OT: new study on the dangers of Gardasil vaccine and aluminum adjuvants

Bad news for your mice. The clinical argument is that while negative reactions to vaccines do occur, they are infrequent, and a whole lot less damaging than the results of the infection which the vaccination is designed to prevent.

Jamie lacks a sense of proportion, or any understanding of the idea of taking precautions against things that might happen, so he feels free to reject the clinical argument.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

And so it begins. again.

Please think twice before responding to the content of troll's messages.

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 11:01:32 +0000, Tom Gardner Gave us:

trolls' messages.

a whole lot less damaging than the results of the infection which the vaccination is designed to prevent.

so he feels free to reject the clinical argument.

Hi,

Vaccine manufacturers didn't even seem to test the vaccine, which would seem to be a sensible precaution before their widespread use. At the same time they lobbied successfully for removing liability to any damaging effects from vaccine injury.

I guess your idea of taking precautions only applies when profit of multinational corporations aren't at risk, however I am glad the scientists who wrote this study think otherwise, and identified neurological damage from a dangerous vaccine, which is supposed to prevent an STD virus, HPV, yet for some reason the vaccine manufacturers have lobbied politicians to make it a mandatory vaccine for 11 year old's to enter school:

This law didn't last very long but it shows you that the vaccine manufacturers, who didn't even test the toxic effects of this vaccine properly, attempt to mandate it just for profit.

So your precaution argument, as with your other biased arguments, is illogical.

cheers, Jamie

What makes you think that? The vaccine adjuncts seem to much the same acros s a variety of vaccines, so that aspect of vaccine safety would seem to be pretty predictable.

The well-known defects of the American legislative system let them do that

- it saves them the price of buying insurance against what seem to be rare adverse reactions, but it can be argued that the communities that get the p ublic health benefits of adequate vaccination coverage should cover the cos ts of the occasional adverse reaction to vaccination.

y-in-texas.html

You blithely ignore the toxic effects of getting cervical cancer, which is what the vaccination is intended to protect against. I shouldn't need to ha ve to spell this out, but you aren't either clever or well-informed, so the train of logic goes like this.

Most cervical cancers are a side effect of a sexually transmitted human pap illomavirus infection. If you immunise enough teenage girls against this vi rus infection, not only do you make it much less likely that they will get the virus infection, but you also make it less likely that they will pass i t on to their sexual partners, who will - in turn - be less likely to pass it on to their sexual partners (who may not have been immunised).

If you immunise enough of the population, the breed of virus you immunise a gainst virus will die out completely. We've managed this with small-pox, an d are close to it with polio, but a bunch of religious nutters, who seem to be just as silly as you are, are making it difficult to vaccinate enough o f the kids in the last hold-out areas.

The argument is perfectly logical. Your problem is that you don't know enou gh of the fact involved to be able to follow the logic.

One giveaway is that you never mention the incidence of "adverse side-effec ts" which is typically rather low, at least for anything worth worrying abo ut.

Anaphylactic shock comes in at 2.6 per million. The consequent incidence of demyelinating disorder such as multiple sclerosis, which have been blamed on the vaccine, isn't significantly different from the incidence in the unv accinated population. People have got multiple sclerosis after being vaccin ated, but the statistics suggest that they would have got it even if they h adn't been vaccinated (which isn't the way the data is presented on the ant i-vaccination web-sites).

Your "logic" has holes in it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

would seem to be pretty predictable.

what seem to be rare adverse reactions, but it can be argued that the communities that get the public health benefits of adequate vaccination coverage should cover the costs of the occasional adverse reaction to vaccination.

I shouldn't need to have to spell this out, but you aren't either clever or well-informed, so the train of logic goes like this.

against this virus infection, not only do you make it much less likely that they will get the virus infection, but you also make it less likely that they will pass it on to their sexual partners, who will - in turn - be less likely to pass it on to their sexual partners (who may not have been immunised).

small-pox, and are close to it with polio, but a bunch of religious nutters, who seem to be just as silly as you are, are making it difficult to vaccinate enough of the kids in the last hold-out areas.

worrying about.

blamed on the vaccine, isn't significantly different from the incidence in the unvaccinated population. People have got multiple sclerosis after being vaccinated, but the statistics suggest that they would have got it even if they hadn't been vaccinated (which isn't the way the data is presented on the anti-vaccination web-sites).

