Gardasil reactions must be taken seriously

On May 23, 5:22 am, JohnDoe wrote:
JOHN wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
news:bmK4i.3820$Ud7.1284@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