# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Health & Well-Being >  Personalised cancer vaccines

## Firestarter

I already knew that “virus hunters” have been trying to prove “scientifically” that cancer is caused by a virus, but this is still not the official story on cancer.
I think I should add some arguments that the idea that vaccines can be used to fight cancer is ridiculous. But before I can, I have to figure out how anybody could believe such a thing in the first place.
I can find lots of alternative ideas on health care. I haven’t found anything to show that treatment of cancer victims with vaccines is ridiculous.

Furthermore the fact that this is customised (personalised) “treatment” means that it would be impossible to “scientifically” prove the efficacy.
It is not intended to become a mono-therapy but only in combination with the surgical removal of cancer, radiation and/or chemotherapy. I can imagine that the cancer vaccines have less adverse (“side”) effects than radiation and chemotherapy.

There have been earlier investigations into the possibility of cancer vaccines.
Earlier, unsuccessful cancer vaccines usually targeted a single distinctive cancer protein shared among patients, but these new ones are specific to an individual patient’s tumour.

For the last couple of months some articles have appeared about the revolutionary approach by the company BioNTech. This was based on a phase I trial of a total of 19 skin cancer victims of which 12 remained cancer free up to 32 months.
If I understand correctly, the theory is that by injecting the body with similar “neoantigens” that can be found in a tumour, which look foreign to the immune system, the immune system (T-cells) learns to attack the cancer cells. These “neoantigens” are specific to an individual patient’s tumour.

Similar results come from an international trial using a vaccine developed by Ugur Sahin of University Medical Center of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany.
They injected RNA coding for tumour “neoantigens” into the lymph nodes of 13 advanced melanoma patients whose tumours had been removed. Eleven remain cancer-free up to 26 months later, including two whose tumours reappeared, then shrank or were surgically removed: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/...p-cancer-check

Here’s another recent article.
The small Phase I trials need to be followed by larger studies, but the impressive results suggest the new approach work far better than earlier cancer vaccines.
These new cancer vaccines appears to have prevented early relapses in 12 people with skin cancer: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/201.../#.WWEhnRXyi9I

To make this treatment more convincing nice photos like the following are shown. This supposedly shows a T-cell attacking a cancer cell.

----------


## donnay

An a Amish man (Samuel A. Girod) makes a chickweed salve and he is in jail for 6 years.  Mundanes cannot say, "heal or cure" when they label their products but Big pHARMa can makes these claims because the FDA/CDC are their business buddies.

----------


## Firestarter

According to the state media, there really isnt any agenda to push for vaccines.

Everybody knows that cavities in your teeth arent caused by vaccines, but an amazing vaccine is being developed to prevent tooth decay nonetheless: http://www.sciencealert.com/scientis...nt-tooth-decay



> Regular visits to the dentist are an important part of keeping your teeth healthy. But what if you could give your oral health a boost by receiving a vaccine on top of your regular dental care routine?
> 
> Researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIOV) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences are working on such a vaccine, and their study has just been published in Scientific Reports.
> ()
> *When mice without caries received this vaccine, it conferred a 64.2 percent prophylactic efficacy, and in those mice that had already developed caries, the vaccine produced a 53.9 percent therapeutic effect*.


The full study shows that there are some side effects, but dont worry about those...
Jingyi Yang et al  _Second-generation Flagellin-rPAc Fusion Protein, KFD2-rPAc, Shows High Protective Efficacy against Dental Caries with Low Potential Side Effects_ (2017): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-10247-8



> Several studies have shown that flagellin triggers a prototypical systemic inflammatory response in mice, including the induction of proinflammatory cytokines and oxidative stress24,25,26. The flagellinTLR5 axis might also trigger cardiac innate immune responses and result in cardiovascular dysfunction27.
> ()
> The flagellin/TLR5 axis-induced response is a double-edged sword for its adjuvanticity and side effects. On one hand, flagellin exerts its adjuvanticity by activating a range of innate immune cells secreting certain cytokines and chemokines, which trigger an adaptive immune response. On the other hand, flagellin triggers a prototypical systemic inflammatory response, including the induction and secretion of proinflammatory cytokines in the lungs, small intestine, liver, cardiovascular system, and kidneys27, 44

----------


## donnay

*How to Remineralize Teeth Naturally & Reverse Tooth Decay*
https://wellnessmama.com/3650/remineralize-teeth/

*How to Reverse Cavities Naturally & Heal Tooth Decay*
https://draxe.com/naturally-reverse-...l-tooth-decay/

*Your TEETH Are Alive*
http://thegrownetwork.com/your-teeth-are-alive/

----------


## Firestarter

When I started this thread, I couldn’t find the right words to explain that the idea of fighting cancer with “personalised vaccines” is ridiculous, but I’ll give it a try now.

It seems plausible that injecting the body with similar “neoantigens” that can be found in a cancer tumour, would cause cancer (or at the very least would cause harm) instead of fighting cancer.
If these “neoantigens” don’t cause damage to the body, however, it seems implausible that cancer tumours would cause harm at all.

Further reasoning leads to the conclusion that personalised cancer vaccines could only work, if our immune system fights cancer tumours, which could mean that cancer is caused by a deficiency of the immune system...
If that hypothesis is correct, the best way to fight cancer is to give your immune system a boost, which can be done by a healthy and varied diet.


When I started this thread, I didn’t even realise that the controversial HPV vaccines (HPV: Human PapillomaVirus) have been marketed as cervical cancer prevention. These HPV vaccines supposedly prevent infections with viruses that in turn cause cancer.
The idea that a viral infection could cause cancer isn’t nearly as ridiculous as that the Zika virus can fight brain cancer: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ht=zika+cancer

I will try to explain how easily statistics can be manipulated in relation with the HPV vaccines.
The theory that having sex and becoming infected with certain viruses causes cancer could be “scientifically” proven in the following hypothetical way...
If for example a large percentage of women in a trial are prostitutes, this could have the following consequences.
Prostitutes are known to have many sexual encounters. It is also known that prostitutes have a high risk of certain diseases. Furthermore a relatively large percentage of prostitutes are drug addicts.
If for example using hard drugs increases the risk of cancer, and combining this with certain diseases that often happen for prostitutes, this could already be used to create evidence...

After writing the previous as sort of a writing exercise, I found the following information on the internet.


Here’s the literature review M. Soohoo et al “_Cervical HPV Infection in Female Sex Workers: A Global Perspective_” (2013): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3915319/
In this article the conclusion is drawn that “_In female sex workers (FSWs), the risk of HPV infection and cervical cancer is especially high_”.
The question is by what this is caused. My theory is that this is (or could be) caused by “recreational” drug abuse, but according to the state media this is caused by many sexual contacts.
To make the manipulation of statistics more obvious, we can see the bizarre conclusion that “_One study saw that HPV prevalence was higher in 20-year-old or younger women compared to women over 20 years old_”. If younger FSWs (prostitutes) have been infected more with HPV than older FSWs, this contradicts the theory that sex causes HPV infection. Obviously this was written to convince women that especially sex at a young age causes cancer…

It is also mentioned that many FSWs are HIV-positive, so if you follow the theory that HIV causes immune deficiency (AIDS), you could also reach the conclusion that cervical cancer is caused by immune deficiency.
According to this literature review the median overall prevalence of HPV among HIV positive FSW is 73.3% (ranging from 32-87%). To manipulate the results, prostitutes with HIV infection were removed from the main analysis. This is especially doubtful, when you realise that there is no reliable HIV-test, which means that HIV-positive can’t be used for a scientific conclusion.


Then I looked for a paper on the relation between drug abuse and cervical cancer. Strangely I couldn’t find much…
The following paper focuses on cocaine in relation with HPV - H. Minkoff et al “_The Relationship between Cocaine Use and Human Papillomavirus Infections in HIV-Seropositive and HIV-Seronegative Women_”: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/idog/2008/587082/
Look at the formulation of this conclusion:



> *Cocaine use is associated with an increased risk of detection* of both prevalent and incident oncogenic HPV infection, as well as an increased risk of HPV-positive SIL over time.




Another well-known risk factor in getting cancer is smoking; the cocaine users were often also heavy smokers:



> Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the study population at baseline. Women acknowledging crack/cocaine use were older, more likely to be African Americans, less likely to be Hispanic, had more sex partners in the last six months, and were more likely to report heavy cigarette use.


Also interesting is that studies are referenced, which show that cocaine abuse causes immune deficiency:



> In one study of lymphocytes from individuals with cocaine in their urine, it was found that “Memory" CD8+ T cell subpopulations (i.e., CD45RO+) were reduced in the cocaine-positive patients leading the authors to conclude that this might “represent a disruption of particular immunologic cell networks which could ultimately influence host resistance to infection".
> (…)
> Shen and colleagues, evaluating a mouse model in which cocaine was injected intraperitoneally found that all immune parameters, other than lymphocyte transformation of the splenic or the peripheral blood lymphocytes, were suppressed [11].
> Other investigators have shown that withdrawal from cocaine can also induce deleterious immune alterations. Using a rat model, Avila demonstrated that repeated exposure to cocaine followed by withdrawal led to activation of the neuroendocrine stress response, which alters cellular immunity and possibly contributes to an increased susceptibility to infection [13].
> (…)
> Perhaps most germane to our findings is the work of Lopez [33] and colleagues, who found that daily cocaine administration induced a significant decrease in the number of IgA+ cells with a concomitant increase in the number of CD8+ cells per villi in the intestinal lamina propria (ILP).


 
I have also found a more recent story (posted by Donnay) about the teenager Jasmin Soriat from Vienna, who died after being poisoned with the HPV vaccine, Gardasil, with interesting background information.
Johan Missliwetz was ordered by the court to perform a second autopsy on Soriat’s body, and concluded that the HPV vaccine could have been the cause of death. After Missliwetz reported his results to the drug regulation authorities, he received many calls from “_senior members of the medical establishment_”. They attempted to “intervene” and many professors asked him to stop talking about vaccination tests. Missliwetz has subsequently taken an “early retirement”.

_The Independent_ published an article about 131 young women who suffered HPV vaccine injuries. Another 18 young women came forward only a week later.

According to Bernard Dalbergue, who worked directly with Gardasil’s manufacturer, Merck:



> I predict that Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all time because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that *this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturers. Gardasil is useless and costs a fortune!*
> In addition, decision-makers at all levels are aware of it! Cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, paralysis of the lower limbs, vaccine-induced MS and vaccine-induced encephalitis can be found, whatever the vaccine.


Dianne Harper is one of the very few specialists on HPV in the world; she explained:



> *the benefit to public health is nothing, there is no reduction in cervical cancers*, they are just postponed, unless the protection lasts for at least 15 years, and over 70% of all sexually active females of all ages are vaccinated.


According to Christian Fiala:



> *No-one has shown that the HPV vaccine actually reduces the rate of cervical cancer.*
> As long as we have no proof that cervical cancer is caused by HPV, it is fundamentally useless to vaccinate against HPV because the chances are the cancer will occur whether there is HPV or not.


Peter Duesberg, who was once a highly respected biochemist, before he became ridiculed for his views on HIV/AIDS, takes this a step further:



> The [HPV] vaccine should be stopped until it’s proved that it protects against cancer… It has the highest number of side-effects ever of any vaccine.
> In the US, it has more side-effects reported than all other vaccines combined. *Since there is no scientific evidence that it will do anything else than occasionally cause warts, which will be eliminated by the immune system, there is no need for vaccination against this virus.*


http://www.collective-evolution.com/...ks-for-itself/
(archived here: http://archive.fo/7a5zB)

----------


## Firestarter

When the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was introduced in 2006, cervical cancer rates had been steadily declining for several decades.

Sweden had relatively low levels of cervical cancer.
Since Sweden approved the Gardasil vaccine in 2006, Swedens cervical cancer rates stopped declining. In 2017, Swedens Center for Cervical Cancer Prevention reported that the incidence of cervical cancer is climbing in nearly all counties.
In the two-year period from 2013 to 2015, the cervical cancer rates in Sweden increased with 20%.

An (anonymous) Swedish researcher found that while the cervical cancer rates in younger women (ages 20-49) increased considerably, the cancer rates for older women (over age 50) didnt increase.


Sweden approved Gardasil in 2006.
By 2015, the oldest girls in the catch-up group (ages 15-18) that were vaccinated in Sweden had reached their early twenties and were within the 20-29-year range that displayed the greatest increase in cervical cancer incidence.


If Gardasil causes cervical cancer - this is what you would expect

While the dying rate from cervical cancer is only .23 per 10,000, the serious adverse event rate of Gardasil is 1 in 15 (7%) and a death rate among the vaccinated is 14 per 10,000: https://worldmercuryproject.org/news...rvical-cancer/
  (archived here: http://archive.is/PI4OX)

----------


## Zippyjuan

From links in your article:  https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k2059.full




> *HPV vaccines are effective and safe and work best in young women, review finds
> *
> 
> Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines are effective against pre-cancerous changes that could lead to cervical cancer, and they cause no serious side effects, a Cochrane review has found.1
> 
> The reassuring conclusions, based on 26 studies involving 73 428 women, confirmed what the vaccine trials had shown—that these vaccines are a powerful tool in reducing deaths from cervical cancer. They work best if given to young women who are free of HPV at the time of vaccination, almost eliminating cervical lesions, but they also approximately halve this risk in women aged 15-26 who are already infected with HPV.

----------


## Firestarter

> From links in your article:  https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k2059.full


The article isn't freely viewable.

Without evidence I have no reason to believe this...

----------


## donnay

> From links in your article:  https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k2059.full


Did you get your vaccine yet?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> The article isn't freely viewable.
> 
> Without evidence I have no reason to believe this...


It provides more info than your article and is a link from your own article.  This much can be read:  




> *HPV vaccines are effective and safe and work best in young women, review finds*
> 
> Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines *are effective against pre-cancerous changes that could lead to cervical cancer, and they cause no serious side effects, a Cochrane review has found.1*
> 
> The reassuring conclusions, based on* 26 studies involving 73 428 women, confirmed what the vaccine trials had shown—that these vaccines are a powerful tool in reducing deaths from cervical cancer.* They work best if given to young women who are free of HPV at the time of vaccination, almost eliminating cervical lesions, but they also approximately halve this risk in women aged 15-26 who are already infected with HPV.

----------


## Firestarter

> It provides more info than your article and is a link from your own article. This much can be read:


 You’ve quoted the entire abstract of the “article” *twice (!)*, while bizarrely claiming that it’s more informative than the article that I’ve linked to...
Here’s the relevant quote about “your” article: 


> From their inception, the two HPV vaccines (Merck’s Gardasil and, outside the U.S., GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix) have been aggressively marketed, *with their potential benefits oversold and their many risks disguised, particularly through the use of inappropriate placebos. It has been left to independent researchers to critique the regulatory apparatus’s whitewashed evidence.*


This shouldn’t surprise anyone, as _Zippyjuan_ even invents completely bogus defence for vaccines, see for example the following post: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6543491


For some reason big pharma hasn’t claimed that men can also get cervical cancers, but instead invented that oral sex leads to HPV infection, which can cause throat cancer in men instead.
This “explains” that men are 4 times more likely than women to be diagnosed with oral cancer. About 13,200 oral cancers are diagnosed in US men each year, compared with (only) 3,200 in women. It’s even called - HPV oral cancer.
HPV virus is now found in 70% of all new oral cancers.

They invented a bizarre explanation that lesbian women don’t have a higher risk on throat cancer…
HPV is usually wiped out without any symptoms in women, because an HPV infection usually sets off their immune system. We must conclude based on this story, that women don’t need a vaccine...
Supposedly in men the immune system doesn’t protect against HPV - among 384 men, only 8% produced antibodies. The article doesn’t present the rate among women for comparison...

Because no early screening test exists for oral cancer, you’d never guess which solution is presented...
Poison all pubescent children – not only girls, but also boys – with HPV-vaccines.

I haven’t seen a good explanation for why HPV-related tumours have more than quadrupled over the last 20 years: http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-wo...204118554.html


You can't make this $hit up!

----------


## Zippyjuan

> While the dying rate from cervical cancer is only .23 per 10,000, the serious adverse event rate of Gardasil is 1 in 15 (7%) and a *death rate among the vaccinated is 14 per 10,000*: https://worldmercuryproject.org/news...rvical-cancer/
> (archived here: http://archive.is/PI4OX)


Traced the other link. 

Death rate among vaccinated (and the unvaccinated) is actually 100%.  Everybody dies. 

What were the causes of death in the anonymous (couldn't use their real name?) Gardacil study? (source of reported effects was a letter, not a study https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k2059/rr  and is not supported by the links it contains:

http://cochranelibrary-wiley.com/doi...9069.pub3/full




> There is high-certainty evidence that HPV vaccines protect against cervical precancer in adolescent girls and young women aged 15 to 26. The effect is higher for lesions associated with HPV16/18 than for lesions irrespective of HPV type. The effect is greater in those who are negative for hrHPV or HPV16/18 DNA at enrolment than those unselected for HPV DNA status. There is moderate-certainty evidence that HPV vaccines reduce CIN2+ in older women who are HPV16/18 negative, but not when they are unselected by HPV DNA status.
> 
> We *did not find an increased risk of serious adverse effects*.  *The deaths reported in the studies have been judged not to be related to the vaccine.  No pattern in the cause or timing of death has been established*.

----------


## Firestarter

> Death rate among vaccinated (and the unvaccinated) is actually 100%.  Everybody dies.


This is the quote from the referenced study (the quote is in both links in your last post...):



> The risk of serious adverse events is similar between control and HPV vaccines in women of all ages (669 versus 656/10,000, RR 0.98 (0.92 to 1.05), high certainty). Mortality was 11/10,000 in control groups compared with 14/10,000 (9 to 22) with HPV vaccine (RR 1.29 [0.85 to 1.98]; low certainty).






> What were the causes of death in the anonymous (couldn't use their real name?) Gardacil study? (source of reported effects was a letter, not a study https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k2059/rr  and is not supported by the links it contains:
> 
> http://cochranelibrary-wiley.com/doi...9069.pub3/full


 The first link is a relatively short (anonymous) letter; it concludes as follows: 


> However, controls are not placebo but other vaccines, so we apparently have serious adverse events in 1 in 15 cases, 11 deaths per 10,000 among controls and excess of 3 deaths, 14 per 10,000 for those receiving HPV vaccines.


The second link is not the full report, but some sort of summary that doesn't present any evidence, but only the conclusion; including: 


> Studies were not large enough or of sufficient duration to evaluate cervical cancer outcomes.
> (…)
> Data in older women were not available for this comparison.

----------


## Firestarter

The report that was an important source to the _Mercury project_ article I posted on 20 May, was retracted on 26 May...




> On verification of his identity, the editor confirmed that (a) the author had the necessary qualifications, expertise and research experience on the subject of the article; and (b) the author did face a credible threat of harm, making it necessary not to be named publicly.
> Further we reconfirmed the reviewers’ conclusions: that *the article used publicly available data with a simple statistical method; made a fair attempt to report a possible association of the increased incidence of carcinoma cervix with HPV vaccination*; and suggested more research. We felt that the data and analysis could be scientifically appreciated and critiqued without reference to the author.
> (…)
> While our assessment of the science of the article may be correct, we have concluded that tolerating the author’s deception and retaining the article was an error of judgment.


http://ijme.in/articles/increased-in...n/?galley=html

Here’s the archived version of the (anonymous, by now retracted) report: http://archive.is/C9tfJ

----------


## Firestarter

The following article presents some questions on the controversial human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil - 27 “little secrets” not known about Gardasil.
Following is a list of some of the “secrets” not known about Gardasil.

1. Whether Gardasil prevents cancer 
3. Whether Gardasil increases the risk of cancer.



> A May 2006 FDA VRBPAC document stated girls previously exposed to vaccine-relevant human papillomavirus and get inoculated with Gardasil have a 44.6% increase in getting cervical cancer in their life time.


5. Whether there is increased risk of autoimmune disorders due to the recombinant HPV DNA
6. If HPV is necessarily an infection transmitted by sexual intercourse
12. Long term serious side effects 
13. What the results would be if a true placebo had been used in all the clinical trials



> The FDA allowed Merck to use a potentially reactive aluminum containing placebo as a control for most trial participants, rather than a non-reactive saline solution placebo. A reactive placebo can artificially increase the appearance of safety of an experimental drug or vaccine in a clinical trial.


 http://offtheradar.co.nz/vaccines/29...e-secrets.html
(archived here: http://archive.is/joMG6)

 Instead of a placebo they allowed the use of a “_reactive aluminum containing placebo_”. That’s a “placebo” with adverse effects...

----------


## Firestarter

I’ve found 2 literature reviews, with criticism on HPV-vaccines.


The incidence of cervical cancer in India is 27 per 100,000 women with a mortality of 15.2 per 100,000 women.
Cervical cancer has been rapidly declining in India over the past 2 to 3 decades, without screening or vaccination.  A study from Mumbai showed an average annual decline in cervical cancer incidence of 1.8% between 1976 and 2005. The average annual decline was even steeper between 1991 and 2005 (2.8%).
The age standardized incidence rate of cervical cancer in Mumbai dropped from 41.1 in 1976 to 26.6 in 2005 (per 100,000 female population in age group 30-64 years).

Although both approved HPV-vaccines (Gardasil and Cervarix) are reported as safe, data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in the US suggests that the rate of Gardasil-associated adverse reactions is 4.3/100.000 - 2.5 times higher than the death rate from cervical cancer.
The adverse event rates in the VAERS database are probably highly underestimated.

According to the official statistics…
About 90% of HPV infections clear “naturally”.
Of the remaining 10% - 85-90% will take a little longer to clear “naturally” in time.
Of the remaining 1.0-1.5% - only 5% progress to “higher grade” cervical cancer (CIN II/III). CIN II/III can also “naturally” resolve in time.
Of those remaining 0.050-0.075%, about 40% will progress to cervical cancer in 20-30 years.
So about 0.02-0.03% of the women that get infected with HPV eventually get cervical cancer. Not all of those women die. 

Because there have been no trials at all with cervical cancer as an end point, because sample size and trial duration would be impractical – there is no evidence that any vaccine prevents cervical cancer.
The trial size and duration would be impractical… because cervical cancer is a very rare outcome of HPV infection! If cancer is such a rare outcome of HPV; a “surrogate endpoint” like HPV infection isn’t very relevant.

The longest available follow-up data from phase II trials for Gardasil and Cervarix are 5 and 8.4 years, respectively.
If we suppose that immunity becomes less within 20 years after vaccination, it seems unlikely that HPV-vaccines could prevent cancer.
Data suggest “immunity” for up to 5-8 years after vaccination. Even if this is true this doesn’t show that cervical cancer could be prevented 2 to 3 decades after vaccination.

In “developed” countries on the other hand, with cervical cancer screening, vaccination programs would only be cost-effective if the vaccine provides complete and life-long efficacy and there is at least 75% coverage of the pre-adolescent population.
This makes the cost-effectiveness of these vaccines in “developed” countries also very doubtful.

Sudeep Gupta et al – _Is human papillomavirus vaccination likely to be a useful strategy in India?_  (2013): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3889025/
(archived here: http://archive.is/rBod0)


In response to the many adverse events, Japan has suspended the HPV vaccination program in 2013.

Three different types of HPV-vaccines are currently sold: Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline); Gardasil or Silgard (Merck&Co); and the newest Gardasil 9.
Most HPV vaccine randomized trials didn’t use inert placebo in the control group, but aluminium.

Only one double blind trial with an inert placebo for the quadrivalent HPV-vaccine was done. In this trial, 842 boys and 939 girls from 9 to 15 years: 1184 were injected with the HPV-vaccine and 597 with saline placebo.
The efficacy outcomes described boys and girls separately. The adverse events were displayed in a single group. This could have been done to hide something...
46.4% in the vaccine group compared to 44.5% in the placebo group experienced adverse events. That is almost half (even for the placebo)!
Serious adverse events occurred in 5 (0.4%) of the vaccinated subjects and none in the placebo group. These serious events were considered to be caused by something else than the vaccine.

The 4-year follow-up VIVIANE study compared 2881 healthy women older than 25 years injected with the bivalent HPV-vaccine with 2871 women injected with aluminium “placebo”.
There were more “symptoms” in the week after vaccination in the HPV-vaccine group (65%) than in the control group (58%). In the HPV-vaccine group 41% and in the aluminium group 36% of the symptoms were reportedly caused by the injection.
There were 14 deaths (later corrected to 13 as 1 was caused by breast cancer) in the HPV-vaccine group compared to 3 in the aluminium group. None of the deaths were believed to be caused by the injections.
Again many “symptoms” (also in the aluminium group)...

In another large study 7078 women were injected with the 4-valent HPV vaccine, compared to 7071 young women with the (new) HPV 9-valent vaccine.
Vaccine-related events occurred more frequently in the 9-valent group than in the 4-valent group - 2086 (29.5%) vs 1929 (27.3%).
The 9-valent group had more serious adverse events than the 4-valent group - 3.3% vs 2.6%. Only 2 serious adverse events in each group were considered to be “vaccine-related”.
Severe injection site swelling was also more frequent in the 9-valent group - 3.8% vs 1.5%.

Pooled analysis of all trials comparing 29,953 healthy girls and women poisoned with bivalent HPV vaccine vs. hepatitis A vaccine showed significantly more symptoms in the HPV vaccine group.

M. Martínez-Lavínand L. Amezcua-Guerra – _Serious adverse events after HPV vaccination: a critical review of randomized trials and post-marketing case series_ (2017): http://www.autoimmunity-network.com/...tol%202017.pdf


These HPV-vaccines that cause so many adverse reactions have been approved!

----------


## Zippyjuan

As the long article notes:




> In another large study* 7078 women* were injected with the 4-valent HPV vaccine,* compared to 7071* young women with the (new) HPV 9-valent vaccine.





> *Only 2 serious adverse events in each group were considered to be “vaccine-related*”.


That is four out of 14,000.





> The 4-year follow-up VIVIANE study compared* 2881 healthy women older than 25 years injected with the bivalent HPV-vaccine with 2871 women injected with aluminium “placebo*”.





> There were* 14 deaths* (later corrected to 13 as 1 was caused by breast cancer) in the HPV-vaccine group compared to 3 in the aluminium group.* None of the deaths were believed to be caused by the injections*.







> Only one *double blind trial with an inert placebo for the quadrivalent HPV-vaccine was done. In this trial, 842 boys and 939 girls from 9 to 15 years: 1184 were injected with the HPV-vaccine and 597 with saline placebo*.





> These serious events were considered to be* caused by something else than the vaccine*.

----------


## Firestarter

> As the long article notes:
> 
> That is four out of 14,000.


 You haven't quoted from the "long article" but from my long summary...




> In another large study 7078 women were  injected with the 4-valent HPV vaccine, compared to 7071 young women  with the (new) HPV 9-valent vaccine.
> Vaccine-related events occurred more frequently in the 9-valent group than in the 4-valent group - 2086 (29.5%) vs 1929 (27.3%).
> The 9-valent group had more serious adverse events than the 4-valent  group - 3.3% vs 2.6%. Only 2 serious adverse events in each group were  considered to be “vaccine-related”.
> Severe injection site swelling was also more frequent in the 9-valent group - 3.8% vs 1.5%.


You probably don't agree that it's highly unlikely that from the more than 400! (some 3%) adverse events only 4 (0%) were  “vaccine-related”.

----------


## Firestarter

The following “scientific” report from 2017 suggests that the controversial HPV vaccine causes lower birth rates. This study analysed information gathered in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, representing 8 million 25 to 29-year-old women in the US between 2007 and 2014.

Birth rates in the US have recently fallen to record lows from 118.1 in 2007 to 104.5 in 2015 per 1000 females aged 25–29.
See the birth rates in the US from 1995 to 2015.


One factor could be the vaccination against the human papillomavirus (HPV) that “coincidentally” was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2006 and recommended for females aged 11–26 (and since 2011 also for males of the same age group).

Adverse effects of the HPV vaccine include menstrual disturbances and mood swings. Shortly after the HPV vaccine was licensed, reports of women experiencing Primary Ovarian Failure (POF) emerged.
The estimated incidence of POF for females under the age of 40 is 1 in 100, but this could be considerably higher because it’s masked by the birth control pill. Between 10% and 30% of women with POF also have (other) autoimmune disorders.

Approximately 60% of women who had not been poisoned with the HPV vaccine had been pregnant at least once, compared to only 35% of women who were poisoned with the HPV vaccine. The difference was especially large for women that had been married. Of the married women 75% that didn’t get the vaccine gave birth, while only 50% who were poisoned with the HPV vaccine had been pregnant.
61.1% of the women not poisoned with HPV gave birth, compared to only 35.3% of the women poisoned with the HPV vaccine.
The pregnancy frequency decreased with increasing numbers of HPV vaccine shots.

See (part of) Table 3 - Ratios of having been pregnant for women who received an HPV shot versus women who did not.
See (part of) Table 5 - Births of females aged 25–29 in the US, by number of HPV shots.


This suggests that at least part of the reason for the recent decline in US birth rates is caused by the HPV vaccine. Why did it take so long before this link was found (some studies have even denied this link)?
If all married women had been vaccinated with the HPV vaccine, the number of married women having conceived could have fallen with another 1 million.

There are other (possible) causes for the lower birth rates...
Higher employment rates (of women) decreases birth rates.
No epidemiological study on the influence of Aluminium (a component of vaccines) on fertility exists but Karakis et al in 2014 found an association between prenatal exposure to Aluminium and death of the (unborn) baby. 
There could also be a link between Aluminium exposure and POF.

Gayle DeLong – _A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection_ (2017): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...4.2018.1477640

----------


## Firestarter

It looks like French doctor Gerard Delepine was inspired by the report on the rising Swedish cervical cancer rates to do a similar study. On 23 July, his analysis was published as an “Open letter to parliamentarians, and all citizens”.
Delépine explains that HPV vaccines increase cervical cancer rates or stop the decline: http://healthimpactnews.com/2018/fre...ination-rates/

Unfortunately the letter is in French (see some of the presented graphs below): https://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libr...inent-d-206314
(archived here: http://archive.is/pAkVv)

See rising cervical cancer rates since HPV vaccines were introduced in Norway.


See rising cervical cancer rates since HPV vaccines were introduced in Great Britain.



Even though there is no evidence that the human papillomavirus (HPV) causes any form of cancer, the government of Britain (a day after the French “open letter”) has recommended poisoning all British boys (age 12 and 13) with HPV vaccines too: https://www.theguardian.com/society/...cancer-england


If you still believe in cancer vaccines, maybe you reconsider when you learn that big pharma is working on tooth vaccines and fat vaccines (unfortunately I’m not kidding): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...gainst-obesity

----------


## Chester Copperpot

For the most part Ive been against vaccines because of their ingredients and over-hyped marketing...

However, after coming down with HPV-related oral cancer myself, I have changed my position in this case. I would have much rather have gotten a vaccination for HPV rather than have gone through the treatment I did plus the worrying of dying.

I tell people with sons to have them get the vaccine.. If I had a son I would insist he get it as well.

----------


## Firestarter

> However, after coming down with HPV-related oral cancer myself, I have changed my position in this case. I would have much rather have gotten a vaccination for HPV rather than have gone through the treatment I did plus the worrying of dying.


 There is not a shred of evidence that HPV causes ant type of cancer.
Because HPV supposedly causes cancer in very rare occassions it would be impossible to "prove" a causal relationship.

That's not even counting that it's claimed that so many men supposedly get throat cancer through oral sex (instead of women) caused by HPV because their immune system cannot handle HPV.
If your male immune system can't cope with HPV, it wouldn't be (even theoretically) possible for a HPV vaccine to help your immune system make antbodies.
The whole theory contradicts itself...

Of course it's easy for me to talk (sitting behind a computer screen), while I wish you good health I ask you to stop advising people to get poisoned with HPV vaccines.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> There is not a shred of evidence that HPV causes ant type of cancer.
> Because HPV supposedly causes cancer in very rare occassions it would be impossible to "prove" a causal relationship.
> 
> That's not even counting that it's claimed that so many men supposedly get throat cancer through oral sex (instead of women) caused by HPV because their immune system cannot handle HPV.
> If your male immune system can't cope with HPV, it wouldn't be (even theoretically) possible for a HPV vaccine to help your immune system make antbodies.
> The whole theory contradicts itself...
> 
> Of course it's easy for me to talk (sitting behind a computer screen), while I wish you good health I ask you to stop advising people to get poisoned with HPV vaccines.


Id advise you to do a few things right now but I dont feel like getting yelled at by the admin.. Go thru what I went thru and you might see another point of view.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> For the most part Ive been against vaccines because of their ingredients and over-hyped marketing...
> 
> However, after coming down with HPV-related oral cancer myself, I have changed my position in this case. I would have much rather have gotten a vaccination for HPV rather than have gone through the treatment I did plus the worrying of dying.
> 
> I tell people with sons to have them get the vaccine.. If I had a son I would insist he get it as well.


Ron Paul called the polio vaccine a "blessing" because he personally saw the damages that polio can do to people he grew up with.

----------


## Firestarter

> Ron Paul called the polio vaccine a "blessing" because he personally saw the damages that polio can do to people he grew up with.


 Did Ron Paul really call the polio vaccines a a blessing?
The "success" of polio was nothing but another fraud: relabelling paralysis from "polio" (after introduction of the vaccine) to "non-polio"...
See the quote and other thread (link below).




> Mortin S. Biskind was one of the first to see the pesticides as the cause of the polio “epidemic”:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				Central nervous system diseases such as polio are actually the  physiological and symptomatic manifestations of the ongoing government  and industry sponsored inundation of the world's populace with central  nervous system poisons.
> (...)
> When the population is exposed to a chemical agent known to produce in  animals lesions in the spinal cord resembling those in human polio, and  thereafter the latter disease increases sharply in incidence and  maintains its epidemic character year after year, is it unreasonable to  suspect an etiologic relationship?
> ...


 http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...vaccines/page2

----------


## Firestarter

Even the state legislation process on the HPV vaccine Gardasil was controversial...

In June 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV). Gardasil, of Merck & Co Inc, was licensed for vaccination of females 9 to 26 years.

Merck & Co Inc actively promoted (lobbied) mandatory, school-entry HPV vaccination in several states. Merck proactively contacted legislators to discuss strategies to maximise uptake of Gardasil by introducing legislation, often drafting the bills and searching for a sponsor.
Merck mobilised legislators primarily through Women in Government (WIG), a national, “non-profit” group of female state politicians. Merck contributed unrestricted educational grants to WIG, which covered the expenses of dozens of politicians to go to conferences on cervical cancer at nice destinations and attended by Merck representatives. Merck’s financial contributions to WIG and other interest groups were not publicly disclosed.
Members of WIG introduced many of the mandate bills considered across the country.

In 2007, shortly after Governor Perry of Texas issued an executive order mandating HPV vaccination for girls, a public outcry was sparked after it was reported that the governor’s former chief of staff had worked for years as a lobbyist for Merck and that Merck had contributed $5000 to the governor’s campaign fund.

A respondent from California compared what happened with Gardasil to what earlier happened with Merck’s Fosamax (to prevent osteoporotic fractures): 


> They created this paranoia about fracture risk and applied it to a much bigger market. I think that they very successfully did the same thing with Gardasil.


Both Merck and GSK, manufacturer of another HPV vaccine, came forward with unrestricted donations for the first time after Gardasil was introduced.
Representatives for Merck were present at task force and committee meetings.
Merck also infiltrated the prescriber community, both directly and by training physicians.

In most states, the politicians preferred to work with the pharmaceutical over their state’s health department.

Mello et al - Pharmaceutical Companies’ Role in State Vaccination Policymaking: The Case of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination (2012): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3483914/
(archived here: http://archive.is/FgDeQ)


Julie Gerberding, who headed the CDC from 2002 through 2009, was rewarded for her work with a handsome salary as president of the vaccine division at Merck: https://www.naturalnews.com/027789_D...ing_Merck.html

----------


## Firestarter

> Gayle DeLong – _A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection_ (2017): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...4.2018.1477640


 Big pharma trolls have been attacking the author of the report, Gayle DeLong. The frustrating thing is that while they don’t have any evidence to defend the genocidal HPV vaccine, their ad hominem attacks do succeed in discrediting the study.
In July I read the study for free. The study isn’t freely viewable anymore. It now costs 42 Euro for a single day and a whopping 284 Euro for 30 days. If anybody knows of a better word than “censorship” please let me know...

The big pharma trolls first quack that Gayle DeLong isn’t even a medical doctor but only an “economist”. DeLong did a statistical analysis of the data. If we take this kind of reasoning to the extreme only mathematicians should be allowed to do a statistical analysis.
I’ve regularly seen big pharma supporting “doctors” make the claim that after clean water vaccines are the cheapest health intervention. For evidence they regularly point to propaganda of the WHO, that isn’t backed up by any evidence. But we can’t really blame these doctors can we? They aren’t financial “experts” so wouldn’t know...

That the study contradicts all of the scientific studies on HPV vaccines that – supported and controlled by big pharma – concluded that HPV vaccines have no adverse effects at all.
So we can only conclude that these studies are biased, but instead they accuse DeLong.

No explanation on how HPV vaccines cause infertility.
Why would anybody doing a statistical analysis that shows that the HPV vaccine causes infertility, have to explain which poisons in the vaccines causes infertility? It is highly probable that when a vaccine has adverse health effects (the HPV vaccines have even more adverse effects than most other vaccines) this includes infertility.

Bizarrely that DeLong didn’t correct for contraception, with the addition of 


> In fairness, if the correlation is not positive but negative (i.e., HPV vaccination is associated with less oral contraceptive use), the results could be more robust than what Gayle found.


 https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skep...aper-blogging/

Surprise, surprise, Gayle DeLong has provided data that shows that HPV vaccines is associated with less contraceptive use:


> I find 51.5% of married women who did not receive the shot and 36.6% of married women who received the shot were actively seeking to prevent pregnancy. The 14.9% difference is statistically significant at the 1% level. 
> 
> This finding suggests that a greater percentage of married women who received the shot should be conceiving compared with married women who did not receive the shot. However, my original study finds that married women who received the shot are less likely to conceive than married women who did not receive the shot. The finding of my original study is not the result of married women who received the HPV vaccine actively avoiding pregnancy more than women who did not receive the HPV shot.


https://www.ageofautism.com/2018/06/...ccination.html

----------


## Firestarter

I don´t like watching videos of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (certainly not 50 minutes), but have enjoyed the following transcript of his video on the controversial HPV vaccine, Gardasil.

According to Merck, it has never been evaluated if Gardasil prevents or causes cervical cancer. Gardasil contains possible carcinogens (like human DNA).
According to Mercks own trial, Gardasil has a negative efficacy of 44.6% for women who already were infected with HPV. This means that by being poisoned with Gardasil, their risk of getting precancerous lesions increases with 44.6%.

The risk of dying from cervical cancer is 1 in 43.5 thousand. The death rate in the Gardasil group was 8.5 per 10 thousand.
So according to Mercks own studies, the risk of dying from Gardasil is 37 times higher than from cervical cancer.

An astonishing 10.9% of women reported reproductive disorders within 7 months of being poisoned with Gardasil (compared to 1.2% in the placebo group).

There are recent scientific studies that suggest type replacement by the the HPV vaccine  replacing 9 of the 200 different strands of HPV - some of these could be more cancerous.
In heavily vaccinated populations - in the UK, Sweden and Australia  the rate of cervical cancer has risen considerably (instead of going down, like Merck promised ).

In 2015, the Australian Department of Health reported that the adverse rates of Gardasil in girls is 17 times the cervical cancer rate. They only looked at a small part of adverse effects, so the actual number is even higher.

Japanese researchers found that the adverse event rate for Gardasil is 9% and that pregnant women injected with the vaccine aborted or miscarried in a whopping 30% of cases.

In Colombia in 2014, 800 girls in Carmen de Bolivar were injured by Gardasil. Protests erupted that forced the Supreme Court of Columbia to rule against mandatory HPV vaccination.

