Posted on 06/16/2006 9:13:55 AM PDT by Pyro7480
Thanks for the clarification. :-)
Do a search on post-vaccination encephalitis.
Here's one from the CDC.
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/training/smallpoxvaccine/reactions/encephalitis_path.html
The mechanisms for this form of encephalitis are unknown. Various hypotheses have been advanced but the one that is deemed most likely is that it represents an autoimmune process following vaccination. Midbrain, cerebral and medullary lesions have been observed, and in 1/5th of cases myelitis is predominant. Increases in CSF pressure, CSF lymphocytosis, and increases in CSF protein content all represent non-specific findings.
Approximately 25% of all cases were fatal and 25% of all survivors have had some residual neurologic defect, ranging from a convulsive disorder to profound neurologic deficit.
So... is it somehow thwarting God's will to cure cancer? Or don't God fearing people die of HPV related cancer?
LOL - Well, if you have a "feeling"....
______________
that was the best you could come up with?
:)
I know... The ignorance here is frightening!
You have no faith in medicine. I had to go in to get a prescription for a cold sore the other day. The doctor told me to be sure not to kiss anyone because it could be passed that way. That is almost common knowledge and he still took the time to say it. I would imagine if someone were getting a HPV vaccine he would go ahead and explain the ins and outs of it.
Your link doesn't show any deaths?
You may have missed this: shown at autopsy in a child dying after four months of the illness.
Also 90% (if that's what it is) is pathetically low. Much more an argument to cancel this whole program than continue.
I didn't have time earlier to research exact figures, so I understated it. Now that I have time, this article states the vaccine prevented 99 percent of HPV 16 or 18-related high-grade cervical pre-cancers. But even 90% would be well worth it - why would you cancel a program that was 90% effective?
Because 90% gives sex a substantial risk, probably worse than distributing condoms to people with AIDS. Abstinance, much derided by some, is 100% effective. Treatment for the cancer, although painful and possible deleterious is basically 100% at the early stages. The cancer is caused by other agents. The virus won't spread at 100% regardless of vaccine (I have no clue about the numbers other than it isn't 100%). The vaccine is not very justifiable except on a voluntary basis even at 100%, certainly not at 90.
Because 90% gives sex a substantial risk, probably worse than distributing condoms to people with AIDS. Abstinance, much derided by some, is 100% effective.
You seem to be assuming several things I haven't said. Abstinence is a great solution, but many people won't stick to it. Those who aren't abstinent may then go on to infect their spouse. I'm not willing to write all those people off.
Treatment for the cancer, although painful and possible deleterious is basically 100% at the early stages.
Yes, but the key is getting women checked for it in the early stages. Many women don't know they're infected, and may not go in for check-ups. Again, I'm not willing to write those women off, either. Additionally, prevention is better than having to have a procedure done, and some procedures can damage fertility.
The cancer is caused by other agents. The virus won't spread at 100% regardless of vaccine (I have no clue about the numbers other than it isn't 100%). The vaccine is not very justifiable except on a voluntary basis even at 100%, certainly not at 90.
I haven't even mentioned voluntary vs. involuntary, I was taking issue with your statement that the program ought to be cancelled entirely.
Since most vaccines come from fetal stem cell lines I wonder if this one too (HPV) is from a dead baby?
You may well be writing them off. More women may not go in for checkups because they assume the vaccine is protecting them.
Even though HPV is considered a cause of cervical cancer, only one out of 1,000 women with HPV develops invasive cervical cancer ( http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/sti/fact-HPV-virus.xml)
It seems to me you are killing a virus that doesn't do anything except create pre-cancer or other benign cancers. Will those women assume they are protected from cancer and stop having pap smears? Then it seems you are writing them off.
My daughter was born 2 months prematurely, three years ago, and was given a Synagis shot every month (at $1200 - $2400 a pop!) for the first six months. Was your daughter ever given anything to protect her against RSV and she caught it anyway or are the shots relatively new?
I wouldn't be surprised, Coleus. After reading some of the comments on this thread, my general contempt of libertarianism has been renewed. It and it proponents can be useful when fighting the Left, but when it comes to the issues at that matter the most, they're no better than the Left.
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Vatican Condemns Vaccines Made with Tissue Obtained by Abortion
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05071801.html
Vatican Official Clarifies Stand On Vaccines From Fetal Tissue
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05072604.html
Colorado Right to Life Calls for Vaccines not Tainted by Abortion
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/oct/05100307.html
Abortion Advocate Recommends Curtailing Religious Freedoms to Avoid "Contagion"
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/may/05051708.html
Vaccination not Compulsory under Canadian Law
ABORTED FETAL CELL LINE PRODUCTS AND ETHICAL ALTERNATIVES
Updated:
Disease |
Vaccine Name |
Manufacturer |
Cell Line (Fetal) |
Ethical Version |
Manufacturer |
Cell Line (Non-Fetal) |
Chickenpox |
Varivax |
Merck & Co. |
WI-38, MRC-5 |
None |
N/A |
N/A |
Hepatitis A
|
Vaqta Havrix |
Merck & Co |
MRC-5 MRC-5 |
Aimmungen |
Kaketsuken (Japan & Europe) |
Vero (monkey) |
Hepatitis A & B |
Twinrix |
GSK |
MRC-5 |
Engerix Hep-B Only Recombivax Hep-B Only |
GSK Merck |
Yeast Yeast |
Measles, Mumps, Rubella |
MMR II |
Merck & Co |
RA273, WI-38 |
None |
N/A |
N/A |
Measles-Rubella |
MR VAX |
Merck & Co. |
RA273, WI-38 |
Attenuvax Measles |
Merck |
Chick embryo |
Mumps-Rubella |
Biavax II |
Merck & Co. |
RA273, WI-38 |
Mumpsvax Mumps |
Merck |
Chick embryo |
Rubella |
Meruvax II |
Merck & Co. |
RA273, WI-38 |
Takahashi Not available in US |
Kitasato Institute (Japan & Europe) |
Rabbit |
MMR + Chickenpox |
ProQuad |
Merck & Co. |
RA273, WI-38, MRC-5 |
None |
N/A |
N/A |
Polio |
Poliovax |
Sanofi Pasteur |
MRC-5 |
IPOL |
Sanofi Pasteur |
Vero (monkey) |
Rabies |
Imovax |
Sanofi Pasteur |
MRC-5 |
RabAvert |
Chiron |
Chick embryo |
Rheumatoid/OsteoArthritis |
Enbrel |
Immunex |
WI-26 VA4 |
Synvisc |
Genzyme Bio. |
None |
Sepsis |
Xigris |
Eli Lilly |
HEK-293 |
Ask your doctor |
N/A |
N/A |
Shingles |
Zostavax |
Merck & Co. |
WI-38, MRC-5 |
None |
N/A |
N/A |
Under Development Ebola |
TBA |
Crucell/NIH |
PER C6 |
None |
N/A |
N/A |
Under Development :Flu, Avian Flu |
TBA |
MedImmune Vaxin, Sanofi |
PER C6, HEK-293 |
FluVirin, Flu Shield Flu Zone, Flu Blok |
Chiron, Wyeth Sanofi ,Protein Sci |
Chick embryo Caterpillar |
New: HIV |
TBA |
Merck |
PER C6 |
None |
N/A |
N/A |
New: Smallpox |
Acambis 1000 |
Acambis |
MRC-5 |
ACAM2000 MVA3000 |
Acambis/Baxter |
Vero (monkey) Chick embryo |
*TBA: To Be Announced Vaccine is under development; unnamed at present.
NOTE: ALL CURRENT FLU VACCINES USE ETHICAL CELL LINES.
Physician Order Line:
Merck (Measles, Mumps) 800-422-9675 GSK: (Hepatitis-B) 866-475-8222
Sanofi Pasteur: (Polio) 800-822-3463 Chiron:(Rabies) 800 244-7668 (PST) Wyeth: (Flu) 800 666-7248
Note: Immune-Globulin shots will provide temporary immunity (3-5 months) for Hepatitis-A and Rubella. IGIM is a series of antibodies taken from donor blood designed to boost the immune system against specific diseases. No aborted fetal cell lines are used. |
NOTE: IF THE VACCINE YOU ARE QUESTIONING IS NOT LISTED HERE, IT DOES NOT USE ABORTED FETAL CELL LINES.
It seems to me you are killing a virus that doesn't do anything except create pre-cancer or other benign cancers.
There are no benign cancers, cancer is by definition malignant.
I just can't buy the argument that one should forgo an efficacious vaccine out of fear that women who are vaccinated won't go to the doctor for check ups. As well worry that people with tetanus immunizations won't go to the doctor for wound care (and many don't) and therefore we shouldn't give tetanus vaccinations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.