This has gone to everyone on my data base! And now it's on the Blog!
About this time last year we sent out this email, and the questions are still the same for most Mum's and Dad's, because their daughters are coming home with the consent forms for this Cervical Cancer Vaccine. Should we or shouldn't we? Well from our research and hearing and reading the experiences of others, we shouldn't give this to our daughters!
You could call us Crack Pot's... I'd call it being responsible, and making a responsible choice!
Please take the time to read this experience from just one of the Mums we know and then do your own research. Please don't have this done just because THEY SAY (whoever THEY are) and be one of the Guinea Pigs...we don't yet know the long term effects from this immunisation!
Wishing you all the best of Health in 2009,
Laurence & Heather
_________________________________
Laurence & Heather Billing
Double Diamond & Crystal Diamond
Distributor Advisory Board Member
Neways International
Leverage In Action - excellence with integrity
14 Roycroft Ave, Newington,
NSW 2127
ph: +61 2 9737 9091
mob/cell: +61 4 0826 2009
email: laurence.b@leverageinaction.com
web: http://www.myneways.com.au/lhbilling
web: http://www.leverageinaction.com
We are committed to Creating 10 000 000 Healthy Homes around the world. To learn more how you could be a part of this initiative then, visit https://www.neways.com.au/healthyhomes
Hi all,
I thought it was a good idea to re-send this warning.
My sister (who had received this information earlier) recently refused permission for my niece to be vaccinated when they came to their school (in South-western Sydney - March 2008) Here are her comments:
"About that needle, did I tell you that only [Jayne] and 1 of her friends didn't get the needle, but the rest did, and quite a lot of them had to go home from school because they felt sick and didn't come back the next day either! Why don't people look into things?"
Indeed why don't people look into these things - without simply taking the word of those who have a vested interest in the sale of these vaccines.
But then if our government has been duped into subsidizing these things what hope is there that average people will make their own decisions based on their own research!
Thanks Laurence for sending this earlier - it prevented at least one young girl (possibly two) from being exposed to these unnecessary vaccines and their side effects!
The original email:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
HPV Cervical Cancer Vaccine WARNINGS!!!
Hello Friends,
Please take the time to read this email because it concerns everyone that you know. You should forward this information to all your networks, give a copy to your school, workplace and friends that don't have the internet.
People need to be educated about the very real and serious health risks of another experimental vaccine. All this information is referenced and can be checked. A copy of my article 'Cervical Cancer Vaccine Deception' can be found in the latest issue of 'Natural Health and Vegetarian Life Magazine' (Autumn 2007) available at most newsagents.
Patricia.
Australia has the 'second lowest in the world' deaths from Cervical Cancer, Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/185_09_061106/wai10809_fm.pdf Less than 50 women a year die of this disease. Will the vaccine cause more injuries and deaths than it suppose to prevent? The US FDA (online) has said that any one allergic to yeast or any other agent in the vaccine should NOT be vaccinate with 'Gardasil'.
http://www.fda.gov/cber/products/hpvmer060806qa.htm. How is it that the manufacturers information leaflet in Australia from MIMS makes NO such statement. No statement about the yeast origin of the vaccine in the information either. Also, there were 5 reported cases of babies with congenital birth defects that were born to women who had had the vaccine within 30 days of becoming pregnant. There have been NO long term studies of its safety, effectiveness, nor possible interactions with other vaccines administered at the same time. For example, Hepatitis B and/or DTPa. The vaccine was tested on 15 to 26 year old females, but they intend to give it
to children as young as 9 years old. The vaccine was produced using a transgenic yeast product. I believe a lot of people will have problems with that too. The US Cancer institutes website
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/prevention/cervical/HealthProfessional/page3
"direct causation to cervical cancer NOT been established". How many people will suffer from adverse reactions to yeast, aluminium and borax contained in this vaccine? What will be the price on reproduction given the number of congenital birth defects already reported? Why is vaccine even being considered?
Further note:
The HPV vaccine had such a low subject count in the test group between the ages of 9 and 15 years. It accounted for only 3.3% of the vaccinated groups. The Merck trials involved 20, 541 women 16 to 26 of age, and 1121 girls between 9 and 15 years of age. But the number of 9-year-old girls vaccinated in all trials has reported to be 250. Half of all these groups had the vaccine, while the other half had a placebo containing aluminium. I ask how can a trial like this validate such data? So as to allow the use of this vaccine for a predominately lower age group of 9 to 15 years. The vaccine was only tested on 686 girls in that bracket. Yet this is the group they will be targeting for their mass vaccination campaigns. Of course, most of the girls will be 12 years old, the ideal age, preferably before they are sexually active.
