How To Fight Prostate Cancer & Win
by William L. Fischer. Probably the single most important book we would recommend for those with prostate problemsmore info...
NEW! . . . SUPER FOODS FOR A SUPER-HEALTHY YOU
Unleash the secret healing power of Nature's ultimate foods - & 'programme' your body to remain free of illnessmore info...
Cancer
Cervarix: Are We Being Told The Whole Truth?
Date: 29/09/09
It’s difficult not to be sceptical about vaccines when confronted with tragic cases like this, even though the mainstream media reports that it is ‘unlikely’ that the vaccine was the cause of death.
I sat in horror as the news announced the death of a 14 year old girl, Natalie Morton, who died hours after being given Cervarix - the cervical cancer vaccine.
It’s difficult not to be sceptical about vaccines when confronted with tragic cases like this, even though the mainstream media reports that it is ‘unlikely’ that the vaccine was the cause of death.
In light of this tragedy it is my understanding that all was not well with Cervarix right from the word go.
Cervarix: ‘Not 100 per cent safe’
In September 2008 (when the government vaccination programme was launched) every doctor in Britain received a copy of the GP magazine as usual, a magazine full of adverts and facts about the latest drug treatments and surgery. In this issue appeared the Cervarix advert. (See image below)
The small print in the advert mentions the following:
* "There are no data on the use of Cervarix in subjects with impaired immune responsiveness"
* "Duration of protection has not been fully established"
* "Timing and need for a booster has not been investigated"
To put that in plain English: No trials have been run on the use of Cervarix on patients with compromised immunity (underlying health problems), the vaccine may not protect for very long (if at all!) and no-one knows when exactly to administer a follow-up jab...
Does this sound like a vaccine that has undergone rigorous testing with concise results? Why have the public not been told about this? Why did only doctors receive this information – in small print – in an advert?
Yet, a spokesman for the manufacturers Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) stated that the vaccine had only been issued a lisence after stringent testing. He said: ‘As with all medicines that have been granted a licence, Cervarix, had to undergo rigorous testing with large numbers of people in numerous clinical studies. Over 70,000 doses of GSK's HPV vaccine have been administered in clinical studies, and girls and women who have received the vaccine have been monitored for more than six years. In clinical studies, Cervarix was found to be generally well tolerated.’
But there seems to be a divide in the GSK camp, because Dr Harper, director of the Gynaecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at Dartmouth Medical School, New Hampshire, in the US, questioned its safety. Dr. Harper helped GSK conduct safety trials but believes safety trials of the Cervarix vaccine should have been conducted for at least five more years before the decision was taken to give the jabs to thousands of girls in schools.
She said: “We can't tell you it is 100% safe because we don't know that. In five years it will be pretty clear how safe it really is because 70% of adverse events occur within five years. That way we would have a good sense of comfort and you can reassure your population.”
So, if that is the advice from a leading expert in the field of cancer prevention, why did no-one listen to her?
Clearly, Dr. Harper knows what she is talking about. Since the launch of this vaccination programme 2,137 cases of adverse side effects have been reported. These include muscle aches and pains, tiredness, nausea and fever. More severe side effects are chest pains, deafness, balance disorders and partial paralysis - which a young girl from Liverpool suffered from for six months after receiving the vaccine...
Cervarix: Cover-ups and half-baked trials are not good enough any more
It seems as if this game of contradictions is the rule of thumb when it comes to dishing out vaccines to the masses and using young girls as guinea pigs.
When the national immunisation project was announced, there was some controversy about the selection of Cervarix over Gardasil, which is used by the majority of vaccination programmes worldwide.
Commenting on this, Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said: "This again raises the question which we have asked for some time, as to why the government won't publish the assessments it made of the relative merits of the two HPV vaccines and why we therefore use a different vaccine to most other comparable countries."
Not that Gardasil is any better!
Regular readers will know that our warnings regarding the dangers of Gardasil go as far back as 2006. In April this year, we reported that as many as 11,900 girls and young women had reported adverse events after receiving the Gardasil vaccine. These included paralysis, coma, seizures and more. The number of deaths at that stage was between 32 and 45, in the US alone.
The vaccine maker Merck says there is no proven link between Gardasil and serious adverse effects like these and maintains that the vaccine is usually well tolerated; the most likely side effects include pain, itching, swelling at the injection site, fever, nausea, and dizziness...
Yet, this contradicts research conducted by The National Vaccine Information Centre (NVC), a private vaccine-safety group based in the US, which compared Gardasil adverse side effects to another vaccine, one also given to young people, but for meningitis. Gardasil had three times the number of Accident and Emergency room visits - more than 5,000 - and reports of side effects were up to 30 times higher with Gardasil.
‘I think there are too many people having serious long-term side-effects,’ said Dr. Dwight of the NVC, after treating a young girl who suffered seizures, strokes and heart problems after receiving her Gardasil jab.
Now, the death of young Natalie Morton is being brushed off as the result of a ‘rogue batch’ of the vaccine that may have been administered or the fact that she had 'unknown underlying health problems'.
Don’t these people know two wrongs don’t make a right? ‘Rogue batches’ should not be out there when the population is exposed to it. Neither should people (especially children) with compromised immunity or underlying health problems be given vaccines that clearly still need testing.
I shudder to think what is waiting for all of us with the launch of the Swine Flu vaccination programme...
Cervarix: Related Reading:
Cervical Cancer Vaccine: Should It Be Mandatory For Young Girls?
Gardasil Is Not The ‘Fairy Tale Cancer Vaccine’ It Is Dressed Up To Be
Sources:
First picture of girl, 14, who died after being injected with cervical cancer jab from 'rogue batch', by Daniel Martin, published online 29.09.09, dailymail.co.uk
‘Cervical cancer drug Gardasil linked to deaths’ by Lucy Cockcroft, published online 29.10.07, telegraph.co.uk
‘Gardasil vaccine deaths in UK’, published online 25.01.08, endofmen.wordpress.com
‘Cancer jab alert after girl dies’ published online 29.09.09, news.bbc.co.uk
‘Schoolgirl dies after cancer jab’ published online 29.09.09, news.bbc.co.uk
‘Schoolgirls’ cervical jab scheme under fire’ by Emma Christie, published online 03.11.08, pressandjournal.co.uk
GSK Advert page 6 & 7, GP Magazine, published 26.09.08
‘Cervarix - An Injection of the Truth ...’ by Christina England, published online 11.05.09, americanchronicle.com
‘Suspected Adverse reaction Analysis: Cervarix vaccine’ by Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, published 24.09.09
Back to topIt’s difficult not to be sceptical about vaccines when confronted with tragic cases like this, even though the mainstream media reports that it is ‘unlikely’ that the vaccine was the cause of death.
In light of this tragedy it is my understanding that all was not well with Cervarix right from the word go.
Cervarix: ‘Not 100 per cent safe’
In September 2008 (when the government vaccination programme was launched) every doctor in Britain received a copy of the GP magazine as usual, a magazine full of adverts and facts about the latest drug treatments and surgery. In this issue appeared the Cervarix advert. (See image below)
The small print in the advert mentions the following:
* "There are no data on the use of Cervarix in subjects with impaired immune responsiveness"
* "Duration of protection has not been fully established"
* "Timing and need for a booster has not been investigated"
To put that in plain English: No trials have been run on the use of Cervarix on patients with compromised immunity (underlying health problems), the vaccine may not protect for very long (if at all!) and no-one knows when exactly to administer a follow-up jab...
Does this sound like a vaccine that has undergone rigorous testing with concise results? Why have the public not been told about this? Why did only doctors receive this information – in small print – in an advert?
Yet, a spokesman for the manufacturers Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) stated that the vaccine had only been issued a lisence after stringent testing. He said: ‘As with all medicines that have been granted a licence, Cervarix, had to undergo rigorous testing with large numbers of people in numerous clinical studies. Over 70,000 doses of GSK's HPV vaccine have been administered in clinical studies, and girls and women who have received the vaccine have been monitored for more than six years. In clinical studies, Cervarix was found to be generally well tolerated.’
But there seems to be a divide in the GSK camp, because Dr Harper, director of the Gynaecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at Dartmouth Medical School, New Hampshire, in the US, questioned its safety. Dr. Harper helped GSK conduct safety trials but believes safety trials of the Cervarix vaccine should have been conducted for at least five more years before the decision was taken to give the jabs to thousands of girls in schools.
