Vaccines: Does It Really Make Sense? (I'm just saying)

Gardasil is about the prevention and protection against cervical cancer . . . is the only vaccine that prevents cancer
- Krystie Brashear, A.R.N.P. - Woman to Woman clinic
(The CDC states that cervical cancer is an uncommon consequence to HPV (10%) and if detected has a 90% cure rate - most deaths from HPV are from those who didn't get checked and let the cells get infected.  That's like having a vaccine to prevent cuts because some people don't treat it properly and let it get infected. It is also stated that there are multiple factors that have to occur - not just having HPV - like risk factors, immune suppression, oral contraceptive use and having multiple sexual partners.  Plus, the vaccine only protects against 2 (out of 16) types - does vaccination make any sense?)

HPV vaccine is recommended for girls early as 9
- CDC
(Really, as early as 9 years of age? The fabricated idea is to vaccinate before they are sexually active.  The scary reality is that Gardasil has only been tested for 5 years and remains ignorant to any serious side effects that may occur later on in life or of any damage done to the reproductive organs.  The vaccine is promoted as a prevention tool but this is misleading much like other vaccines.  Pro-vaccine websites and anti-vaccine websites both have graphs depicting the history of a disease and it's prevalence.  These graphs from both sides are accurate however only show what they want to show.  Anti-vaccine graphs show death rates and how they have already dropped before vaccines were introduced.  Stats show that advanced sanitary precautions reduced death rates before vaccines existed.  Pro-vaccine graphs fail to show this but rather show the number of cases and how the number of cases didn't drop until vaccines were introduced.  As much as this is accurate a majority of those cases were no longer life threatening.  This is the same for Gardasil.  Cervical cancer was prevalent in the United States and a serious problem.  Death rates were high, until Pap Smears were introduced.  Death rates dramatically dropped thereafter.  So Gardasil doesn't reduce deaths, but rather the number of cases, which much like its predecessors - majority of these cases are no longer life threatening and is a misleading claim - does vaccination make any sense?)

Gardasil has been around for several years (*cough*5 years*cough*) and has been very safe . . . risk of death is extremely small
- CDC
(Of course the CDC and FDA deems it safe when it gets compared to AAHS - an aluminum placebo - Gardasil Vaccine Info.  AAHS is a highly toxic ingredient with a variety of adverse reactions - MSDS Report. Even compared to a toxic agent, Gardasil still has slightly greater adverse risks.  VAERS has claimed 18,000 REPORTED adverse reactions to Gardasil and so far 65 REPORTED deaths.  The key word is reported, because VAERS is a volunteer company that depends on reported cases and warns that numbers are highly effected due to Under reported incidences or dismissed cases by family doctors - does vaccination make any sense?)

CDC recommends HPV vaccine for boys
- Associated Press
(After a 1.1 Billion dollar revenue in the first nine months for Gardasil, Merck's stock has dropped 3 percent collecting only $219 Million (oh so sad) and they are scrambling to figure out what went wrong.  Seriously?  It's obvious isn't it?  A good business can't profit with a limited consumer base (girls from 9-26), right?  Everyone knows a business needs to expand its market - good job Merck for tapping into the boys 9-26 market - does vaccination make any sense?)

Texas Mandates Cervical Cancer Vaccine
- CBS news
(Wait - now they are forcing kids to get vaccinated?  The whole idea of mandating vaccines may pose more of a threat than the actual vaccine.  I looked at my shot records and it's only a third of how many kids are required to have now.  The numbers are increasing.  Research is now looking into how multiple shots can have serious effects.  This is also a business decision taking advantage of a faulty "herd immunity" theory.  The goal of these vaccines is to get 100% vaccinated.  There are 5,000 deaths a year from cervical cancer.  Merck has stated that if 100% are vaccinated they could save 1,000 people dying from cervical cancer.  Do the math - that is only 20% efficacy - does vaccination make any sense?)

Parents of 2,300 students who failed to get needed vaccinations could be fined or thrown in jail
- Washington Post
(Isn't there something wrong with this picture?  Putting people in jail for not vaccinating their kids.  Penalizing parents for saving their kids from chronic diseases, inflammation, decreased mental function, asthma, heart dysfunction paralysis, cancer, alzheimers, autism and many, many more conditions that can and possibly will occur because of vaccines - does vaccination make any sense?)

California 12 year olds to be vaccinated without parents knowing
- Project Avalon
(Okay - these guys are sick.  No one is buying into the vaccine so now they have to not only force it on people, but now justify that sixth graders are competent enough to agree to taking a vaccine without parental consent.  Without knowing your child could be vaccinated.  Seriously, I'm not anti-vaccine, I'm really not, but when Big Pharma goes out and forces people to take their product so they can take in Billions and not take any responsibility for any injuries or death (you can't sue vaccine companies) that doesn't sit well with me.  Something isn't right - does vaccination make any sense?)


Vaccines are expected to bring in more than 35 Billion dollars in 2012
- Vaccine Business Congress
(The truth is that Vaccines is now a business.  The Vaccine Business Congress is a group made up of Vaccine companies which had a website which somehow has now been removed.  However, there is a PDF file online that contains all the details of that very website - claiming that $35 Billion will be made in 2012 in just vaccines alone.  The truth is that the Gardasil vaccine is getting such a lime light because of the Presidential and other elections.  Rick Perry who first ordered a mandate for the HPV vaccine for Texas is closely tied to Merck and the Women In Government who are pushing for the vaccine.  There are more lobbyists in government now for vaccines than any other organization.  This system is tainted.  What once used to be a noble cause has been corrupted and the majority of citizens are the victims.  There is a case in which a girl was influenced to take the Gardasil shot from television ads.  On her third shot, she began to experience serious symptoms - paralysis, epilepsy, strokes, vasculitis, nausea, numbness, tingling, and other symptoms.  A 16 year old girl to prevent herself from a "terrible" virus is now taking 40 pills a day - $2,000 a month out of pocket - to treat these symptoms.  Not only did the companies get their $400 for the three required shots, but that's just chump change when compared to the $2,000 monthly income they out rightly know will be coming in and greedily expect.  It's terrible - does vaccination make any sense . . . for the pharmaceutical companies it sure does - lots of it - I'm just saying . . . )

Vaccines: A Friend's Reply

Here are some comments I found somehow in my spam from a respected friend and medical intern.  These comments are in regard to my post on Vaccines which brought up some areas of debate.  I unfortunately didn't see them earlier and thought it would be fair for me to share without any alterations, edits, or reply. I respect his position and hope this encourages an open forum -


As mentioned before, I believe your intentions are honest and your desire to provide health advice pure, even if we disagree on several points. You are correct to believe that there has been and continues to be a link between medical training and pharm companies, but I think this relationship is much smaller and less profound than you believe it to be. During my first two years of school, anyone lecturing on pharmacology had to disclose any conflicts of interest. At all national and international meetings where new research and treatments are presented, presenters and authors disclose any conflicts of interest as a matter of routine. Failing to disclose this information or fraudulently denying ties to the pharm companies carries serious consequences and will essentially ruin the career of anyone who does it. As a whole, the medical community is sensitive to this issue because there have been problems in the past, and many changes have been made and regulations put in place to control these problems. (You'll often hear doctors complain they don't even get free pens anymore) Several years ago I read about a Harvard medical student who called out his professor because he failed to disclose his ties to the industry and gave biased lectures. Harvard has since changed policies to keep this from happening again. (Surprisingly, most medical schools already had these policies in place, way to lead the way Harvard) I'm not naive enough to believe there won't ever be problems again at any medical school, and I actually believe some industry money is a good thing provided it is closely monitored and drives innovation and new research. Any education I've received regarding drugs during medical school has been couched in terms of safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics and mechanism of action. Occasionally the price of the drug is brought into the discussion, but only in terms of trying to save the patient money with an equally efficacious and safe generic. I honestly can plead ignorance as to who manufactures almost any of the drugs I've come in contact with during medical school.

Regarding diabetes, diet and exercise, or "lifestyle modification" is always the first step undertaken when treating a patient with diabetes and exists in many official standard of care algorithms used by physicians. I have witnessed this first hand while working in a family practice clinic last year. (This clinic even had a diabetes nutritionist on staff to help educate people with a new diagnosis or anyone who needed further help) As you very well know, not everyone actually modifies their lifestyles, and short of going to their homes and forcing them spit out their sprinkled donuts, there's not much else we can do for people who don't have the desire to change. I'm glad I'll have more than just a hammer in my tool belt when I encounter those patients. When diet and exercise fails, I'll have a wide variety of pharmacological tools to employ, and can actually tailor my therapies in accordance to various co-morbid conditions a particular patient might have. It is true that for patients whose HbA1c levels are off the charts, we will start some drugs right away, but we do try some some prevention before reaction in this instance. For a humorous account about why medicine does tend to be more reactive than proactive, read this link. http://www.pandabearmd.com/2007/04/25/pie-will-out/ a small taste: Most education, like most preaching, is ineffectual. The parson can talk himself blue in the face but the bars will still be open and the fancy women will have no shortage of customers because unless people have some strong personal motivation for change, a motivation which cannot be accessed by the usual uninspired preacher or government scold, they will continue to indulge their immediate gratification at the expense of of some unknowable future punishment. Late at night, when the motivational speakers have gone home and the skinny lady from the university has stopped trying to extract impossible promises, the siren call of the pecan pie in the refrigerator is irresistible. Pie will out. This simple yet seductive desert will trump our best efforts. When you’re three hundred pounds hoping to lose the fleshy equivalent of a couple of sixth graders, the smooth seduction of caramelized Karo syrup and the smokey crunch of jumbo pecans offers immediate gratification with which no nebulous promise of low blood pressure can hope to compete. It was my mistake to bring up the autism link as you did not, and I didn't mean to imply that you did. I should have stated instead that one can't dismiss any and all research showing benefit from vaccines because one believes they are funded by pharm companies. As we both acknowledge, the bias goes both ways. I think we will have part ways about our positions on the flu vaccine. To be clear, your stance in one of opinion and not logic. (Although I whole heartedly admire and acknowledge that your stance on the matter is a rather ballsy one) To believe as you do, that "it is impossible to have any valid vaccine to prevent the flu" is to believe that legions of employees from the CDC, World Health Organization and pharmaceutical companies, as well as countless pediatricians and physicians, most of whom are rather well educated folks who routinely get the flu vaccine themselves, are motivated not by compassion but by greed, and are all in on some massive conspiracy aimed at getting unsuspecting victims to fork up 20 bucks once a year to get thimerosol injections. It is also to believe that all the research supporting the use of the influenza vaccine is written by dishonest people willing to not only gamble their professional credibility, but are willing to inject even their own children to keep the charade alive, year after year. I can't possibly believe that, but I respect the level of conviction needed to.