john

http://www.mercola.com/2006/jul/15/feds_approve_unnecessary_cervical_cancer_vaccine_that_will_make_drug_company_billions.htmFeds Approve Unnecessary Cervical Cancer Vaccine That Will Make Drug CompanyBillions All 11- and 12-year-old girls should receive a new vaccine to preventinfection with human papillomavirus (HPV), the most common cause of cervicalcancer, according to the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices(ACIP). The recommendation is geared to reach girls before they begin ***ualactivity, as HPV is the most common ***ually transmitted infection in theUnited States. However, the vaccine -- Gardasil, made by Merck -- is alsoadvised for females aged 13-26. The Food and Drug Administration approved Gardasil in June 2006. It islicensed for females aged 9-26 and is given in three doses over six months,at a cost of $120 per dose. Critics have raised concerns that states might require the HPV vaccinefor school admission, a move that would make "state officials, not parents,"in charge of the ***ual health of U.S. children. No states are consideringmaking the vaccine a school requirement at this time. Over 6 million Americans are infected with HPV each year. Mostinfections clear up on their own, but certain types of HPV can cause cancer. New York Times June 30, 2006 (Registration Required) USA Today June 30, 2006-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Mercola's Comment: Yes, you read it correctl. This vaccine will cost as much as 10 timesmore than other vaccines. Nearly $400 for the three-dose series. The panel's vote all but commits the federal government to buyvaccines for as many as 7 million girls at a total price that could exceed$2 billion. Yes folks, $2 billion for an absolutely unnecessary andworthless vaccine. Let me be more precise, worthless for consumers who will receiveit but not so worthless for Merck who will make billions from this vaccine.They have successfully manipulated the government again to transfer evenmore billions to their pockets. I haven't had a chance to research it, but my strong guess isthat this advisory panel is loaded with physicians connected to Merck and isrampant with conflict of interest just as others have been in the past. Merck needs this vaccine, as they are losing billions on Vioxxand billions more on Fosamax for all the lawsuits those drugs generated. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just get a shot, or in thefuture just eat a plant that is reengineered to contain a vaccine, thatwould rid of us cancer? Of course it would. Unfortunately, that is not the way our bodies were designed.Cancer prevention is not as simplistic as taking a vaccination. Maintaininga high level of immune integrity is the key, and this is done through thebasics of emotional balancing, optimized nutrition, avoidance of toxins,proper sleep, exercise and hydration. This research is clearly another deceptive ploy by Merck togenerate revenue for their vaccine division in exchange for the delusionalhope that a vaccine will reduce the risk of cancer. Cervical Cancer Virtually 100% Avoidable Cervical cancer is well do***ented to be caused by an infectionacquired through ***ual contact. So it is behaviorally avoidable. Manyconservatives oppose making this vaccine mandatory, citing fears that itcould send a subtle message condoning ***ual activity before marriage. Also, a New England Journal of Medicine study found the use ofcondoms reduces the incidence of HPV by 70 percent. By comparison, Gardasilcounteracts four varieties of HPV that cause 70 percent of the cases ofcervical cancer and 90 percent of genital warts. According to the CDC, HPV is the most common ***uallytransmitted disease in America (more than 6 million women contract itannually), yet the immune systems of many women are strong enough to clearup these infections on their own. Cervical Cancer Review Cervical cancer, arising in the lining of the cervix, affectsabout 9,700 women in the United States each year. About 3,700 die.Worldwide, a half million get the disease and 233,000 die. Back in the 1970s, herpes simplex virus (HSV) was proposed asthe ***ually transmitted cause of cervical cancer, based mostly onpopulation studies that showed a correlation of the disease with HSV DNA.That approach shifted to HPV in the 1980s, and over the years populationstudies set the pace for the now well-accepted view that cervical cancer isstrongly related to the transmission of HPV. This is a group of more than 100 viruses, about 30 of which aresaid to be linked to cervical cancer. Of these 30 or so, HPV-16 is said tobe found in 50 percent of cervical cancers. HPV-18 accounts for another 20percent. In addition to the population studies that link HPV to cervicalcancer, there is, for example, research showing that HPV viral DNA can befound integrated in the genetic structure of cervical cancers. Back in 1992, however, a question was raised about the dominantand increasingly entrenched theory that HPV causes cervical cancer. It camefrom Peter Duesberg and Jody Schwartz, molecular biologists at theUniversity of California at Berkeley. Among the various issues they raised about the acceptance of HPVas the cause of cervical cancer was their fundamental concern that there wasa lack of consistent HPV DNA sequences and consistent HPV gene expression intumors that were HPV-positive. They instead suggested that "rare spontaneousor chemically induced chromosome abnormalities which are consistentlyobserved in both HPV and HSV DNA-negative and positive cervical cancersinduce cervical cancer." In short, Duesberg and Schwartz were pointing to the possibilitythat "carcinogens may be primary inducers of abnormal cell proliferationrather than HPV or HSV." And here's the key point: "Since proliferatingcells [cancer cells dividing wildly] would be more susceptible to infectionthan resting cells, the viruses would just be indicators rather than causesof abnormal proliferation." The concept they raised back in 1992 is still relevant today,only science has gone on to assume that causation of cervical cancer hasbeen well established. Even the National Cancer Institute (NCI) says that "direct"causation has not been demonstrated; however, the NCI and just abouteveryone else works with the principle that it has been established. Lipservice is paid to other possible factors that may be involved in cervicalcancer such as environmental conditions, including smoking. Even dietaryfactors -- particularly low levels of vitamin A and folate -- have beensuggested as associated with a risk for cervical cancer. But once a vaccine to prevent HPV infection is raised as aweapon to prevent cervical cancer, then it's pretty clear that the medicalestablishment has gone all the way in accepting a theory.New Message SearchFind the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improvedmessage search.Share feedback on the new changes to GroupsRecent Activity a.. 7New Members b.. 1New FilesVisit Your Group .__,_._,___--------------------------------------------------------------------------------No virus foun

