"I think there's a strong possibility that Gardasil was the catalyst that set off the ALS," Harper says. "It could have been the straw that broke the camel's back in a child who was already predisposed to the condition."
"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."
Gals, you can serve humanity by being guinea pigs, so more will be known about side effects. Isn't reducing cervical cancer a great cause? Oh, wait...
"If we vaccinate 11 year olds and the protection doesn’t last... we’ve put them at harm from side effects, small but real, for no benefit,” says Dr. Harper. “THE BENEFIT TO PUBLIC HEALTH IS NOTHING, THERE IS NO REDUCTION IN CERVICAL CANCERS <...>” She also says that enough serious side effects have been reported after Gardasil use that THE VACCINE COULD PROVE RISKIER THAN THE CERVICAL CANCER it purports to prevent. Cervical cancer is usually entirely curable when detected early through normal Pap screenings.
"the net benefit of the HPV vaccine to a woman is uncertain. Even if persistently infected with HPV, a woman most likely will not develop cancer if she is regularly screened"
Dr. Charlotte Haug, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association
And there you see the reason for the crap: they "think".
Immunology is not made for zerobrainers. -- "Die Frau ist ein Mißgriff der Natur... mit ihrem Feuchtigkeits-Überschuß und ihrer Untertemperatur körperlich und geistig minderwertiger... eine Art verstümmelter, verfehlter, mißlungener Mann...die volle Verwirklichung der menschlichen Art ist nur der Mann." Thomas von Aquin, hl., Kirchenlehrer, 1225-1274 Heilsames über christliche Lebensart: http://www.reimbibel.de
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:49:29 -0400, Mike <M...@none.xxx> wrote: >Happy Oyster wrote: >> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:55:27 -0400, Mike <M...@none.xxx> wrote:
>> And there you see the reason for the crap: they "think".
>> Immunology is not made for zerobrainers.
>Yes, imbecile, Dr. Harper thinks. You have no idea what thinking is. >You can type, monkeys can too.
Which makes monkey more intelligent than anti-vaxxers. Oh, well, that is easy... . -- "Wo sich ein Priester aufhält, darf kein Weib eintreten." Synode von Paris, 846 "In keiner Religion oder Weltanschauung ist die Frau so geachtet und geehrt wie im Christentum!" Der katholische Theologe Bernhard Häring im 20. Jahrhundert
> "I think there's a strong possibility that Gardasil was the catalyst > that set off the ALS," Harper says. "It could have been the straw that > broke the camel's back in a child who was already predisposed to the > condition."
> "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."
> Gals, you can serve humanity by being guinea pigs, so more will be known > about side effects. Isn't reducing cervical cancer a great cause? > Oh, wait...
> "If we vaccinate 11 year olds and the protection doesn’t last... we’ve > put them at harm from side effects, small but real, for no benefit,” > says Dr. Harper. “THE BENEFIT TO PUBLIC HEALTH IS NOTHING, THERE IS NO > REDUCTION IN CERVICAL CANCERS <...>” She also says that enough serious > side effects have been reported after Gardasil use that THE VACCINE > COULD PROVE RISKIER THAN THE CERVICAL CANCER it purports to prevent. > Cervical cancer is usually entirely curable when detected early through > normal Pap screenings.
> "the net benefit of the HPV vaccine to a woman is uncertain. Even if > persistently infected with HPV, a woman most likely will not develop > cancer if she is regularly screened"
The alleged quote from Dr. Harper (you cited one from March 2008) was reported in several media outlets. However, she has been mischaracterized :
"So I contacted Professor Harper. For avoidance of doubt, so that there can be no question of me misrepresenting her views, unlike the Express, I will explain Professor Harper’s position on this issue in her own words. They are unambiguous.
“I did not say that Cervarix was as deadly as cervical cancer. I did not say that Cervarix could be riskier or more deadly than cervical cancer. I did not say that Cervarix was controversial, I stated that Cervarix is not a ‘controversial drug’. I did not ‘hit out’ – I was contacted by the press for facts. And this was not an exclusive interview.”
Professor Harper did not “develop Cervarix”, as the Sunday Express said, but she did work on some important trials of Gardasil, and also Cervarix. “Gardasil is not a ‘sister vaccine’ as the Express said, it is a different compound. I do not know of the side effects of Cervarix as it is not available in the US.” Furthermore she did not say that Cervarix was being over marketed. “I did say that Merck was egregiously overmarketing Gardasil in the US- but Gardasil and Cervarix are not the same vaccines.”"