I ask that all parents and girls get ALL the available information. That there is NO mortality rate of cervical cancer in this young age group, and that this HPV vaccine has had NO long efficacy established. In other words, it will NOT protect them indefinitely. Like all vaccines, their supposed efficacy is only established for a few years or less. This is what we call vaccine failure, and the health department call 'boosters'.
(7/3/2003):
I rang the Public Heath Unit of Wollongong and spoken to the School Immunisation co-ordinator, Mrs Caroline Williams. Her phone number is Tel (02) 4221-6700. I asked if there was any information package regarding the new HPV vaccine, she said that they didn't have anything yet but recommended the NCIRS website www.ncirs.usyd.edu.au\facts\hpv_jan_jan2007.pdf
NCIRS website fact sheet about the HPV vaccine states possible allergic reactions to the yeast component, etc. It also says that: Gardasil has been administered at the same time as hepatitis B vaccine in clinical trials (at a separate site and in a separate syringe) with no reduction in immunogenicity of either vaccine observed. It doesn't say anything about how many girls participated in this experiment and if there were any adverse reactions. In the next sentence it says: although there is no trial data available, there is no reason to believe that the human papillama virus vaccines cannot be administered on the same occasion as other vaccines such as varicella or adult diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine.
Interesting because the Wollongong public health unit, the school immunisation coordinator Mrs. Caroline Williams, told me over the phone, that the intention was to later give the HPV vaccine at the same time as rubella vaccination too. Also, that it may be giving in a combination with other vaccines.
They are going to start in May this year with the HPV vaccine, girls in years 10, 11 and 12. Next year it will girls in years 7,8, 9 and 10. She said, that the health department got approval for the accelerated program.
That is, the vaccines for HPV will be given at 0, 1 and 4 month intervals instead of the recommended 0,3 and 6 months. Where is the study to say this is safe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Cervical Cancer Vaccine Deception
By Patricia Bohackyj
Mobile 0422 933 993
Cervical cancer, which is cancer in the lining of the cervix, affects about 13,000 women in the US each year and about 4,000 die. Worldwide, half a million succumb to the disease, with 225,000 dying. In 2002 in Australia 148 women were diagnosed with cervical cancer and 36 women died from this disease.
In the 1970's it was suggested that the Herpes Simplex Virus (HSV) was the sexually transmitted cause of cervical cancer, which was supported mostly by population studies. Then in the 1980s another view emerged - which is well accepted now - that cervical cancer is strongly related to the transmission of Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). But even the National Cancer Institute says that, "direct causation has not been demonstrated".(1)
The HPV group has more than 100 viruses (and possibly an infinite number of variants), only about 30 of which are said to be linked to cervical cancer.
However, in 1992 molecular biologists, Peter Duesberg and Jody Schwartz of the University of California, USA, found that it may be that the presence of either HPV or HSV was due to infection of proliferating cancer cells; therefore a person with cervical cancer would be more susceptible to these infections. In other words, they were indicators of infection, rather than
the cause of cancer.
It is estimated that 75% of sexually active men and women are exposed to HPV at some time. When it came to the testing of the vaccine, it was decided to exclude all women who had been found to be infected with HPV-16, which is believed to be found in 50% of cases of cancer of the cervix. Putting it plainly, the study selected women that had good immune systems that kept
them from expressing the HPV DNA markers that show previous exposure to this virus. They may have been exposed to HPV viruses in the past, but showed no sign of antibodies. Also study subjects were selected who had no history of cervical lesions and few sexual partners - clearly those least likely to develop this disease.
And who researched the vaccine? The manufacturers themselves did. Two clinical trials were conducted, one by Merck and the other by GlaxoSmithKline. The trials were very similar in design outcome but differed mainly in the origin of the recombinant vaccine. Merck's 'Gardasil' is a capsid (outer shell of virus) protein that forms a virus-like particle totally lacking DNA and was produced using transgenic yeast (a genetically-modified vaccine containing virus-like protein particles from HPV types inserted in to yeast cells). The US FDA warns that "females who are allergic to yeast or to any component of the vaccine should not receive Gardasil.(2) Other ingredients include aluminium, sodium chloride, polysorbate 80 and borax.
GlaxoSmithKline's 'Cervarix' HPV vaccine is still going through the approval process, which is due to be completed April 2007. This vaccine is also a capsid protein for the same strains, but was produced using a baculovirus propagated in insect cells.(3) It contains 225 micrograms of
aluminium-based adjuvant to increase the immune response.
The age of the study group was 15 to 25 years, but the approved target group for the vaccine is 9 to 26 years. The Merck study group lasted four years while the GlaxoSmithKline study lasted two years and three months. In phase one of the trials, there were only 768 vaccinated subjects in the Merck study and just 560 in the GlaxoSmithKline study. Subjects received a
single intramuscular inoculation.