jeff

The vaccine will save thousands of lives.

Is that necessary? I guess that is your choice.

Jeff

john

haven't you got another pharma junket to go to?

johndoe

Yes people, here is a vaccine with about 100% efficacy, that will
prevent cervical cancer. For those who are not familiar with how the
disease progresses, let me inform you that left untreated, it's not a
pretty picture. Imagine a patient's innards becoming necrotic and
dripping down her thighs.
John Scudamore here thinks that preventing that from happening is
unnecessary.

And just from the title:
1) John Scudamore is not contesting the efficacy of the vaccine, which
is surprising for someone who continually claims that vaccines don't work;
2) How can this vaccine, which prevents disease, make the drug companies
billions if their aim is to keep people ill and buying their products?
At least, that's the claim I see constantly from the alt-med folks. You
can't have it both ways, although that concept has never stopped folks
like S***amore to claim that you can.

johndoe

BTW, how is your bum? Does that burn from that Satanic Black Line still
hurt?

jeff

Sorry. I don't go to pharma junkets. I have nothing to do with
pharmaceutical companies.

Jeff

bryan heit

Of course they aren't going to state the obvious. For every person who
is immunized represents a lot client for the alt-med camp. After all,
if they're not going to get sick then the alt-med people wont have
anyone to sell their junk to, expect maybe the odd hypochondriac.

Bryan

jan drew

Thanks, John.

This will be followed by the *gang* who will try to trash YOU. As usual.

eric bohlman

I have to disagree with you here. While alties do prey on the
desperately ill, that's only a tiny portion of their market. Their real
bread-and-butter market is the "worried well": the people who are
convinced that Bad Things are going to happen to them if they don't
cleanse their colons, get routine chiropractic adjustments, etc.; who
believe that their ought to be, and therefore is, a "cure" for all the
minor pains and discomforts that are part of being human; who display the
symptoms of inadequate sleep, insufficient energy expenditure and
excessive energy intake but don't want to believe that those problems
require basic lifestyle adjustments. The MO is to convince them that
there are monsters under the bed, and then collect protection money from
them.

The Alties will just release some fear mongering information and then
sell a vaccine de-toxification kit ( on special this week only $19.95 +
S/H ). Just as long as people fear Doctors and treatment Alties will
do just fine.

Eric