Hi,

There are links to the immune system function with autism and schizophrenia both now, related to neural pruning, and vaccines including gardasil cause neuroinflammation and autoimmune reactions, probably pruning neurons in the brain among many other side effects of the vaccine. This caused measurable depression symptoms in the mice that were given gardasil as compared to placebo.

"It appears that Gardasil via its Al adjuvant and HPV antigens has the ability to trigger neuroinflammation and autoimmune reactions, further leading to behavioral changes"

It is a common pattern that industry funded studies produce good results for drugs and vaccines, and it is only from common sense and later unbiased studies that the truth comes out. For example:

"Anti depressants double the risk of aggression and suicide"

"This is because of the poor design of clinical trials that assess these antidepressants, and the misreporting of findings in published articles."

cheers, Jamie

ry

s f d

ny

hat > > - it saves them the price of buying insurance against

tory-in-texas.html

is > > what the vaccination is intended to protect against.

n

se

lt

h

r

What's a "depression" symptom in a mouse? Your crap about autism and schizo phrenia seems to come from a long-discredited study by a guy who ended up d isbarred because of the nature of the mistakes he made. This doesn't stop h alf-wits like you screaming "cover-up", but it does discourage rational obs ervers from taking you seriously.

In mice. Some millions of women have been vaccinated with the product, and while quite a few of them are nuts, some of them only showing symptoms sinc e vaccination, the connection between their going nuts and them getting vac cinated isn't statistically significant.

It happens, but calling it a "common pattern" is nonsense. It wouldn't be n ews if it were "a common pattern".

children.html

Antidepressants have to change the nervous system to work at all. Vaccines have no direct effect on the nervous system. You have this theory that they can, sometimes, but if it does happen it seems to be too rare to show up a s statistically significant.

You want to block a vaccination program that can prevent quite a few cervic al cancers because there's a statistically insignificant risk of nerve dama ge that you fevered imagination has deduced from a few people who went nuts after they'd been vaccinated, when Occam's Razor suggests that they would have gone nuts whether they'd been vaccinated or not.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

long-discredited study by a guy who ended up disbarred because of the nature of the mistakes he made. This doesn't stop half-wits like you screaming "cover-up", but it does discourage rational observers from taking you seriously.

some of them only showing symptoms since vaccination, the connection between their going nuts and them getting vaccinated isn't statistically significant.

system. You have this theory that they can, sometimes, but if it does happen it seems to be too rare to show up as statistically significant.

insignificant risk of nerve damage that you fevered imagination has deduced from a few people who went nuts after they'd been vaccinated, when Occam's Razor suggests that they would have gone nuts whether they'd been vaccinated or not.

Hi,

You continue to ignore the science showing the vaccine causes neural damage. Don't forget that this science was done due to reported damage in humans from the vaccine.

The Israeli health ministry noted reported side effects of the Gardasil vaccine from the doctors noticing side effects, and now Israeli scientists have reexamined the Gardasil vaccine and there are side effects from the vaccine that should be troubling to anyone with at least half a brain.

(Israeli study)

Many people have had their lives disrupted and even ruined by this vaccine, now science is starting to explain why this occurs, and the sensible recommendation is to not accept this vaccine if it isn't safe.

cheers, Jamie

Really this is the only line you need to read to at least have some doubt on vaccine safety:

"To date most human vaccine trials utilize aluminum (Al) adjuvants as placebos despite much evidence showing that Al in vaccine-relevant exposures can be toxic to humans and animals."

tory

as

e

he

of

uld

any

e

datory-in-texas.html

h > > >> is what the vaccination is intended to protect against.

er

an

y

in

nise

cult

w

rth

ce

ter

ot

is

and > > while quite a few of them are nuts,

be

de-children.html

nes > > have no direct effect on the nervous

There isn't any. What you are fussing a about is a medical study that claim s that it might - in mice - where there's a whole body of vaccinated women who don't seem to be showing any statisitcally significant signs of any kin d of damage. In this context a "medical" study isn't necessarily all that s cientific - medical training doesn't involve training in doing scientific r esearch, and the medical literature has more than it's fair share of rubbis h papers.

Medicos just love reporting imagined damage from treatments. Sometimes they report real damage, but the first guy to pick up on the damage thalidiomid e did had similar anxieties about Debenox which were less well-founded - an d got him stuck off for five years

Any mouse - the creatures tested in this study - might well get anxious.

A few people have claimed that their lives have been disrupted and even rui ned by an autoimmune reaction which they have associated with an injection of this vaccine.

Quite a few more have experienced similar autoimmune reactions without bein g injected with the vaccine.

Anybody with half a brain (and you clearly have rather less than half a of functional brain)should be able to work out that this is one case where a v ery weak correlation doesn't suggest causation.

What you should realise is that there is a thriving medical industry involv ed in making people anxious about stuff. The medicos involved aren't scrupu lous about what they make their victims anxious about.

Alex Comfort wrote a book about it back in 1967

CNHG1

His most risible examples involved making people anxious about sex, but doc tors do like pontificating, and they are willing to pontificate about anyth ing that will draw an audience.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

It's the only line you have to believe to have some doubts. Granting the en thusiasm of the medical profession for making their patients anxious, frequ ently for no good reason, I'd look for rather more persuasive evidence than experiments carried out by medical doctors on mice.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

While you are on the right track here, you are underestimating the problem of HPV. It is a not just a major cause of cervical cancers - it is at least suspected of being a major influence of a variety of other cancers around the body, both of males and females. Basically any time one person rubs one part of their body vigorously against some part of another body, HPV can be transferred. And once HPV has got established in part of a body, it significantly increases the risk of getting cancer there.

HPV vaccines should be mandatory for all kids, boys and girls, and strongly encouraged for all adults (at least those who like to rub body parts) who have not been vaccinated.

Like many viruses, HPV comes in strains and mutations, making it difficult to eradicate entirely. But it could certainly be turned from a major slow killer into a problem only for the extremely unlucky - if vaccination programs cover /everyone/, not just girls. It is not only women who spread it, and not only women who suffer from it.

}snip{

Actually, they are testing it... right now. ;)

}snip{

joe

I can not make too much of your slightly challenged use of the English language, but, well, of course nobody comes up with the idea to test for amplification effects due to the combined use of various ingredients. That would be too much of an admission that the human bodies aren't behaving in a uniform and linear manner.

If it only were 'occasional' enough en not to severe. However, the same lobbying caused that we can not be sure of that (anymore, if ever).

Maybe. However, the current vaccines only 'immunise' against 2-4 strains of the HPV. Killing those strains off gives room for the others to flourish in a way you would not have anticipated, and with consequences you wouldn't have anticipated.

Now *that* is clever...?

Yeah, that goes like this: Hey YOU! Move over! WE want to eradicate a virus so YOU should submit and just take that jab! No choice! No liability if something goes wrong, and if it goes wrong then it couldn't have come from the vaccine, because "vaccines are just safe (TM)".

Maybe you weren't around at that time or haven't read that part of your Brittanice (yet), but this goes against the Nuernberg charter, and for some very good reasons too.

The chance to get cancer from the virus is also quite low, at least for anything hygienic worth worrying about.

CFS and related debilitating conditions are not 'generally recognised' and are therefore not accepted nor counted as adverse side effects. So they are, very conveniently, not counted as side effects.

If you mention statistics, then don't cherry-pick your facts, mentioning the facts that don't matter, but omitting to mention the facts that do to me is the same as fraud.

First get your statistics straight before you start about someone else's logic.

joe

Maybe the women that do report damage are ignored because the symptoms of their damage are not recognised (yet) as belonging to a recognised disease. And of course, the 'scientific' medical establishment won't hesitate to shout "There is no proof" after deliberately refusing to even take a look at the reports, or persistently calls them 'mere anecdotal'.

Strange than when an air-plane passenger notifies a stewardess about a loose engine he sees fluttering under a wing, this isn't called 'anecdotal' in even one instance, but when a whole herd of vaccinated women report a problem, they are served off with the 'merely anecdotal' argument.

