's > > >>A link is not proof of cause. > > > Hardly safe as water as you were claiming > > >>We'll have to disagree on what are biased organizations. > > > the CD is a pharma shill, obviously, whereas I don't have any bias as I have > > no financial interest in vaccination or not vaccinating > > Your bias isn't financial. Your bias is that you simply support > anything, the insaner the better, that goes against the findings of > modern science, medical or other.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - So lets actually look at the science before we turn 11 year olds into test tubes...from NEJM article.. "HPV Vaccination - More Answers, More Questions" George F. Sawaya, M.D., and Karen Smith-McCune, M.D., Ph.D. "In this issue of the Journal, reports on two large, ongoing, randomized, placebo-controlled trials show the effect of this vaccine on important clinical outcomes," ....the article places the 14% reduction in perspective....."Given the rarity of incident cervical cancer, preinvasive cervical lesions with high invasive potential are used in contemporary studies as surrogate outcomes for cervical cancer" now mare you do not have to be a math major to realize that 14% of a rare cancer is a very small cancer reduction. The 14% reduction small and it is also unproven.. ......now the rest is technical and needed to understand the science......again from the article ....... "Grade 1 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia indicates the presence of active HPV infection and is not considered to be precancerous; current guidelines discourage treatment of this condition.7,8 Grade 2 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia is treated in most women but is not an irrefutable cancer surrogate, since up to 40% of such lesions regress spontaneously9; current guidelines suggest that some young women with such lesions do not need to be treated.7,8 Grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, on the other hand, has the lowest likelihood of regression and the strongest potential to be invasive"...... Let me help you the best marker of which lessions will become cancerous are grade 3 lessions they are the best surrogate. the studies showed a 17% reduction in lessions but again from the journal ..... "an efficacy of 17%. In analyses by lesion type, the efficacy appears to be significant only for grade 2 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; no efficacy was demonstrable for grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ."....... In other words no evidence that this vaccine will prevent any cancer as it has shown no effect on the best surrogate. again from the article..."If grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ were the most relevant outcome, evidence was insufficient to infer the effectiveness of vaccination." the article balances the hope that this vaccine MAY be effective with caution ..., 'a cautious approach may be warranted in light of important unanswered questions about overall vaccine effectiveness, duration of protection, and adverse effects that may emerge over time.' http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/19/1991 Mark I to mandate an product that has not been proven is the most irresponsible act. As you could care less as to facts I encourage others to read the Journal article. Thanks Vince
From: Jeff on 23 May 2007 10:48
JOHN wrote: > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:bmK4i.3820$Ud7.1284(a)trnddc08... > > >>> 'Associated' isn't cause, and they haven't proven they do cause cancer. >> I believe that the US National Cancer Institute knows more about this than >> you: >> >> http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV > > Pharma shill, well know for fraud Who is a pharma shill? I get absolutely no money from the pharmaceutical industry. The opinions expressed are solely my own. > "The fact is that all of the studies that have been supervised by the > National Cancer Institute should now be re-examined by congressional > committees to see wether or not there is real corruption in all of > them."--Ralph Moss http://www.whale.to/c/moss.html Ralph Moss is a fraud in my opinion. >>> Vancouver neuroscientist Chris Shaw shows a link between the aluminum >>> hydroxide used in vaccines, and symptoms associated with Parkinson's, >>> amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease), and >>> Alzheimer's >> A link is not proof of cause. > > Hardly safe as water as you were claiming I have never claimed that vaccines are as safe as water. >> We'll have to disagree on what are biased organizations. > > the CD is a pharma shill, obviously, whereas I don't have any bias as I have > no financial interest in vaccination or not vaccinating I have no financial interest in vaccination or not vaccinating, either. Jeff |