If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Women in Government, Merck's Trojan Horse: Part Three in a Series on the Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer
"Ilena Rose" wrote in message ... www.BreastimplantAwareness.org/myrl.html wrote: The information I have gathered has come from reliable sources. Not from Merck. Thank you for admitting that Merck is not a reliable source. LOL |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Women in Government, Merck's Trojan Horse: Part Three in a Series on the Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer
On Aug 25, 2:35 am, "JOHN" wrote:
"Myrl" wrote in message ups.com... You are free to believe what you wish! you sure do belief: Whatever an individual is willing to accept without direct verification by experience or without the support of evidence, resulting in assumption which is taken as a basis for action or non-action. "I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe - I believe what I believe is right." -George W. Bush, in Rome, July 22, 2001 Myrl and Coleen are classic examples of: In the entire history of man, no one has ever been brainwashed and realized, or believed, that he had been brainwashed. Those who have been brainwashed will usually passionately defend their manipulators, claiming they have simply been "shown the light" . . . or have been transformed in miraculous ways. ------Dick Sutphen ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Another Perpetual Protester...... Deep sigh! At least John, you could be thorough and spell my name correctly. Lack of attention to such simple details does not bode well for your smart ass 'claims'. Yes, and you are free to believe what YOU wish also. Do have a dandy day! |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Women in Government, Merck's Trojan Horse: Part Three in a Series on the Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer
On Aug 24, 11:44 pm, Ilena Rose wrote:
http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...org/coleah.htm Yes Myrl ... there are women worldwide dying of cervical, breast, uterine, bone, brain and other cancers. That's not disputed. Gardasil is a mutli-billion dollar unproven drug that you are hawking here to help Merck have a net income of over $4 billion dollars this year ... There is a cover up of the dangers going on ... just like there has been with breast implants ... now with your and Coleah's help on Usenet. You've lied and twisted the truth about me for O'leary & Barrett ... and not you're doing the same for Merck to sell a drug that so little is known about ... schoolgirls are being used for lab rats and are dying and being made ill by painful diseases like Guillain Barre. You can blame these deaths and illnesses on everything but the Gardasil ... Your mentor Barrett blames MCS on everything but the chemicals ... MCS is not an organic disorder. It is a fear of chemicals, not a physiological condition. That is a fact borne out by replicated studies. Now deal with it! You're Welcome! He's dead wrong and so are you both. About many, many, many things. http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...rickoleary.htm |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Women in Government, Merck's Trojan Horse: Part Three in a Series on the Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer
On Aug 25, 1:09 am, "JOHN" wrote:
"Ilena Rose" wrote in message ... www.BreastimplantAwareness.org/myrl.htmlwrote: The information I have gathered has come from reliable sources. Not from Merck. Thank you for admitting that Merck is not a reliable source. LOL John talks about "brainwashing". . .Ilena Rosenthal is a perfect example of a spin doctor who misrepresents events and words, to fit her own agenda of attempting to "brainwash." For example, I have NEVER said, "Merck is not a reliable source." I said, "I didn't use Merck as a source." Another example would be Ilena Rosenthal taking "incidence reports" of adverse reactions, and "associations" with deaths, and then ADAMENTLY painting them as the CAUSE of deaths and negative reactions to Gardasil. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Women in Government, Merck's Trojan Horse: Part Three in a Series on the Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer
On Aug 24, 8:13 pm, Ilena Rose wrote:
ince Myrl Jeffcoat jumped into the Murky Merck Propaganda ... she has made various claims about the reported deaths. Four direct quotes are below. I fully disagree with your "simple math" claims ... neither the true risks nor the true benefits are known ... www.BreastimplantAwareness.org/myrl.htmlwrote: The information I have gathered has come from reliable sources. Not from Merck. Thank you for admitting that Merck is not a reliable source. You keep mentioning "9" deaths linked to Gardasil in the United States. The VAERS base lists seven ...http://tinyurl.com/27umst Please cite your "reliable sources" regarding the other reported two deaths in the United States. Thank you. Below are 3 confusing quotes direct from Myrl's confusing postings. http://groups.google.co.cr/group/mis...e_thread/threa... Myrl Jeffcoat Speak : "Are you having issues with a sum-total that comes from subtracting 9 from 250,000?. . .Or is it that it makes it more difficult to paint lipstick on your pig?" ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Myrl Speaketh Again: Again folks!. . .There are reports of 9 "possible" deaths from Gardasil. 