Of course only when it serves your purpose, otherwise 'random controlled double blind studies' are the holy grail of medical science, if they ever get published because it happens the results were finally favourable for the pharmaceutical corporation.

And Dr. Semmelweis, another 'nut' again, ... or wait...

}snip{

joe

study by a guy who ended up disbarred because of the nature of the mistakes he made. This doesn't stop half-wits like you screaming "cover-up", but it does discourage rational observers from taking you seriously.

Hi,

The fact that the vaccine causes neural depressive effects should be a strong signal that the vaccine is dangerous to take.

You are incorrect about the autism and schizophrenia immune system links too.

The strongest genetic link to schizophrenia that is currently known is an neuron pruning immune related gene, and also in autism, immune related neural pruning genes are also genetically linked.

schizophrenia immune system neural pruning genetic link:

quote from the page: " The site in Chromosome 6 harboring the gene C4 towers far above other risk-associated areas on schizophrenia's genomic "skyline," marking its strongest known genetic influence. "

autism immune system neural pruning genetic link:

background on the immune system neural pruning related biology for schizophrenia and autism:

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that if the vaccines effect the immune system (most people agree on that) and also they cause depressive systems, ie neural effects, it is possible that there is an immune system related effect causing damage in the brain, possibly related to improper neural pruning, which is related to schizophrenia and autism, as well as probably many other unknown negative effects.

Once the mainstream media accepts this information you will too Bill, just remember in the future when you are wrong again you can learn yourself before being told by the mainstream what is correct.

cheers, Jamie

making their patients anxious, frequently for no good reason, I'd look for rather more persuasive evidence than experiments carried out by medical doctors on mice.

Hi,

Here's some more info about the dangers of Gardasil and Cervarix HPV vaccines from the American College of Pediatricians:

(site undergoing maintenance as of this post)

"The American College of Pediatricians has stated it has serious concerns about the connection between HPV vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix and premature menopause and that it wants parents and physicians to know of their concerns."

"They have notified the vaccine makers and federal health officials and asked them to investigate further and do the research that was never done - using a real placebo not aluminum and Polysorbate 80."

cheers, Jamie

Don't be silly. There are a whole range of disorders that are just clinical associations - chronic fatigue syndrome comes to mind - and the medical pr ofession copes with them.

Only in your fantasy world. "Statistically insignificant" does mean that pe ople who get sick in a particular way after vaccination can be presumed to have being going to get sick even without the vaccination, and making a fus s about them is making a fuss about mere anecdotes, but the deliberate proc ess of weeding hysterical nonsense doesn't make the people peddling the hys terical nonsense any happier.

When a whole (small) herd of unvaccinated women reported the same problem a t roughly the same incidence, "merely anecdotal" is the correct response. " A" happening after "B" doesn't necessarily imply that "A" caused "B", parti cularly when "A" is frequent" and "B" isn't.

Why would you think that? When I was working in medical ultrasound (1976-79 ) I got exposed to a lot of rubbish papers in the medical literature and wh at I've seen since doesn't suggest that the editors and reviewers have got any better.

But they are rare and expensive, and sometimes impractical.

Not every study gets funded by pharmaeutical corporations, and even when th ey are, the people carrying out the study want to get it published. The pha rmaceutical corporations might like to suppress less favourable studies, bu t they can't make a habit of it - drug development involves a lot of misses for every hit, and everybody knows it.

The paper Jamie cited was a bout a study on mice. Either you weren't paying attention, or you've got a different study in mind, and one that hasn't be en cited here.

Nobody loved Dr. Semmelwesis at the time - he was safely dead before anybod y said anything nice about him.

William McBride had a great reputation after the Thalidomide disaster, and he completely blew it by trying to pull the same trick a second time.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Of course the paper also includes the line "Adverse events that occur after vaccines are frequently not caused by the vaccine and there has not been a noticeable rise in POF cases in the last 9 years since HPV4 vaccine has been widely used."

You didn't see fit to quote that, and it makes nonsense of all the anxiety-making blather that you did quote.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney