Senators and TDs in State of Shock after meeting REGRET Parents in Dáil Éireann.

by T Tue Nov 03, 2015 23:21

Found abit more info on Gardasil which is from a report on the launch of REGRET.

It says

A high incidence of serious reactions have been reported in the U.S [1] ever since Gardasil was released there in 2006. Even the drug manufacturer’s own clinical trials reveal a 1 in 40 (2.5%) incidence of a serious adverse reaction* [2], yet Irish parents are still told by the HSE that Gardasil is ‘very safe’. [3]

Although its cancer-preventing properties have never been proven, the HSE insists that the benefits of Gardasil outweigh the risks and even claim that it has been ‘fully tested’. This is despite the limited safety testing that took place as a result of this “life-saving vaccine” being fast-tracked through the regulatory approval [4] process. HSE did not inform parents that Gardasil contains genetically engineered non-human recombinant DNA [5], the effects of which are unknown and unpredictable when injected into a human host

Refs
[1] http://sanevax.org/hpv-vaccine-vaers-reports-march-2012/
[2] http://sanevax.org/fda-approved-gardasil-9-malfeasance-...dity/
[3] http://www.hse.ie/eng/health/immunisation/pubinfo/schoo.../get/
[4] http://sanevax.org/fast-tracking-oncology-drugs-questio...ed-2/
[5] http://sanevax.org/sane-vax-inc-announces-the-discovery...asil/

by T Tue Nov 03, 2015 23:31

A report today in the Irish Times covers the case of a mother who is seeking a High Court order for the withdrawal of the license given for the Gardasil HPV vaccine, currently being offered to the parents of 11-16 year old girls as a possible cervical cancer preventative. An order restraining the Health Products Regulatory Authority (HPRA), which monitors health products in Ireland, proceeding with use of Gardasil in any vaccine programme is also sought.

Her daughter is now disabled and needs permanent care.

In her proceedings, Ms Kirby claims, within 24 hours of receiving the vaccination in October 2011, her 11-year old daughter presented with severe flu like symptoms.

Those symptoms reappeared after her daughter got her second vaccine shot, she claims. Her daughter did not receive the third dose of the vaccine.

In an affidavit, Ms Kirby claims her daughter became extremely fatigued and suffered severe nausea which led to weight loss and muscle wastage. Her daughter also missed days at school, was hospitalised with bilateral pneumonia in March 2012 and was on antibitoics for six weeks.

Her daughter is now disabled to the point she needs to be cared for on a permanent basis, she claims.

The REGRET group is aware of over 100 girls that have reported illness after receiving the vaccine.

by regret Tue Dec 01, 2015 23:49

Kiva Murphy and her daughter Kelly on TV3 Sunday AM show 29/11/2015

She has had to leave school because of the side effects as have many others.

The health authorities have been notified of 861 cases of side effects since 2010

Caption: Video Id: eoG3Bz7OUIg Type: Youtube Video
HPV GARDASIL Vaccine Tv3

by anon Thu Aug 18, 2016 21:18

Yet more evidence of the deception around this vaccine

by Signe - ICS Mon Sep 12, 2016 20:22

The Journal FactCheck Team look at the allegations.

FactCheck: No, the reported side effects of the HPV vaccine do NOT outweigh the proven benefits

An ongoing online campaign against in-school vaccinations is not based on scientific evidence, and is contradicted by volumes of it.

AS THE SCHOOL year begins, tens of thousands of girls in the first year of secondary school will be offered the HPV vaccine in Ireland.
But a campaign called Regret has come to prominence, questioning the safety of the vaccine, and claiming it caused illness in 400 Irish teenage girls and young women after they took it.

Jacqui Madden in Co Roscommon and Deirdre Lally in Co Wicklow asked us to look into their claims, and assess the safety of the HPV vaccine, so we did.

(Remember, if you see a social media campaign you’re not sure about, email [email protected] or tweet @TJ_FactCheck).

Claim: The side effects of the HPV vaccine outweigh the benefits

Verdict: FALSE (by a very wide margin)

Repeated studies and clinical trials have shown HPV vaccines like Gardasil to be very effective in preventing the virus which leads to most cervical cancers

Repeated studies and clinical trials have shown HPV vaccines to be very safe, and potential allergic reactions and possible side effects to be extremely rare

What little scientific research has been done contradicting this overwhelming consensus, has consistently been shown to be flawed and unreliable

There is no evidence to show that the illnesses highlighted by the group Regret were caused by the HPV vaccine

THE FACTS

The Basics

HPV stands for Human Papillomavirus, which is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections, with almost all men and women contracting it at some point in their lives.

According to the HSE, 80% of women contract HPV, usually in their late teens or 20s.
In most cases, the virus clears on its own and does not have any symptoms, but in some cases, it can lead to genital warts. In women, HPV can cause changes in the cervix (the lower part of the uterus, or womb) which can lead to cervical cancer.

The HPV vaccine used in the school programme is called Gardasil, and protects against four out of 170 types of the virus: numbers 6, 11, 16, 18.
However, 16 and 18 alone are responsible for 70% of cervical cancers, as well as 75-80% of anal cancers, according to the manufacturer’s package leaflet and the Health Protection Surveillance Centre.

This fact wasn’t taken into account in the misleading claim made by Regret this week, that:
The HPV vaccine will not save any lives on its own merit, as it only protects against 4 strains out of more than 100 HPV infections.

The fact is that two of those four strains account for 70% of cervical cancers, and an immunisation against them therefore necessarily prevents some cervical cancer development, and therefore saves lives.

continued

by T Mon Sep 12, 2016 22:50

This is just a propanganda counter offensive by the drug companies. We can be 100% sure they are behind this campaign and they are getting worried because it is affecting their bottom line.

Notice the way, they abuse the very notion of science by claiming it for themselves. It is the drug companies that have been dishonest and unscientific.

Lets see their so called scientific studies because they usually cherry pick the data, the studies and conclusions are often flawed and most importantly they always ignore data that would result in a negative outcome and studies that they might sponsor that show detrimental effects they block from publishing so that they never see the light of day.

Ever since the mid 1980s onwards when large areas of scientific got commercialized including much of the biochemistry and medical fields, it has been very badly corrupted by the influence of money. We have now reached the point where there is a growing loss of trust and faith in science itself at the broader level. And why because the money interests have taken this public trust and totally abused it to their own ends.

It would be sad to think there might be people taken in by these shrills and in a few weeks after the first rounds of vaccines their daughter is afflicted with these terrible life changing and possibly permanent side effects.

It is interesting that they say above:
"What little scientific research has been done contradicting this overwhelming consensus, has consistently been shown to be flawed and unreliable"

First off they always say that. The tobacco industry said it for years. The chemical industry do and did say it for years about dangerous chemicals. This is standard practice by them. As to the studies they have a two pronged attack. The first is they simply ignore the studies and the second is they make sure no-one gets funding to do them. There is probably not a university anywhere in the Western world at this stage that does biochemistry / pharmaceutical research that does NOT getting funding from them. They only have to make one phonecall and they can threaten to pull the plug on research grants and careers and reputations of people who have gone up against them have been regularly destroyed.

Lastly though it is worth considering this. If the vaccine was against a deadly contagious disease, one can understand the costs and benefits, but when it is for a disease that you MIGHT get from sleeping around a lot but is not contagious and the vast majority of people simply do not recklessly do this, then you have to wonder why would you even take any risk? So the other question is how many people in Ireland in the last 20 years died from cervical cancers acquired through the virus because there are other ways of getting the cancer. Apparently around 200 people get it a year and about 100 die and most of these people are in their 50s. The number of these who got it from the virus would be even lower because smoking can lead to the cancer too.

Another point to consider is that the PAP smear test is effective at detecting cervical cancer and this has reduced the cancer rate by 70% where it is used widely because people are identified and treated. So again why would you ever consider putting your own children at risk so that some executives somewhere get their huge annual bonus?

People need to stop listening to these shrills trained in PR firms who to be fair to them are quite good at carefully distorting the facts, lying and framing the questions and debate but ultimately shamelessly misleading the public for their corporate friends.

by T Mon Sep 12, 2016 23:08

Reading the Journal article on the above, I see the authors quote a lot of medical studies and establishments. These are generally ones that are in their pockets. I also see the WHO mentioned but sadly being UN organisation, there is a lot of corporate influence over it and given the "weight" it carries, they make sure that their people are in all the key influential positions.