You may wish to read her work directly, as I have:
Mark Probert wrote: > On Oct 19, 12:55 am, Mike <M...@none.xxx> wrote: >> john wrote: >>> http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20091016/rare-disease-may-be-... Cases May Be Linked to Gardasil Vaccine >> "I think there's a strong possibility that Gardasil was the catalyst >> that set off the ALS," Harper says. "It could have been the straw that >> broke the camel's back in a child who was already predisposed to the >> condition."
>> "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."
>> Gals, you can serve humanity by being guinea pigs, so more will be known >> about side effects. Isn't reducing cervical cancer a great cause? >> Oh, wait...
>> "If we vaccinate 11 year olds and the protection doesn’t last... we’ve >> put them at harm from side effects, small but real, for no benefit,” >> says Dr. Harper. “THE BENEFIT TO PUBLIC HEALTH IS NOTHING, THERE IS NO >> REDUCTION IN CERVICAL CANCERS <...>” She also says that enough serious >> side effects have been reported after Gardasil use that THE VACCINE >> COULD PROVE RISKIER THAN THE CERVICAL CANCER it purports to prevent. >> Cervical cancer is usually entirely curable when detected early through >> normal Pap screenings.
>> "the net benefit of the HPV vaccine to a woman is uncertain. Even if >> persistently infected with HPV, a woman most likely will not develop >> cancer if she is regularly screened"
> The alleged quote from Dr. Harper (you cited one from March 2008) was > reported in several media outlets. However, she has been > mischaracterized :
> "So I contacted Professor Harper. For avoidance of doubt, so that > there can be no question of me misrepresenting her views, unlike the > Express, I will explain Professor Harper’s position on this issue in > her own words. They are unambiguous.
Non sequitur. She was somewhat mischaracterized (not much really but that's for later) by Sunday Express. Sunday Express pulled the story. The quotes above were from CBS, US News and other outlets, they remain there and Dr. Harper does not protest.
Dr. Harper is on record speaking against Gardasil (that she helped get approved). But after reading the Sunday Express piece a casual reader might conclude that she was saying these things about Cervarix.
> “I did not say that Cervarix was as deadly as cervical cancer.
Did Sunday Express say she said that? No.
*** from Sunday Express ******************
THE cervical cancer vaccine may be riskier and more deadly than the cancer it is designed to prevent, a leading expert who developed the drug has warned.
She also claimed the jab would do nothing to reduce the rates of cervical cancer in the UK.
*** end of quote ******************
There is no mischaracterizing here. She indeed said to the media (possibly including Sunday Express) that Gardasil (not Cervarix) could be (not was) riskier (not as deadly) than cervical cancer.
The phrase "Jab as deadly as cancer" is the title and the paper dis not attribute it to Dr. Harper.
> I did not say that Cervarix was controversial
The paper did not say she did, it is obviously the journalist's opinion.
>, I stated that > Cervarix is not a ‘controversial drug’. I did not ‘hit out’ – I was > contacted by the press for facts. And this was not an exclusive > interview.”
This is mischaracterization but not a serious one. Paper editors sex up the stories all the time.
> Professor Harper did not “develop Cervarix”, as the Sunday Express > said, but she did work on some important trials of Gardasil, and also > Cervarix.
“Gardasil is not a ‘sister vaccine’ as the Express said, it
> is a different compound. I do not know of the side effects of Cervarix > as it is not available in the US.” Furthermore she did not say that > Cervarix was being over marketed. “I did say that Merck was > egregiously overmarketing Gardasil in the US- but Gardasil and > Cervarix are not the same vaccines.”"
The piece has quotes from Dr. Harper (and probably all of them authentic) without the word 'Gardasil', and the reader is lead (intentionally or not) to believe that they are about Cervarix. This is the extent of mischaracterization by Sunday Express.
Last Sunday we incorrectly suggested that the cervical cancer vaccine Cervarix could be as deadly as cervical cancer and that the vaccine is ineffective.
We now accept that there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case and that Cervarix in fact provides protection against the viruses that cause 70% of cervical cancers.
We are happy to set the record straight and apologise for causing undue alarm to all those women and teenage girls considering vaccination against cervical cancer."
|
