Whooping Cough Vaccination

This was a story that nearly sent my blood pressure through the roof when I heard it on the radio whilst taking in the delightful scenery of North Yorkshire last week.
When I finally got back and read the story on the BBC website, it did little to make that blood pressure calm down.

If you read the article, it is so heavily biased towards pregnant mothers having the vaccination. There are experts from every medical angle, agreeing that this is the right approach. Well when all your experts are from the medical profession, it is very unlikely that there would be dissent.

The BBC yet again have not bothered to quote an opposing view to this, yet there are many groups and organisations that I am sure would have only been too willing to offer a different view - I'm sure if the BBC wanted they could find a medic with an opposing view, but they night not be allowed to express it.

So having gone through pregnancy myself, I remember very clearly that midwives actively discourage mothers-to-be from taking as much as an aspirin during pregnancy, as it all has the potential of crossing the placenta and of course the effects on the developing foetus are unknown.

Ethically that study couldn't be done. Who would offer their unborn for trial in that way?

Yet in a sense, that is what mothers taking this vaccine will be doing but under a different guise

Mothers-to-be taking their own medication for their own health have this monitored and reduced as much as possible during this time. A friend taking drugs for rheumatoid arthritis was advised to reduce them right down even when trying for a baby and a friend with epilepsy was advised to do the same.

Suddenly it is ok for mothers to have a vaccine. It of course isn't just for Whooping Cough or Pertussis as it is known. It is the DTaP vaccine and so contains Diphtheria and Tetanus.

We are exposing unborn babies to 3 viruses - nature is never that unkind!

Where would anyone ever contract Pertussis, Diphtheria and Tetanus all at the same time, yet we are happy to give all three to a developing foetus.

Let us leave aside the contents that we know about, what  about the adjuvants that go into vaccinations, do we really want our unborn exposed to that cocktail. Aluminium, a neuro-toxin. Latex, MSG, Formaldehydes, Triton( a detergent) Acetone, human serum albumin, to name a few.

Not looking such a good idea really now is it?

Again women are advised to quit smoking and their intake of alcohol both prior to conception and during pregnancy.  Can we all drink and smoke as much as we like now?

There are of course no studies done to see if vaccination on the unborn have side effects, yet we are told by these medical professionals that it is safe.  How do we know that, if a trial hasn't been done?
We wouldn't consider someone innocent or guilty without a trial. People are not declared a danger to the public without the evidence being weighed up and this isn't going to effect your health.

Yet here we are quite happy to accept 'opinion'  This is not scientific. Yet science constantly wants evidence of effectiveness from all other approaches to health - except it's own it seems. We have to take as 'red' that it is safe, just through opinion.  Wow that is some arrogance and this arrogance could impact on the mothers health and that of her unborn child.

The effect of vaccinations on the body may not always materialise straight away, it may lay dormant and fester away or make the immune system weaker, not stronger and thus make one more prone to developing the types of systemic disease we all fear and see increasing in our society.

How effective do they think these vaccines are? The article states that women are to have this vaccine in all pregnancies. Well does that mean every year for a few years or every 18 months. Most women have their children quite close together. Is the vaccine so ineffective that it needs renewing so often? and if that is the case why when we were all given DTaP as small babies, haven't we been given top ups in adulthood as standard practise. By this definition, have the medics been playing fast and loose with our health??

Suddenly pregnant mums need it every time they are pregnant?? Interesting!

What for our babies then? Are they to receive this so called protection in the womb that we are told will protect them and then get the shots again from 2 months.  Well these don't work it seems, but we are willing to vaccinate and just remember it is not just the vaccine but all the 'extra' bits it needs to break down cell walls to allow the vaccine to penetrate.

Not the way the body contracts viruses and so therefore doesn't allow the natural immune system to work.

Babies immune systems take time to work, so how will it generate antibodies to vaccines and what will be the effect?  Well BBC, why don't you ask the questions that need the answers and not just be the mouth piece for the next government announcement.

Yes, I understand that we want perfect health for ourselves and our children. I have a child myself and of course numerous children that I have care and concern for, but is this the right way?

Because I care about the health of our children in a non reactionary way, I want the safest protection for them. Health isn't perfect sadly and epidemics come along for a reason and of course none of us want to be caught up in them, but how we cope with disease has got to be better than the disease itself, not just seemingly in the short term, but the long term effects on our health and that of our children has to be considered also.

Are we to vaccinate pregnant mothers for every illness we have a vaccine for?

If the government decided that all pregnant women should have 10 vaccines, would we still be comfortable with that?  How many is too many?
Pregnant women are offered the flu jab also. You can get a measles shot as well.

Already with this whooping cough vaccine you are getting three vaccines in one, not quite as the story was presented or headlined.

I could go on and show how vaccines have not had the impact on health we are lead to believe and that these diseases were already on the decline as vaccines were introduced. Much to do with improved sanitation and environment. Quality of nutrition also a major factor.

May be we should look back to nutrition again. We are food rich and nutrition poor in the main. Perhaps if we considered food as nutrition, mothers-to-be would have healthier immune systems and thus so would our newborns. This would make them less vulnerable to illness and disease, which no matter how hard we try are a fact of life.

I could quote various side effects and the documented dangers of vaccination. It is all out there, so why doesn't the BBC quote some of it?

Please read around opposing views to vaccines before you are manipulated at a very vulnerable time to conceding to medical opinion. It is not medical fact as we established no one is quoting a medical trial here.  If it exists, let us see it then.

Let us also see the results of health in the vaccinated compared to the non vaccinated, or is that another trial that has never been carried out - may be for fear of what it will show and that can only be that vaccines wouldn't show as favourable as the medics want.

In all these decisions, follow the money trail, sad but true perhaps. Government concern for our health may have little to do with health at all. So we are the guardians of our children's health and must equip ourselves with the knowledge from all sides before making health effecting decisions that could have long lasting impact on our growing and precious children.

Evidence Based Medicine

Given the ever expanding grip that the Advertising Standards Agency seems to exert over all of us therapists, do you ever ask the question why?  How?

It seems to me that many of the benefits that we were taught as students when learning our therapies, and clearly apparent when practising those such as reflexology, aromatherapy and massage have to be pushed under the carpet and hidden.  Not allowed to be told!  Why?  Who is controlling this?

One of the remits of our professional bodies is surely to uphold the values of our therapies and yet they seem to be floundering and appeasing the cry for our therapies to be subject to the same rigours of control that pharmaceutical drugs are.  I ask the same question - why?  Why on earth do we think that we have to try to emulate the clinical trials that have been formulated to test drug efficacy?  They are completely the wrong model for most of our therapies so why are we allowing ourselves to be sucked into that way of thinking?

I am totally fed up with being advised to dum down the wonderful value that our therapies can offer to basically just a nice relaxing treatment so the stress relief is the basis of the therapeutic effect - if it has one, of course.  Rubbish!  Might as well go and have a lie-down or warm bath and it will do you as much good.  Really?  Would clients pay us and return time after time for that?

Drugs are alien substances that are put into the body and of course have to be properly trialled, though one does have to question the gold standard of randomised, controlled studies, that was pioneered to stand up to scrutiny in a court of law.

What happened to clinical observation, and even patient/client evaluation?

The touch therapies can not be subject to placebo trials, as any touch will cause an effect.  A "dummy" reflexology treatment given by a lay person will still have an effect - most likely positive - as the touch will generate a response.  It is quite ridiculous for us to be cowed into thinking that we have to conform to the standards that are applied to alien & very often highly toxic substances being administered to the body.  Aromatherapy is the nearest equivalent to drugs that touch therapies use and trained aromatherapists know how to use safely the essential oils that can have a much greater effect than simply relaxation & stress relief!  Remember our training?  Remember the safety warnings?  If they simply generate relaxation and a feel good effect, why the safety warnings?

Steve Hickey discusses the subject of evidence based medicine in his book "Tarnished Gold - The Sickness of Evidence Based Medicine" and he will be speaking at the Convention on Supportive Techniques for People with Cancer on 20th October 2012 near Birmingham.  He will be well worth hearing - his views are spectacularly controversial and turns evidence based medicine on its head.  As therapists, we need to hear this so that we can have an informed view on what is being forced upon us.  It shouldn't be and we need to stop the insidious process from denigrating our therapies completely. 

Posted by Maddy

Cancer Convention - Supportive Techniques

To be held on Saturday, 20th October 2012

At The National Motorcycle Museum Conference Centre, Birmingham

This convention brings together many eminent professionals to speak on some of the cutting edge and innovative ways of treating people with systemic disease and supporting healthy tissue available today.

Topics to include but not restricted to: 

Natural Killer Cell activity, Naturopathic ways to support healthy breast tissue,

Thermal Imaging,  Nutritional Factors in the Treatment of people with Cancer,

Therapeutic dose Vitamin C, Disease from an evolutionary aspect,  

Chirokinetic Therapy (CKT), Screening for Cancer Markers,

the Sickness of Evidence Based Medicine etc.

