Having risked a look at the BBC news website, I read it for the propaganda don't you know!, I see the main headline on the health section is that of the HPV vaccine, that which is supposed to cut the deaths and occurrences from and of, cervical cancer, is being considered for boys!!
This is not the first time this has been mooted and the justifications for it....well nothing that sex education couldn't address. At one time, smoking was said to be the main cause of mouth or throat cancer, now it is being suggested that it is oral sex. It could seem that the cause much depends on what you want to promote as a cure.
Whatever the question of cause, is vaccination the answer?
This Gardasil vaccine is not without it's problems and proven complications, although the term 'proven complications' is hardly adequate when that has meant the deaths of many young girls (and one is enough if it is your daughter!) and the huge impact on the health of many others.
According to the published VAERS report on the HPV vaccine up to March 2013
The number....
Disabled = 935
Deaths = 133
Did not recover = 5,875
Had Abnormal PAP smears = 519
Cervical Cancer developed = 62
Cervical Dysplaysia = 209
Life Threatening = 551
Emergency room admissions = 10,335
Hospitalised = 2,954
Extended hospital stays = 227
Serious = 3,963
Adverse events = 29,362
Given that it is also accepted that resulting conditions are massively under reported - these figures could be way higher.
But here we are blindly going down this track.
If the death of a young man or woman occurs as a result of taking an illegal substance, it hits the headlines big time, but if that death occurs as a result of a vaccination, then that's a coincidence and no one hears about it. Not that i'm advocating the taking of illegal substances, just the recognition of 'agenda' when reporting.
So there will be many here in the UK facing the dilemma of do they or don't they have the vaccine, and we are all brought up believing the 'white coat'. These 'white coats' can only tell you what the drug company tells them.
Interestingly on page 7 of the Guardian yesterday, our government has had to take a U-turn on the link between the swine flu jab and narcolepsy. What it describes as 'fresh evidence' is the proven link between the GSK Pandemrix vaccine and this condition developing.. Yet i'm sure this vaccine was 'sold as safe' 1 in 55.000 jabs has caused a problem, 900 people and that is only those that get reported all the way along the line. It is recognised that symptoms as a result of medication taking or jabs etc are under reported. Often only 10%.
So this vaccine was not completely safe and those effected are going to be asked to apply for compensation from the government within 3 weeks of the announcement.
If you read the above carefully, you will see that GSK made the vaccine but we the tax payers are footing the compensation bill (governments don't have their own money - they play about with ours)
So why are they doing this? Is GSK a struggling drug company that the government has got to bail out...well hardly!
It turns out, like many vaccines, GSK had an indemnity clause written into the contract when providing the drug for the government. This means the government is ultimately responsible for picking up the bill.
This little snippet, gets a mention in the Guardian, but surely this is a story in itself.
If these vaccines are so safe, why doesn't the drug company back its own products?
Does Russell Hobbs get the government to underwrite all the kettles they sell in case they blow up when the public use them?
Could GSK not get an insurer to take their money? - that all most seems impossible to believe.
What could possibly be wrong or go wrong with an extensively tested drug that has been deemed fit for purpose to be used on the public?
Not sure it fills me with confidence that the developer of the drug, won't or can't back it financially if it goes wrong.
This was a page 7 article not a headline grabbing one yet when we had the measles furore, this made front page news as the drive was to scare people into getting their children vaccinated. The effect of vaccines when they cause a problem gets buried on page 7 or as on the BBC website, one of those 'click on to reveal more' stories. Not exactly lead story, yet it could end up costing the tax payer a lot of money.
The story of a young man's death at the time attributed to measles, also hit the main headlines, despite the inquest showing this not to be the cause. Again, it fitted with the agenda
Right now, that lead story on the BBC is the HPV for boys. I wonder if the complications that might arise will take the same prominent position?
When those that are responsible for developing drugs, testing them and then present them as safe, are one and the same, where are the safe guards for the public?
Now given that articles that discuss vaccinations are being monitored, perhaps those that call for openness and that doctors get given all the facts, not just the cherry picked studies the drug companies want to present, this can be seen that these matters need addressing and the 'truth' in medicine be restored. After all, Dr's take an oath that says, first do no harm - may be we should get the drug companies to sign up for that one also!