Anyhow here is some interesting facts from Dr Gary Null - Fraud in Vaccine Safety Studies

"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine." "No one knows the total amount provided by drug companies to physicians, but I estimate from the annual reports of the top 9 U.S.-based drug companies that it comes to tens of billions of dollars a year in North America alone. By such means, the pharmaceutical industry has gained enormous control over how doctors evaluate and use its own products. Its extensive ties to physicians, particularly senior faculty at prestigious medical schools, affect the results of research, the way medicine is practiced, and even the definition of what constitutes a disease." - Marcia Angell, MD http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/dr...tion/ See also: Thttp://ethicalnag.org/2009/11/09/nejm-editor/

Doctors rely primarily on studies but, vaccine makers manipulate studies to hide vaccine-injury. For example, instead of administering an inert (non-reactive) substance to the control group, they use another vaccine! Or they include the same toxic ingredients of the vaccine being tested and simply leave out the viral component and call it a placebo. Then, when the people in the control group have approximately the same number of adverse events as the people in the vaccine group, statisticians will say, "the vaccine did not increase the risk of getting the adverse event over placebo," and that is intrepreted as "the vaccine is safe." In other words, to vaccine makers, it's acceptable that http://www.vaccine-injury.info/pdf/gardasil_pi.pdf But, the 19 in the control group may have died because they were injected with all the same aluminum as those in the vaccine group. See the fraud? It's criminal.

In addition, they will say that some of the deaths in the vaccine group were clearly not related to the vaccine because the deaths are listed as suicide or auto accident. But no one knows if the girls comitted suicide as a result of vaccine side effects, or fainted while driving as a result of vaccine side effects. Syncope (loss of consciousness) is now a known side effect and girls are warned not to drive immediately after the shot. But that warning was not given during the trial. So, perhaps the 40 deaths were indeed due to the shots received during the trial. Yet "scientists" assume they were not, and you are told the vaccine is "safe." And, yet another way vaccine-injury is hidden is by cutting off monitoring after a short time, such as 5 days. If a person dies on the 6th day after the vaccination, the death is assumed to be not related to the vaccination, and not reported in the study. And so, conditions that take longer to develop, such as autoimmune conditions, would never be reported in vaccine studies. The bottom line is that, they say their doing "science", but it's just fraud with a white coat.

"One of the hidden secrets of the medical literature is that the named authors on a paper's byline, particularly in the case of clinical trials, are not necessarily the individuals who wrote the paper. It is not uncommon for pharmaceutical companies, or medical product manufacturers, to write their own papers and then find university professors to agree to be the named authors of the paper. The company employees are then invisible to the readers. Presumably, the suggestion that a certain medication or medical product is safe and efficacious will carry more weight if it comes from an unbiased source, often called a Key Opinion Leader, rather than a company representative. With ghostwritten papers it is hard to know where to draw the line between science and marketing. Because of its secretive nature, the true extent of this practice is unknown."
Full article: http://www.healthnewsreview.org/2013/01/introducing-a-t...ting/

"It is a problem for me that I am part of a profession that is systematically lying to people." -Dr Mark Donohoe

"When you have power you don't have to tell the truth. That's a rule that's been working in this world for generations. And there are a great many people who don't tell the truth when they are in power in administrative positions." -Dr. Dean Burk co-founder of the U.S. National Cancer Institute

A lie told each year by the CDC and repeated by doctors (to sell flu shots) is the number of deaths from flu. In 2001 the CDC said there were 62,034 deaths from flu. But 61,777 of those deaths were from pneumonia. In how many cases had flu been positively confirmed? Only eighteen! If the public knew that, how many people would line up for a mercury-containing flu shot? Source: http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/09/05/cdc-caught...ines/

And you can watch these videos to get an insight into how truly corrupt these people are

Caption: Video Id: y3XlJB7J5-o Type: Youtube Video
Gary Null Speaks at the NYS Assembly Hearing - Part 1 of 3

Caption: Video Id: Ch5OuzB9L48 Type: Youtube Video
Gary Null Speaks at the NYS Assembly Hearing - Part 2 of 3

Caption: Video Id: tAgWO2yq1k8 Type: Youtube Video
Gary Null Speaks at the NYS Assembly Hearing - Part 3 of 3

by regret - REGRET Thu Sep 15, 2016 20:18

SanityCheck: How Proven are HPV Vaccine Benefits?

The following is a response to the Journal.ie article FactCheck: No, the reported side effects of the HPV vaccine do NOT outweigh the proven benefits published 11/09/2016.

In part 1 of a 3-part report, we provide a "SanityCheck" on the "FactCheck" author's conclusions regarding HPV vaccine effectiveness.

FactCheck Conclusion #1:

“Repeated studies and clinical trials have shown HPV vaccines like Gardasil to be very effective in preventing the virus which leads to most cervical cancers”.