Corruption is systemic at the FDA, because 45% of their budget comes from big pharma. Pharmaceutical companies pay billions of dollars per year to FDA to fast track drugs.
In 2000-2010, pharmaceutical companies paid $3.4 billion dollars to FDA to get drugs approved: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/v...bout-gardasil/

----------


## Firestarter

> The following “scientific” report from 2017 suggests that the controversial HPV vaccine causes lower birth rates. This study analysed information gathered in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, representing 8 million 25 to 29-year-old women in the US between 2007 and 2014.


I’m again at a loss for words.
The following article claims that the “Pregnancy Outcomes in the Phase III Program Database” of 11 November 2005 proves that the HPV vaccine doesn´t “destroy fertility”.

They present the following numbers.


Gardasil – 1115 women (10.7% ) had 1244 pregnancies (11.9%) out of 10,418 women.
Placebo – 1151 women (12.6% ) had 1272 pregnancies (13.9%) out of 9,120 women.

So now they claim that that these numbers that show significant lower fertility in the HPV vaccine group than the placebo group, as “No sign of infertility”: https://sciblogs.co.nz/diplomaticimm...roy-fertility/

----------


## Firestarter

> In 2007, shortly after Governor Perry of Texas issued an executive order mandating HPV vaccination for girls, a public outcry was sparked after it was reported that the governor’s former chief of staff had worked for years as a lobbyist for Merck and that Merck had contributed $5000 to the governor’s campaign fund.


In February 2007, Rick Perry (as Governor of Texas) issued an executive order mandating that Texas girls get poisoned with the HPV vaccine starting in September 2008, even though there isn’t a shred of evidence that the human papilloma virus causes cervical cancer (or any other form of cancer), let alone evidence that HPV vaccines prevent cancer…
In May 2007, the Texas Legislature passed a bill to undo the order.

Some opponents were quick to point out that Rick Perry has strong ties to pharmaceutical giant, vaccine pusher Merck & Co. – producer of the best known HPV vaccine Gardasil.
The Merck PAC donated $28,500 to Perry from 2001 to 2007.

Possibly an even more interesting tie to Merck is that Perry’s former chief of staff, Mike Toomey, was a lobbyist for Merck when Perry signed the Gardasil executive order in 2007. Toomey is also a co-founder of the pro-Perry super PAC Make Us Great Again (MUGA?), which can funnel unlimited funds to Perry campaigns: http://archive.is/zHjC


Perry’s (new) Chief of staff Deirdre Delisi met Mike Toomey at least 3 times in the 6 months before Rick Perry signed the Gardasil Executive Order.
Delisi even met with Merck lobbyists the same day Merck donated $5,000 to Perry and another $5,000 total to 8 state representatives.

Merck mainly used Women in Government to funnel money to corrupt politicians (also to sponsor legislation in other states that would make Gardasil mandatory for schoolgirls).
In one of those strange coincidences, Deirdre Delisi's mother-in-law, Dianne White Delisi, was a Texas state representative in 2007: https://web.archive.org/web/20110716133807/http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/02/22/22perry.html


For more on President Donald’s (former) Energy Secretary Rick Perry: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ry-Ukrainegate

----------


## DamianTV

Legally, there are only a few ways that cancer can be "treated".  Surgery, Radiation, or Chemotherapy.

Anything that actually works will probably cost less by orders of magnitude, and what they want is the most expensive least effective treatment they can conjure up.  We have had highly effective very low cost treatments for well over a century.  Thing is, our Health Care system does not survive by keeping healthy people healthy or by healing the sick.  THey do the opposite.

Real treatments?  Look up *Royal Raymond Rife*.  And that is just one of many effective treatments.

----------


## Firestarter

> Thing is, our Health Care system does not survive by keeping healthy people healthy or by healing the sick. THey do the opposite.


As far as I can tell the main purpose of our health care industry is depopulation...
If you think that "money" is the main objective of health care, they wouldn't want their victims to die; but live as long as possible (dependent on "medicines" of course)!





> Anything that actually works will probably cost less by orders of magnitude, and what they want is the most expensive least effective treatment they can conjure up.  We have had highly effective very low cost treatments for well over a century. 
> 
> Real treatments?  Look up *Royal Raymond Rife*.  And that is just one of many effective treatments.


In my opinion (and confirmed by health propaganda) cancer is just another result of a disfunctioning immune system.
The only way to boost your immune system is a heathy lifestyle of which the most important aspects seem to be:
1) Good nutrition.
2) Regular physical excercise.


The strange thing about cancer is that until the end of the 19th century it was a rare disease.

Maybe even stranger is that in all of history, never a US president or vice president died of cancer: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/vie...php?f=21&t=890

Thanks to scientific progress there are now vaccines against cancer; despite the fact that big pharma hasnt even made claims that there is evidence that the HPV vaccines prevent cancer.
Of course adolescents are already injected with this wonderful HPV vaccine that is associated with higher cervical cancer rates and lower birth rates.

It can only be a matter of time with all of this progress that a vaccine will be approved to treat brain cancer victims. It seems unlikely (or not?) that big pharma wants to inject vaccines into the brain to alter brain activity for mind control purposes...

Maybe we should propose another scientific experiment?
Vaccinating the directors and major shareholders of big pharma corporations with cyanide to see if this will improve our health care system...

----------


## Working Poor

> Maybe we should propose another scientific experiment?
> Vaccinating the directors and major shareholders of big pharma corporations with cyanide to see if this will improve our health care system...


I like that idea. I hope you share it with as many people as possible .

----------


## Firestarter

> I like that idea. I hope you share it with as many people as possible .


This is a variation of an experiment I’ve earlier proposed...
It could be funny if it wasn’t so horrible!




> We should also have scientific experiments to find out if giving antipsychotics to the psychiatrists, instead of the patients, is beneficial to the mental health of the patients.
> 
> When giving drugs to these psychiatrist I could tell myself it isn’t all that terrible, but with a lobotomy there is blood and scalpels, which makes it messy and much harder to look the other way. Furthermore I’m opposed to treatment that isn’t properly tested in a placebo-controlled trial. Of course it would be possible to give psychiatrists an incision, without actually removing part of the brain, but I believe this wouldn’t be ethically correct.
> On the other hand: without any reason I forgot the possibility of administering ECT to psychiatrists...
> 
> I agree that when probes can be used, there aren’t any ethical problems to perform lobotomies on psychiatrists. Although I must insist that psychosurgery should only be allowed after approval by an independent body of psychiatric patients.
> Maybe we could link the trial to the psychopathological profile of the psychiatrists, so we can find the best treatment dependent on the type of psychiatrist. Now that we´ve come up with an excellent set-up for our scientific study (if I say so myself), we only need some funding (of course: outcomes depend on who finances our research).


https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/vie...21&t=734#p2673

----------


## Working Poor

> This is a variation of an experiment Ive earlier proposed...
> It could be funny if it wasnt so horrible!
> 
> 
> https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/vie...21&t=734#p2673


I don't think it is horrible at all I think doctors should know what the drugs do from personal experience so maybe they would be more thoughtful of what they are doing to their patients.  Also I saw an interesting video about the mice they use in experiments have been altered called "all our mice are broken"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpGxOR50sn4

----------


## Firestarter

I haven’t found an update on the S298B bill in New York that will make it mandatory for elementary school children school children born after 1 January 2009 to be poisoned with a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.
The bill proposes that the children can be injected with the vaccine not only without the consent of their parents or guardians, but even without their knowledge.