These were followed by a larger study involving 20,541 women aged 16 to 26 years. The participants were followed up for only 14 days after receiving either the vaccine or the placebo (containing aluminium). Reactions included: headache, nausea, diarrhoea, vomiting, fatigue, abdominal pain, dizziness and myalgia (muscle pain). Autoimmune problems reported were juvenile arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and reactive arthritis.
There were five reported cases of babies with congenital birth defects being born to women who had had the vaccine within 30 days of becoming pregnant. No long-term study has been conducted of its safety or of possible interactions with other vaccines administered at the same time.
If cervical cancer vaccine is used in conjunction with Hepatitis B and/or DTP vaccines, it is going to be even more difficult to assess the overall impact on the woman's health in the short term or the long term. Also, the vaccine has not been evaluated for carcinogenic (cancer causing)
potential.(4)
Approved are three doses of HPV vaccine to be given over six months - the first dose at the elected date, the second dose two months later, and third dose six months after the first dose (according to MIMS). Millions of women and girls around the world will be targeted for this vaccine, but these studies cover less than 0.01% of the population that it will be marketed for. The vaccine studies had screened all the recipients and had studied mainly "young women who had not been exposed to any of the four HPV types in the vaccine".(5) The US National Cancer Institute website states that no one who received all three vaccine shots developed an HPV-16 infection. However, "twenty-two women in that group did develop cervical abnormalities that can lead to cancer". Also, the "vaccine offers no protection against other types of HPV infections that can also cause cervical cancer. In addition, "it's unknown whether the vaccine's protection against HPV-16 is long-lasting," and finally, "it does not prevent HPV-16 infection already present at the time of vaccination from progressing to cancer".(6) Health authorities are warning that use of this vaccine does not suggest that there will be an end to Pap smears, but possibly these could be undertaken less often than the recommended every two years. Incidentally, Pap smears are known to be inaccurate and can produce a wide range of false negative results, which was the reason for the HPV study - see the Pap test.(7)(8)
The Department of Health and Ageing reported recently "that Australia has the second-lowest incidence of cervical cancer and the lowest mortality rate from cervical cancer in the world".(9) State and Federal governments in Australia spend more than $90 million annually screening women for cervical cancer. Australia will now spend $436 million making the vaccine free for
girls and women aged 12 to 26. There is talk of vaccinating young boys too.
Can the vaccine cause a cancer to progress? Suppose the vaccine is given to someone with undetected cancerous lesions in the cervix or someone already carrying the HPV virus before they get the vaccine? What then?
Sadly, investigations into other possible causes of cancer - for example, the contraceptive pill, lubricants and spermicides and other toxic substances such as in personal care products - are ignored or not researched. Very little consideration, if any, is given to nutrition, lifestyle, emotional wellbeing, proper breathing, good sleep, exercise and hydration which can all play an important part in preventing or recovering from cancer. Research published in 2003 concluded that deficiencies of selenium and zinc might be risk factors in developing cervical cancer.(10)
It seems illogical and too simplistic that a vaccine can prevent cancer. I suggest that this vaccine is another delusional hope for reducing the risk of cancer, and a great generator of revenue for the vaccine inventors and manufacturers.
Vaccination is not compulsory in Australia and is not required for school entry.
There are no financial penalties for not vaccinating.
REFERENCES
1. National Cancer Institute U.S. National Institute of Health
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/prevention/cervical/HealthProfessional/page3
2. US FDA Product Approval Information - Licensing Action 'Gardasil' Questions and Answers http://www.fda.gov/cber/products/hpvmer060806qa.htm
3. "HPV gene into insect cells using a virus called baculovirus which infects insect."
http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/pr/current_research/Cervical_Cancer_Vaccine/
4. National Cancer Institute U.S. National Institute of Health
http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/results/cervical-cancer-vaccine1102
5. Source: CDC HPV Questions and Answers.
http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm.
6. National Cancer Institute U.S. National Institute of Health
http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/results/cervical-cancer-vaccine1102
7. 5 to 35% inaccuracies with the Pap smear tests Wikipedia, online encyclopaedia.
8. A false positive Pap test means that a patient is told she has abnormal cells, but the cells are actually normal. A false negative Pap test occurs when a specimen is called normal, but the woman has a significant abnormality that was missed.
9. Original sourced from www.blooberg.com Australia to subsidise Merck Cervical Cancer Vaccine (Update2) by Vena Poljak and Gemma Daley; see also Medical Journal of Australia (MJA)
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/185_09_061106/wai10809_fm.pdf
10. The website for the Cervical Cancer and HPV Vaccine Immunisation Awareness Society is
http://www.ias.org.nz/pdf/cervical_cancer_and_the_hpv_vaccine.pdf
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment