Gardasil fraud

Women would do well to consider this article by Dr James Howenstine, which posits that the only link between the highly-touted Gardasil and cervical cancer is that the vaccine may actually increase the likelihood of contracting this very lethal cancer.

Natural News reporter Mike Adams has uncovered some interesting facts about this vaccine. The FDA has been aware since 2003 that Human Papillloma Virus [1] does not cause cervical cancer. The Gardasil vaccine is unable to eradicate HPV virus from women who have been exposed to HPV(nearly all sexually active women). This makes vaccinating all young women in Texas against HPV virus a very questionable decision.

To make matters even worse it has now been learned that vaccinating women with Gardasil may actually increase the risk that those women harboring a benign cervical HPV viral infection have a 44.6 percent increased risk of having their benign HPV infection converted into a precancerous state by the HPV vaccine administration. Thus women vaccinated with Gardasil not only receive no benefit those who were sexually active before the vaccine administration have become at increased risk for developing cervical cancer.

This study shows that ill health is a greater indicator of who is more likely to get cervical cancer than HPV alone. Any push to inoculate large numbers of girls that were undertaken after 2003, such as this one in Texas, were done with full knowledge of the fraud involved -- as a means to make money, to instill unwarranted fear and recognising that they were actually placing many young girls at a greater risk for lasting harm.

Comments

[Wendy]

I'm not sure the data support your conclusions. I am a fully assenting Catholic, but I was also a cancer vaccine researcher before I became a stay at home mom.

The fact presented here is that the vaccine does not help, and may harm someone already infected. This does suggest a sexually active woman should be tested before vaccination, but it actually supports the vaccination of young girls.

Also, it is indeed well known that HPV does not "cause" cervical cancer in the sense that HIV causes AIDS. Instead, it damages the cells of the cervix, increasing the likely hood of cancer causing errors as the body repairs those cells.

There may be reasons to oppose the vaccine being used for girls, but this is not a valid one.

Consider this: If "nearly all sexually active women" have HPV, that would mean nearly all sexually active men have HPV. In that case, unless your daughter's husband is a virgin, she is likely to be exposed if she marries. Once exposed, there is no cure, although most infections have no symptoms. This will not directly cause cervical cancer, but it will increase her chances of getting cervical cancer. The chances of cure on cervical cancer are not too bad if they catch it early, but not too great either. The chances of a cure if they don't get it early are really pretty bad.

It's all chances, of course. Most women with HPV don't get the cancer. You have to weigh the risks of getting cancer (pretty low) with the consequences if that 1 in whatever number is your daughter (pretty severe) and the risks/consequences/benefits of the vaccine.

If I vaccinate my own daughters (I have not yet decided)it will not be because I think she won't be a virgin when she marries, but because I think she may marry someone who is not in the same state, and because I will have decided the vaccine is relatively safe (not determined).

[gsk]

Thank you, Wendy. It's hard to sort out, so I appreciate your expertise. You bring up very valid concerns. I hope reliable information will soon be available. Regardless, with so many in the sexual revolution having already sown the wind, the next generation will indeed reap the whirlwind.

[Alexandra]

Good information, thanks. I'm holding out for more information as well. We've got time; my daughter is only three.