California is on its way to becoming the first state to mandate Merck's GARDASIL vaccine for all 11 year old girls.

On Jul 12, 8:24?am, Beliavsky wrote:
On Jul 12, 12:05 am, "Stormlady" wrote:

snip

You do realize that it doesn't protect you for life though, only about 10
years or so.

How long does Gardasil protect against HPV?

When asking this question, you must ask also how long it protects
against which strains of HPV, as there are many, some that MAY lead to
cancer, and even doesn't protect against ALL strains that are believed
to POSSIBLY lead to cancer. You can still develop cervical cancer
without ever contracting HPV, any type, - period.

On Jul 12, 9:17?am, Jeff wrote:
bigvince wrote:
On Jul 12, 8:24 am, Beliavsky wrote:
On Jul 12, 12:05 am, "Stormlady" wrote:

snip

You do realize that it doesn't protect you for life though, only about 10
years or so.
How long does Gardasil protect against HPV?

The facts are no one can tell how effective Gardasil is at preventing
cancer; certainly much less than most think . A recent Wall Street
Journal article made that point.

Actually, the article was misleading. It focused on teens who already
were infected with HPV, which we hope the 11-year olds aren't.

Anyway, if you want accurate information on the vaccine, go he

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/hpv/default.htm

Jeff

Amid growing concerns as to safety



and effectiveness the Texas
Legislature repealed Gov .Perrys executive order mandating HPV
vaccine for all sixth grade girls ;these concerns are outlined in the
April 16 "the Wall
Street Journal" article questioning the effectiveness of
Gardasil Mercks HPV vaccine. Gardasil been
"dogged with uncertainty' as to it's effectiveness read
more
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...67980&nfid=rss...
These and other concerns caused the Texas repeal. The feeling was
summed up by Republican Rep. Dennis Bonnen bristled at the governor's
criticism of his bill.

"We should not and are now not going to offer the 165,000 11-year-
olds
in Texas up to be the study group for Merck to find out what the
implications of this vaccine would be for these girls," he said.".
source Perry won't vetovirus vaccinnations bill. May 8 2007 , Liz Ann
Peterson, A.P. Fox link http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May...vicalCancer,00
....

The same point was made in the New England Journal of Medicine
"Policymakers, clinicians, and parents have a keen sense of urgency
about HPV vaccination. On one hand, the vaccine has high efficacy
against certain HPV types that cause life-threatening disease, and it
appears to be safe; delaying vaccination may mean that many women will
miss an opportunity for long-lasting protection. On the other hand, 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. HPV vaccination has the
potential for profound public health benefit if the most optimistic
scenario of effectiveness is realized. "http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/19/1991

It 's a little technical but basically it says that the amount this
vaccine will reduce cancer is unknown. The only think known for sure
is that mandating this vaccine will be very profitable for the
maker. Thanks Vince- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

See these as well...http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/results/
cervical-cancer-vaccine1102

and

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/co...tearea=&level=

"Jeff" wrote in message
news:VRpli.18069$MV6.1129@trnddc01...


Anyway, if you want accurate information on the vaccine, go he

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/hpv/default.htm

Jeff


CDC is the premier pharma shill

"Chris" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 12, 8:24?am, Beliavsky wrote:

When asking this question, you must ask also how long it protects
against which strains of HPV, as there are many, some that MAY lead to
cancer, and even doesn't protect against ALL strains that are believed
to POSSIBLY lead to cancer. You can still develop cervical cancer
without ever contracting HPV, any type, - period.


If tumours without HPV actually do worse, then what might be the flow on
effects of using an HPV vaccine? Might cervical cancer actually become more
serious and more deadly? Is this a stone that hasn't been turned over yet?
Have you ever seen a Public Health Worker sit down with young women,
with the huge pile of medical articles which show for instance, that
nutrient deficiencies (selenium and folic acid to mention only two) are a
key component in the development of cervical cancer? By impressing on
everyone the need to get nutrition right, Public Health Workers would not
only reduce the potential development of cervical cancer from a young age,
they might also slash the rates of all other cancers, infections, diabetes
complications, and many other hospitalizations. [June 2007 letter by Hilary
Butler Gardasil vaccine] Democracy, or Orson Welles' 1984?

As of today, the Gardasil vaccine has never been proven to decrease the
actual incidence of cervical cancer."...In fact, according to the text
Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology, "In most studies, HPV status was
not a strong independent prognosticator of outcome in cervical cancer
patients; however there appears to be a trend for HPV-negative tumors to do
worse .those tumors containing HPV DNA tend to be of an early stage and low
grade."4 This suggests that if the goal is to reduce deaths from cervical
cancer the target should not be HPV at all because the tumors without HPV
actually "do worse." ---- Gardasil - the Cervical Cancer Vaccine? April
18, 2007

JOHN wrote:
"Sarah Vaughan" wrote in message
...

I don't know whether rubella immunisation protects for life (that was a
figure of speech ;-) ) but it almost always protects for longer than ten
years. I've had to look at a lot of routine bloods on pregnant women in
my time, including a lot of checks for rubella immunity. In that time,
I've only ever come across one woman in whom the vaccine had worn off.
(Which would make you the second.)

Using antibodies as a measure of immunity is junk science
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/antibody.html

Antibodies are the molecules that actually attack the virus. Doesn't
sound like junk science to me.