Another related bill  proposes that health care practitioners (so not only doctors) like those working at the depopulation offices of Planned Parenthood can vaccinate children younger than 18 years old for “sexually transmitted diseases” without the knowledge of their parents: http://web.archive.org/web/20191127203638/https://www.newsday.com/news/region-state/hpv-albany-legislation-mandatory-1.38808088

----------


## Merdiatals312

For me, CBD oils are much more effective when it comes to killing cancer cells. That's what experts say in todays generation.

----------


## Voluntarist

Per registered decision, member has been banned for violating community standards as interpreted by TheTexan (respect his authoritah) as authorized by Brian4Liberty Ruling

May God have mercy on his atheist, police-hating, non-voting, anarchist soul.

----------


## Firestarter

> As of today, it's still in committee:
> https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s298





> It makes vaccination mandatory to attend public school; but I don't see where they can administer the vaccination without parental approval or knowledge.


There is no mandate to inform the parent, while there is the possibility to vaccinate the child without the consent of the parent (or guardian)…

Of course you need to understand how crooked lawyers twist language to make it almost impossible to understand.


From subdivision 6…



> In the event that such person does not wish to select a health practitioner to administer the immunization, he or she shall be provided with a form which shall give notice that as a prerequisite to processing the  application  for  admission to, or for continued attendance at, the school such person shall state a valid reason for withholding consent or consent shall be given for immunization to be administered by  a  health officer  in  the  public  employ, or by a school physician or nurse. The form shall provide for the execution of a consent by such person and  it shall  also  state  that  *such  person  need not execute such consent if subdivision eight* of this section applies to such child.


You see that the previous notes that consent is not necessary (if the child in school isn't vaccinated that is).


And subdivision 8 includes the need to poison the child with vaccines regardless of the consent of the parent (you need to read it in relation to subdivision 6 though)…



> 8. If any physician licensed to practice medicine in this state certifies that such immunization may be detrimental to a child's health,  the requirements  of this section shall be inapplicable until such immunization is found no longer to be detrimental to the child's health. 
> 
>   8-a. Whenever a child has been  refused  admission  to,  or  continued attendance  at,  a  school  as provided for in subdivision seven of this section because there exists no certificate provided for in  subdivision five of this section or other acceptable evidence of the child's immunization against poliomyelitis, mumps, measles, diphtheria, rubella, varicella, hepatitis B, pertussis, tetanus, and, where applicable, Haemophilus  influenzae  type b (Hib), meningococcal disease, [and] pneumococcal disease AND HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS (HPV), the principal, teacher, owner or person in charge of the school shall:
> 
>   a. forward a report of such exclusion and the name and address of such child to the local health  authority  and  to  the  person  in  parental relation to the child together with a notification of the responsibility of  such  person  under  subdivision  two  of this section and a form of consent as prescribed by regulation of the commissioner, and
> 
> *b. provide, with the  cooperation  of  the  appropriate  local  health authority,  for  a time and place at which an immunizing agent or agents shall be administered, as required by subdivision two of  this  section, to a child for whom a consent has been obtained. Upon failure of a local health authority to cooperate in arranging for a time and place at which an  immunizing  agent  or  agents  shall  be administered as required by subdivision two of this section, the commissioner shall arrange for such administration and may recover the cost thereof from the amount of state aid to which the local health authority would otherwise be entitled.*

----------


## Voluntarist

Per registered decision, member has been banned for violating community standards as interpreted by TheTexan (respect his authoritah) as authorized by Brian4Liberty Ruling

May God have mercy on his atheist, police-hating, non-voting, anarchist soul.

----------


## Firestarter

> I haven’t found an update on the S298B bill in New York that will make it mandatory for elementary school children school children born after 1 January 2009 to be poisoned with a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.
> The bill proposes that the children can be injected with the vaccine not only without the consent of their parents or guardians, but even without their knowledge.


This bill has passed the senate – waiting to be signed by the governor.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s298

----------


## bracknelson

The cancer vaccine is a medicine that helps the body can fight the disease. The Vaccine has the performance to boost the body's immune system to fight cancer and destroy harmful germs and cells.

----------


## Firestarter

> The cancer vaccine is a medicine that helps the body can fight the disease. The Vaccine has the performance to boost the body's immune system to fight cancer and destroy harmful germs and cells.


The cancer vaccine is a fraud that causes damage to the body and will actually make the cancer more virulent.

----------


## Firestarter

It's strange that I sometimes post about strange "conspiracy" topics that later become even more relevant.
In 2017, I started posting about preposterous "personalised cancer vaccines" by the little known BioNTech. At the time I found the "cancer" HPV vaccines more interesting, which cause infertility and has made the cervical cancer rates increase.

But now after staging the COVID pandemic, they have emergency approved and remarketted these biochemical weapons BioNTech's "mRNA vaccines" as the only "cure" for corona.
It's very likely that at some point they will remake the COVID vaccines as "personalised", which gives them the possibility to target specific groups - old, adult, young, male and female at even higher financial gain.
This also makes it more likely that they will approve the mRNA cancer vaccines, which after the emergency approved COVID vaccines has suddenly become "proven technology".

In only realised that the personalised mRNA cancer vaccines are really the same biochemical weapons that are now used in the COVID "pandemic" for "vaccines", after reading the following...


In a 2017 TED talk, Dr. Tal Zaks, the chief medical officer at Moderna Inc., explained how the company’s mRNA cancer vaccine supposedly works. Of course they don't really believe that this will make anybody "healthier", but they really want to "hack" and reprogram the human body, or as Zaks explained “_We are actually hacking the software of life_”.

As these mRNA vaccines have been approved without proper medical trials, the adverse effects could potentially be catastrophic. According to a study at New York City-based Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the mRNA can inactivate tumor-suppressing proteins, meaning it can suppress the immune system to stimulate cancer.

Ironically if these mRNA vaccines cause cancer, the same Big Pharma companies in a brilliant strategy could step forward later with another mRNA vaccine as the cure for cancer.
With people effectively being so severely brainwashed that they're sleepwalking during the day and also dreaming at night, I really don't see who could stop this ploy: https://leohohmann.com/2021/03/09/mo...tware-of-life/
(https://archive.is/TdF3A)

----------