250,000 die from Cervical Cancer each year. 250,000 - 9 = 249,991 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MyrlSpeak: She's so focused on bashing the idea that a vaccine may prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths, that she is reluctant to do the math. . .250,000 - 7 = 243,000 possible lives saved! Lets correct the math "NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Aug 24 - A prophylactic vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16 and 18 has the potential for preventing at least half the cases of invasive cervical cancer and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions worldwide, investigators report in the August 1st issue of the International Journal of Cancer. Dr. Jennifer S. Smith, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of HPV type distribution worldwide in 14,595 cases of invasive cervical cancer (ICC) and 7,094 cases of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL).'" and she found... " The HPV 16/18 prevalence was 52% in HSIL." HSIL is the best surrogate for cancer. Corrected amount 125,000 lives possibly saved In US 1500 a year in Canada 200 maximum possible. Has that reduction been proven .No .So far the studies show a no decrease in stage 3 lesions the best surrogate for cancer and a 17% reduction in stage 2 lesions . So the best marker stage 3 lesions has not been decreased . How effective is it? Could it reduce cancer rates by 40%? Maybe. ; could it have no effect absolutely. One thing is sure its risk and benefit ratio is unproven. That's why many Doctors with no vested interest have urged that it not be mandated. One things for sure it will be expensive Thanks Vince |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Women in Government, Merck's Trojan Horse: Part Three in a Series on the Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer
On Aug 25, 9:17 am, bigvince wrote:
On Aug 24, 8:13 pm, Ilena Rose wrote: ince Myrl Jeffcoat jumped into the Murky Merck Propaganda ... she has made various claims about the reported deaths. Four direct quotes are below. I fully disagree with your "simple math" claims ... neither the true risks nor the true benefits are known ... www.BreastimplantAwareness.org/myrl.htmlwrote: The information I have gathered has come from reliable sources. Not from Merck. Thank you for admitting that Merck is not a reliable source. You keep mentioning "9" deaths linked to Gardasil in the United States. The VAERS base lists seven ...http://tinyurl.com/27umst Please cite your "reliable sources" regarding the other reported two deaths in the United States. Thank you. Below are 3 confusing quotes direct from Myrl's confusing postings. http://groups.google.co.cr/group/mis...e_thread/threa... Myrl Jeffcoat Speak : "Are you having issues with a sum-total that comes from subtracting 9 from 250,000?. . .Or is it that it makes it more difficult to paint lipstick on your pig?" ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Myrl Speaketh Again: Again folks!. . .There are reports of 9 "possible" deaths from Gardasil. 250,000 die from Cervical Cancer each year. 250,000 - 9 = 249,991 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MyrlSpeak: She's so focused on bashing the idea that a vaccine may prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths, that she is reluctant to do the math. . .250,000 - 7 = 243,000 possible lives saved! Lets correct the math "NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Aug 24 - A prophylactic vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16 and 18 has the potential for preventing at least half the cases of invasive cervical cancer and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions worldwide, investigators report in the August 1st issue of the International Journal of Cancer. Dr. Jennifer S. Smith, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of HPV type distribution worldwide in 14,595 cases of invasive cervical cancer (ICC) and 7,094 cases of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL).'" and she found... " The HPV 16/18 prevalence was 52% in HSIL." HSIL is the best surrogate for cancer. Corrected amount 125,000 lives possibly saved In US 1500 a year in Canada 200 maximum possible. Has that reduction been proven .No .So far the studies show a no decrease in stage 3 lesions the best surrogate for cancer and a 17% reduction in stage 2 lesions . So the best marker stage 3 lesions has not been decreased . How effective is it? Could it reduce cancer rates by 40%? Maybe. ; could it have no effect absolutely. One thing is sure its risk and benefit ratio is unproven. That's why many Doctors with no vested interest have urged that it not be mandated. One things for sure it will be expensive Thanks Vince- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I'm a bit confused. The vaccine is intended as a preventative measure before females become sexually active. It is not supposed to be a cure for pre-existing lesions. So I don't get the emphasis on 'reductions of different stage lesions'. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Women in Government, Merck's Trojan Horse: Part Three in a Series on the Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer
In a very, very rare moment of honesty, Gardasil Promoter / Apologist
Coleah Penley Ayers declares: www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/ I'm a bit confused. The vaccine is intended as a preventative measure before females become sexually active. It is not supposed to be a cure for pre-existing lesions. So I don't get the emphasis on 'reductions of different stage lesions'. She however, is as usual, vastly UNDER stating her confusion. Confusion is the devil's tool ... one she uses frequently as a usenet flack. True, the drug is "intended" to be preventative ... however, what is not known is the effect it will have short term on those already infected. Merck is marketing to women up to 26 ... probably most not "pre-sexually active." Further, it is not known how long it even works when it does work ... and how many "boosters" will be required. The accumulation of aluminum (each jab has 225 mcg of aluminum adjuvant) has NOT been addressed and although Coleah disinforms the public that there are no dangers with this accumulation ... it's just more propaganda she spreads. Minimizing the risks is an important disinformation scheme ... and Coleah barks it precisely: "So what is the big scary point? " Plenty. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/hydro/al.htm Here is a list of over 2500 adverse reports made after Gardasil injections (each containing 225 mcg of aluminum adjuvant) http://tinyurl.com/2enev2 There are also marked lapses in the information about Merck's use of aluminum adjuvant in its 'placebo' that might have skewed their published results. Info on that is he http://www.909shot.com/PressReleases...06gardasil.htm To view the VAERS list of over 1660 "side effects" ... http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive...ERSReports.pdf And here the listing of the first 3 reported deaths ... http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive...AERSDeaths.pdf There are far more unknowns than knowns about this drug, and as school begins in the next month, parents need to become more informed before submitting their youngsters as lab rats. http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/ http://ilena-rosenthal.blogspot.com |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Women in Government, Merck's Trojan Horse: Part Three in a Serieson the Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer
Ilena Rose wrote:
In a very, very rare moment of honesty, Gardasil Promoter / Apologist Coleah Penley Ayers declares: www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/ I'm a bit confused. The vaccine is intended as a preventative measure before females become sexually active. It is not supposed to be a cure for pre-existing lesions. So I don't get the emphasis on 'reductions of different stage lesions'. She however, is as usual, vastly UNDER stating her confusion. I have not seen any signs that Coleah is confused. Confusion is the devil's tool ... one she uses frequently as a usenet flack. Pot, meet kettle. True, the drug is "intended" to be preventative ... however, what is not known is the effect it will have short term on those already infected. Merck is marketing to women up to 26 ... probably most not "pre-sexually active." The vaccine was studied in women who were already infected with HPV. When the studies looking at the efficacy of the vaccine were done, the girls and young women were tested to see if they were already positive for any of the strains of HPV that were in the vaccine. Some of them were. There was no mention of any more adverse reactions in these young women compared to those who had not previously been exposed to HPV. There is no reason to believe that previous exposure to HPV puts any women at risk from the vaccine. http://cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5602.pdf Further, it is not known how long it even works when it does work ... and how many "boosters" will be required. It is known that the vaccine provides protection for at least five years. http://cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5602.pdf The accumulation of aluminum (each jab has 225 mcg of aluminum adjuvant) has NOT been addressed and although Coleah disinforms the public that there are no dangers with this accumulation ... it's just more propaganda she spreads. Please cite some good references that show that 1) the 0.225 mg of aluminum in the vaccine actually accumulate in the body, rather than be excreted; and 2) that this accumulation is harmful. Minimizing the risks is an important disinformation scheme ... and Coleah barks it precisely: Maximizing the risks of vaccines is an important disinformation scheme. You bark it so well. "So what is the big scary point? " Plenty. You're right. Confusion is the devil's tool. And you wield it well, too. The correct answer to the question: "So what is the big scary point?" is that young and middle-aged ladies will die of a preventable disease. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/hydro/al.htm Here is a list of over 2500 adverse reports made after Gardasil injections (each containing 225 mcg of aluminum adjuvant) http://tinyurl.com/2enev2 The vast majority of which are things like swelling and soreness at the injection site. There are also marked lapses in the information about Merck's use of aluminum adjuvant in its 'placebo' that might have skewed their published results. The use of aluminum adjuvant in its placebo groups was mentioned he http://cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5602.pdf. The CDC was obviously well aware of it and took it into account. Info on that is he http://www.909shot.com/PressReleases...06gardasil.htm To view the VAERS list of over 1660 "side effects" ... http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive...ERSReports.pdf You mean, adverse events. The adverse events are bad things that happen after the vaccine was given. It does not mean that they are caused by the vaccine. Another example of the confusion, which you call the tool of the devil. And here the listing of the first 3 reported deaths ... http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive...AERSDeaths.pdf None of which are necessarily related to the vaccine. In fact, I can help but wonder if two of the reports are concerning the same person. There are far more unknowns than knowns about this drug, and as school begins in the next month, parents need to become more informed before submitting their youngsters as lab rats. Gee, more propaganda and confusion. The tool of devil. Jeff http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/ http://ilena-rosenthal.blogspot.com |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Women in Government, Merck's Trojan Horse: Part Three in a Series on the Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer
The government is made up of nattering women no matter what their sex.