Of course, it may be a bit more common in the US, because the women whose
rubella results I've been looking at have largely been the women who've
been vaccinated at the age of around 11 or 12, whereas the US has had it
as part of the infant immunisations for much longer. Maybe that extra ten
years means that there's more chance of the jab wearing off - it would be
interesting to look at some comparative statistics. Anyway, as Anne said,
it's now part of the MMR with booster, so hopefully cases like that will
become even rarer.

Rubella vax is just another useless vaccination
http://www.whale.to/v/rubella9.html

that cripples plenty

Rubella used to a leading cause of birth defects and miscarrages. Thanks
to vaccines, rubella related birth defects are very rare in the US.

...

JOHN wrote:
"Beliavsky" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 12, 12:05 am, "Stormlady" wrote:

snip

You do realize that it doesn't protect you for life though, only about 10
years or so.
How long does Gardasil protect against HPV?

no vaccine protects againts anything, they just line the pockets of
allopathy

Tell that to all the families of people who died of small pox, polio and
measles in the US last year. Oops, thanks to vaccines, there aren't any.

they make it up as they go along, they said one mumps vaccine protected,
then they said it was completely useless, after using it for decades

Mumps can be a serious disease, especially in adults.

just think of all those booster shots http://www.whale.to/v/schedule.html

For accurate info on vaccines, go he http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/

JOHN wrote:
"Beliavsky" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 12, 12:05 am, "Stormlady" wrote:

snip

You do realize that it doesn't protect you for life though, only about 10
years or so.
How long does Gardasil protect against HPV?

no vaccine protects againts anything, they just line the pockets of
allopathy

Tell that to all the doctors who used to spend a lot of time treating
Hib menigitis before the Hib vaccine came out. Or all the parents who
would have to stay home with their sick kids who have chicken pox.

And how many people died of smallpox last year?

...

Jeff

Tell that to all the families of people who died of small pox, polio and
measles in the US last year. Oops, thanks to vaccines, there aren't any.

There was someone who dies of measles in the UK last year, it was a
teenage boy in a gyspy community, so not someone who'd likely have been
caught in a vaccination program, but who wouldn't have been exposed to
the virus had the take up of the vaccine been higher (I think MMR take
up had dropped to the 70 percents for the relevant time period).

Cheers
Anne

"Anne Rogers" wrote in message
...

Tell that to all the families of people who died of small pox, polio and
measles in the US last year. Oops, thanks to vaccines, there aren't any.

Pure wishful thinking, as all the evidence shows vaccination played not the
slightest part.

I shredded the great smallpox lie over and over again
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox.html
[1921] There are no adequate statistics showing these fatalities, but it may
be estimated that in England and Wales no fewer than 6,000 Infants are
Killed every Year by Vaccination. This is perhaps the least part of the
damage. The Great Damage is that caused to Teeth, Eyesight and Constitution,
by the illness of vaccinia forced upon the infant at the most critical and
delicate period of its life. [1921] Vaccination and the State By Arnold
Lupton MP.

[1880] That since Vaccination has been rendered obligatory, infantile
syphilis (under one year old) has been increased in England, according to a
Parliamentary return, dated February 25th, 1880, from 472 per million of
births in 1847, to 1,736 per million in 1877, or fourfold; and that other
inoculable diseases, such as pyaemia, scrofula, erysipelas, and bronchitis,
were also augmented in infants. In England, the increase of inoculable
diseases was 20 per cent., notwithstanding an expenditure of 200 millions
sterling since 1850 in sanitary works. Another Parliamentary return (No.
443, Session 1877) demonstrates that 25,000 babies are yearly sacrificed by
diseases excited by Vaccination. International Anti-Vaccination League
points against vaccination 1880

as you can see it was killing thousands, and didn't save one single life

Polio was the way they covered up DDT poisoning. The man who headed up the
march of Dimes used to work for the DDT industry. Go figure. I have.


There was someone who dies of measles in the UK last year, it was a
teenage boy in a gyspy community, so not someone who'd likely have been
caught in a vaccination program, but who wouldn't have been exposed to the
virus had the take up of the vaccine been higher (I think MMR take up had
dropped to the 70 percents for the relevant time period).

Same with measles http://www.whale.to/vaccines/measles.html Deaths had
declined by 99.4% before vaccination. That should be enough to convince the
ones who can think for themselves.

Cliffoprd Miller hits the spot withy recent Offit lies on measles daeths
http://www.whale.to/v/offitt.html

And we all know over 50% of measles cases have been vaccination, anyway, so
you risk autism etc for something that doesn't do what they claim anyway.

And the real kicker is the fact vitamin C would prevent ALL deaths, known
for 50 years but suppressed by allopathy high command as Dr levy shows with
2,000 peer review citations http://www.whale.to/a/levy_h.html

"Jeff" wrote in message
news:1xyli.2210$YH3.1181@trnddc08...


Tell that to all the doctors who used to spend a lot of time treating Hib
menigitis before the Hib vaccine came out. Or all the parents who would
have to stay home with their sick kids who have chicken pox.

And how many people died of smallpox last year?

yawn.

http://www.whale.to/a/chickenpox.html
http://www.whale.to/v/meningitis8.html