She said: “We can't tell you it is 100% safe because we don't know that. In five years it will be pretty clear how safe it really is because 70% of adverse events occur within five years. That way we would have a good sense of comfort and you can reassure your population.”
So, if that is the advice from a leading expert in the field of cancer prevention, why did no-one listen to her?
Clearly, Dr. Harper knows what she is talking about. Since the launch of this vaccination programme 2,137 cases of adverse side effects have been reported. These include muscle aches and pains, tiredness, nausea and fever. More severe side effects are chest pains, deafness, balance disorders and partial paralysis - which a young girl from Liverpool suffered from for six months after receiving the vaccine...
Cervarix: Cover-ups and half-baked trials are not good enough any more
It seems as if this game of contradictions is the rule of thumb when it comes to dishing out vaccines to the masses and using young girls as guinea pigs.
When the national immunisation project was announced, there was some controversy about the selection of Cervarix over Gardasil, which is used by the majority of vaccination programmes worldwide.
Commenting on this, Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said: "This again raises the question which we have asked for some time, as to why the government won't publish the assessments it made of the relative merits of the two HPV vaccines and why we therefore use a different vaccine to most other comparable countries."
Not that Gardasil is any better!
Regular readers will know that our warnings regarding the dangers of Gardasil go as far back as 2006. In April this year, we reported that as many as 11,900 girls and young women had reported adverse events after receiving the Gardasil vaccine. These included paralysis, coma, seizures and more. The number of deaths at that stage was between 32 and 45, in the US alone.
The vaccine maker Merck says there is no proven link between Gardasil and serious adverse effects like these and maintains that the vaccine is usually well tolerated; the most likely side effects include pain, itching, swelling at the injection site, fever, nausea, and dizziness...
Yet, this contradicts research conducted by The National Vaccine Information Centre (NVC), a private vaccine-safety group based in the US, which compared Gardasil adverse side effects to another vaccine, one also given to young people, but for meningitis. Gardasil had three times the number of Accident and Emergency room visits - more than 5,000 - and reports of side effects were up to 30 times higher with Gardasil.
‘I think there are too many people having serious long-term side-effects,’ said Dr. Dwight of the NVC, after treating a young girl who suffered seizures, strokes and heart problems after receiving her Gardasil jab.
Now, the death of young Natalie Morton is being brushed off as the result of a ‘rogue batch’ of the vaccine that may have been administered or the fact that she had 'unknown underlying health problems'.
Don’t these people know two wrongs don’t make a right? ‘Rogue batches’ should not be out there when the population is exposed to it. Neither should people (especially children) with compromised immunity or underlying health problems be given vaccines that clearly still need testing.
I shudder to think what is waiting for all of us with the launch of the Swine Flu vaccination programme...
Cervarix: Related Reading:
Cervical Cancer Vaccine: Should It Be Mandatory For Young Girls?
Gardasil Is Not The ‘Fairy Tale Cancer Vaccine’ It Is Dressed Up To Be
Sources:
First picture of girl, 14, who died after being injected with cervical cancer jab from 'rogue batch', by Daniel Martin, published online 29.09.09, dailymail.co.uk
‘Cervical cancer drug Gardasil linked to deaths’ by Lucy Cockcroft, published online 29.10.07, telegraph.co.uk
‘Gardasil vaccine deaths in UK’, published online 25.01.08, endofmen.wordpress.com
‘Cancer jab alert after girl dies’ published online 29.09.09, news.bbc.co.uk
‘Schoolgirl dies after cancer jab’ published online 29.09.09, news.bbc.co.uk
‘Schoolgirls’ cervical jab scheme under fire’ by Emma Christie, published online 03.11.08, pressandjournal.co.uk
GSK Advert page 6 & 7, GP Magazine, published 26.09.08
‘Cervarix - An Injection of the Truth ...’ by Christina England, published online 11.05.09, americanchronicle.com
‘Suspected Adverse reaction Analysis: Cervarix vaccine’ by Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, published 24.09.09
Click here to send to a friendShare thisPrinter friendly version