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Women in Government, Merck's Trojan Horse: Part Three in a Series on the Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer
The study which Jeff P Utz cites admits that Merck Research
Laboratories, a division of Merck & Co., Inc., funded this study in its entirety. It seems that after Utz was UNABLE to get an unrestricted medical license after several years of a restricted one ... he found his niche as one of the many Vac Industry promoters on Usenet. Merck has a history of skewing data and hiding negative consequences of their drugs ... and I have every reason to believe, as the risks are unfolding ... that they followed their pattern of buying science as they did with Vioxx. The Vioxx scandal: damning Senate testimony reveals drug company, government complicity By Joseph Kay 22 November 2004 Several scientists testifying before the Senate Finance Committee on November 17 provided substantial evidence that the drug company Merck and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) knew of safety problems years before the drug Vioxx was withdrawn from the market. Vioxx, which was used to treat arthritis and severe pain, was withdrawn by Merck on September 30 after conclusive evidence emerged that it greatly increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Some 80 million prescriptions of the drug have been filled around the world, most of them in the US, since it was approved in May 1999. The principal testimony was given by Dr. David Graham, the associate director for science and medicine at the FDA’s own Office of Drug Safety. The ODS, responsible for monitoring the safety of drugs already on the market, is part of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), which also includes the Office of New Drugs (OND), responsible for approving new drugs for the market. Graham explained how he came into repeated conflict with the OND as he sought to raise concerns about the safety of Vioxx. The OND is one of the branches of the FDA that is most closely tied to the giant drug companies it is nominally responsible for regulating. Since passage of the 1992 Prescription Drug User Fee Act, the office gets much of its funding directly from drug companies, in the form of new drug application fees of more than $500,000 per application. Most of this money goes toward speeding up the approval of new drugs. Graham explained that the OND, which has a higher position in the FDA hierarchy than his ODS, is generally very reluctant to issue new regulations for drugs already on the market or order mandatory withdrawals of unsafe drugs that the office has approved. In the case of Vioxx, the drug was pulled from the market only after its producer, Merck, decided that the evidence of harmful consequences was overwhelming. It was not withdrawn as a result of any regulatory action by the FDA. A study led by Graham that was concluded in the summer of 2004 found that Vioxx was responsible for an estimated 38,000 excess heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths. In his testimony, Graham stated that this was a conservative estimate. He said that “a more realistic and likely range of estimates for the number of excess cases in the US” was between 88,000 and 139,000. “Of these,” he added, “30-40 percent probably died. For the survivors, their lives were changed forever.” To dramatize the number of people affected, Graham noted that “this range of 88,000 to 138,000 would be the rough equivalent of 500 to 900 aircraft dropping from the sky. This translates to 2-4 aircraft every week, week in and week out, for the past five years.” Graham testified that as his team concluded its study and prepared to present its results, it was attacked by the Office of New Drugs and other sections of the FDA. “I was pressured to change my conclusions and recommendations, and basically threatened that if I did not change them, I would not be permitted to present” the paper reporting his study’s conclusions. “An email from the director for the entire Office of New Drugs was revealing. He suggested that since FDA was ‘not contemplating’ a warning against the use of high-dose Vioxx, my conclusions should be changed.” Up to a week before the drug was pulled from the market by Merck, FDA management, according to Graham, was attempting to undermine Graham’s conclusions. Graham said, “[W]e are virtually defenseless” against another catastrophe on the scale of Vioxx. “The organization structure within CDER is entirely geared towards the review and approval of new drugs. When a CDER new drug reviewing division approves a new drug, it is also saying the drug is ‘safe and effective.’ When a serious safety issue arises post-marketing, their immediate reaction is almost always one of denial, rejection and heat.... At the same time, the Office of Drug Safety has no regulatory power and must first convince the new drug reviewing division that a problem exists before anything beneficial to the public can be done.” The prevailing sentiment at the FDA, said Graham, is one that views “the pharmaceutical industry it is supposed to regulate as its client, over-values the benefits of the dugs it approves, and seriously under-values, disregards and disrespects drug safety.” When it comes to drug safety, he said, the operating principle is that the drug is safe unless it is proven to be unsafe beyond a shadow of a doubt. New drugs, including Vioxx, are pushed through the approval phase in a matter of months, before sufficient tests are done to ensure their safety. Independent clinical testing is rarely carried out by the FDA, and indications of safety problems are ignored or deliberately undermined. Later, Graham pointed to five drugs currently on the market that he felt were potentially dangerous: Acutane, which is used to treat acne; Bextra, a painkiller; Crestor, used to lower cholesterol; Meridia, used to treat weight loss; and Serevent, used to treat asthma. All of these can cause dangerous side effects and have not been adequately tested for their safety, Graham asserted. Others providing testimony included Gurkirpal Singh, from the Stanford University School of Medicine, and Bruce Psaty, co-director of the Cardiovascular Health Research Unit at the University of Washington. The two scientists reviewed some of the history of the testing of Vioxx and concluded that, even with the limited data available, the drug should have been pulled from the market well before it was eventually withdrawn. Singh noted that there was evidence of serious heart problems associated with Vioxx before it was approved in 1999. “In 1998, Dr. Doug Watson, a Merck scientist, presented an analysis of serious heart problems with Vioxx compared to patients enrolled in studies of other Merck drugs. This analysis concluded that men taking Vioxx had a 28 percent greater risk (not statistically significant), but in women, the risk was more than double (216 percent, statistically significant) compared to people not taking any drug in other Merck studies. To the best of my knowledge, these data were never made public.” Merck has continually asserted that at the time of Vioxx’s approval, no evidence existed indicating that the drug caused additional heart attacks. The main study carried out by Merck, known as VIGOR, showed a fivefold increase in serious heart conditions relative to another drug, naproxen (the generic form of Aleve). Merck explained these results as a consequence of naproxen’s beneficial effects, rather than Vioxx’s harmful ones. However, in 1999 a scientist at the FDA remarked that “thromboembolic events [such as heart attack and stroke] are more frequent in patients receiving Vioxx than placebo.” Singh noted, “This meant that not only did Vioxx not [have the benefits of naproxen], but for some reason, it was likely to promote heart attacks directly.” The evidence was still limited, Singh said. “There were not adequate data to make a firm conclusion one way or another. In fact, the FDA reviewer went on to point out that ‘[w]ith the available data, it is impossible to answer with complete certainty whether the risk of cardiovascular and thromboembolic events is increased in patients on rofecoxib [Vioxx]. A large database will be needed to answer this and other safety comparison questions.’ ” Instead of carrying out a larger study, the FDA quickly approved the drug for use. This was in spite of the fact that the drug served no pressing necessity. There were already drugs on the market that performed the same function as Vioxx: to relieve inflammation without causing stomach problems. The FDA did not even require a caution on the drug’s label about the increased risk of hear attacks until April 2002. Nor did Merck attempt a larger study. The New York Times reported on November 14 that such a study was contemplated in May 2000, but management rejected the idea. According to the Times, a slide prepared for an executives’ meeting stated, “At present, there is no compelling marketing need for such a study.... The implied message is not favorable.” In their defense, Sandra Kweder, the deputy director of the Office of New Drugs, and Raymond Gilmartin, chairman and CEO of Merck, simply repeated the claim that everything was done to determine the safety of Vioxx as quickly as possible, and that the drug was immediately withdrawn as soon as safety problems became evident. The overwhelming evidence indicates the opposite: that tens of thousands of deaths likely caused by use of Vioxx were entirely preventable. See Also: The Vioxx recall: cover-up of health risks may have resulted in thousands of deaths [10 November 2004] Medicine and the market: the Vioxx and flu vaccine debacles [8 October 2004] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Family claims cervical-cancer vaccine caused paralysis | bigvince | General | 0 | May 19th 07 08:23 PM |
Family claims cervical-cancer vaccine caused paralysis | [email protected] | Kids Health | 0 | May 18th 07 07:17 PM |
Family claims cervical-cancer vaccine caused paralysis | [email protected] | Breastfeeding | 0 | May 18th 07 07:17 PM |
Human Papiloma Virus may not be the Cause of Cervical Cancer | JOHN | Kids Health | 3 | March 21st 07 11:56 PM |
The Abraham Cherrix cancer story the media won't print: Harry Hoxsey's cancer cures and the US government campaign to destroy them | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 45 | August 8th 06 07:08 PM |