FactCheck also concludes that following Regret statement is a "misleading claim":

“The HPV vaccine will not save any lives on its own merit, as it only protects against 4 strains out of more than 100 HPV infections”.

SanityCheck:

All four efficacy studies cited in the FactCheck article are based on three doses (not two) and are thus invalid for the current situation in Ireland - here first year girls will only be given a total of two doses. Note that the current manufacturer PIL from the U.S. still states that all girls (regardless of age) require 3 doses to achieve the desired protection.

In addition, the studies cited by FactCheck do not demonstrate any proven benefit for preventing cervical cancer as they need to show duration of 15 years to contribute any effect and none of these studies show duration beyond 8 years.

However, assuming an idealized scenario (for discussion purposes) where 2 doses have the same protection as 3 doses, and with protection of indefinite duration (or a booster every 10 years), in that scenario we can still only expect a 10% reduction of HPV-related cervical abnormalities.

A co-author (Dr D. Harper) of the WHO study (1) cited by FactCheck in support of the vaccine summarises the limitations of the vaccine here:/

“HPV vaccination reduces the possibility of their daughter having an abnormal Pap test by 10% if the vaccines have not waned by the time the young adolescent becomes sexually active . HPV vaccine efficacy must last at least 15 years to contribute to the prevention of cervical cancers”.

This is confirmed by government sponsored HPV Vaccine Technology Assessments such as this Expert Group report from Austria. They based their model on the following assumptions:
- both screening and vaccination occuring
- a booster after 10 years
- model calculated under best case assumptions
They report "Compared to screening only, screening plus vaccination of 12-year-old girls would result in a median reduction of 10% fewer new cancer cases and 13% fewer cervical cancer deaths under best case assumptions over 52 years in the overall female population".

Yet the WHO study claims, “Both vaccines have demonstrated efficacy of over 90% against persistent infection due to genotypes 16 or 18 in women who received 3 doses of HPV vaccine”.

How do we reconcile the over 90% efficacy cited in the WHO study with the drastically smaller figure of 10% predicted above? Indeed Merck clinical trials claimed up to 98% efficacy. This breakdown provided by the popular mainstream science publication “Discover Magazine” gives an interesting insight into how supposed benefits evaporate under closer inspection:

“To achieve the 98 percent efficacy claim, Merck excluded from analysis anyone who “violated” the study protocol. In other words, all real-world problems that arose were excluded from analysis. Problems like girls who refused to take a second or third shot after they became sick and (correctly or incorrectly) blamed the vaccine. Or doctors who incorrectly gave the vaccine to someone who shouldn’t have received it. While it’s worth knowing how effective the vaccine is when it’s used exactly as it should be, for a public-health decision, it’s not as relevant as its real-world effectiveness.

To Merck’s credit, they reported that when all women in the study were analyzed, the vaccine’s efficacy dropped to 44 percent. Still, 44 percent might be considered a smashing success when you’re talking about saving lives. Except for one thing: the numbers get worse. The 44 percent benefit included only those women with the two specific cancer-causing HPV strains found in the vaccine. But when the researchers looked at negative cervical changes from any causes, they found that changes occurred in unvaccinated women at a rate of 1.5 events per 100 person-years, while vaccinated women had 1.3 events—dropping the benefit to 17 percent.

Moreover, most of the cervical changes tracked by the researchers weren’t even indicative of cervical cancer in the first place. Most were innocent cellular abnormalities that either disappear entirely on their own, or never progress to cancer. In fact, when they looked more closely at advanced cervical changes most likely to progress to cancer versus more innocent changes that go away spontaneously, it was the innocent changes that accounted for the decline.

Whether Gardasil will reduce cervical cancer deaths in real-world conditions has simply never been answered. It might—but that would take a long-term study, and one that should be done before it’s widely promoted”.

End of Part 1.

Part 2 will SanityCheck FactCheck's conclusions on HPV vaccine safety.

Studies cited by FactCheck in support of HPV vaccine safety and effectiveness:

1. WHO Study: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/85/9/06-038414/en/

2. Lu study on Efficacy and Safety - Review of 7 trials: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3034689/

3. Deleré study – The Efficacy and Duration of Vaccine Protection Against Human Papillomavirus (Review of 15 identified studies).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4174682/

4. De Vincenzo , Long-term efficacy and safety of HPV vaccine. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4262378/#b3...6-999 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4262378/tab...-999/