Dr Damien Downing will Chair this convention and will also be one of our speakers; he will talk about Nutritional Factors in the treatment of people with cancer.   He notes that "Epidemiologists realise that nutrition is key in cancer prevention, but oncologists seem largely unaware that a number of studies have shown that adjunctive, mainly antioxidant, nutritional therapy does not hinder chemo- or radio-therapy; rather it increases the efficacy and reduces the adverse effects.  There are pitfalls to this, which is why someone competent in nutritional therapy should prescribe, but this is a tragically missed upportunity in cancer care in the UK."  

Dr Downing practises Ecological Medicine, was a co-founder of the British Society for Nutritional Medicine in 1983, and is the current president of its successor, the British Society for Ecological Medicine.  He co-founded the Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine in 1990, and is now its editor-in-chief.  For three years he was the Medical Director of the Alliance for Natural Health. 

Patricia Peat will give an overview of the many approaches to treating people who have cancer that are available throughout the world.  Her background as an oncology nurse led her to develop "Cancer Options" which provides information that enables patients to make their own decisions about their treatment, whatever approch that may be.  She is medical advisor to the "Yes to Life" charity and the Integrated Healthcare Trust.  Patricia is also patron of the Cancer Active Charity and co-author of The Frontier Guide to Medicine

with Professor Karol Sikora.

Prof Dr med Rupert Handgretinger, Paediatric Oncologist is Professor of Haemotology and Oncology in Paediatrics at the Tubingen Univerity Hospital in Germany and is also medical director of the same department in the Clinic of Child and Adolescent Medicine.  Prior to his work at Tubingen he spent five years as Head of Stem Cell Transplantation at St. Jude Children's Hospital in the USA.  Much of his work has focused on stem cell transplantation, leukemic patients and the role Natural Killer (NK) Cells play towards a successful outcome.  Prof Handgretinger has researched and worked with NK cells for twenty years.

Prof Tim Oliver is Consultant Oncologist and Professor Emeritus of Medical Oncology, St. Bartholomew's and The Royal London Hospital School of Medicine and Dentistry.  His research into treating men with prostate & testicular cancer has involved pioneering use of specific drugs in this treatment area.  Amongst others, he conducted a study following Prof Pfeifer's Protocol, which includes the use of various nutrients (such as biobran & prostasol) in patients with prostate and, to a lesser extent, breast cancer.  In addition to his research and treating patients, Prof Oliver is a co-founder of the Orchid Cancer Appeal.

Mr William (Bill) Bradford, Managing Director of Meditherm Limited, the European Branch Office of Meditherm Inc, USA, will talk about and demonstrate their Medical Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging Cameras.  The camera detects subtle physiological conditions that can indicate changes in breast tissue and is used for other areas of the body, which may need further investigation.  Specialist doctors interpret the data collected by this method and feedback is very quick.  It is non-invasive, painless and involves no radiation.  There are no concerns about tissue damage whilst checking physiologically for disease or dysfunction whether inflammatory or neurological.

David Stevens, founder of Chirokinetic Therapy - CKT, will discuss naturopathic methods of helping women to regain and maintain healthy breasts.  Following their meeting at the Institute's Inaugural Conference in April of last year, Bill Bradford and David Stevens began to collaborate with each other whereby progress of David's patients with breast disease is monitored safely using thermal imaging.  David pubished his book "Every Woman's Guide to Vital Breast Health" last year, and holds clinics in Harley Street and Leatherhead.

Dr Steve Hickey will talk about cancer from an evolutionary perspective and thus how he considers that the logical way to treat people with such a disease is via a holistic approach.  He will discuss the use of high (therapeutic) doses of Vitamin C and other nutritional support for people with compromised health.  Steve has written several highly regarded books on health, with co-authors including Hilary Roberts and Andrew Saul (of doctoryourself.com).  He will discuss what he terms "the sickness of evidence based medicine", which he tackles in his new book "Tarnished Gold".

9.00 am – 6.00 pm

Registration from 8.30 am

Price: £80 includes refreshments & hot buffet lunch

 

The convention is open to all health professionals with an interest in the treatment of people

 with systemic disease and is also open to members of the public who wish to hear discussion/debate on some of the latest developments in this field, and measures that

can be taken which may help support healthy tissue.

A few select stands will add interest and pertinent information to the day during breaks.

CPPD Points: Certificates of Attendance Issued

The Institute reserves the right to change venue and/or speakers at any time.

Disclaimer: 

Please note that the views & practices of the speakers do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute.

The Stranglehold that the UK 1939 Cancer Act Exerts in Great Britain

A few months back I blogged on the 1939 Cancer Act and wanted to reiterate just how out dated this act is.

My Colleague, Maddy Hickey Smith, then wrote the article below which is published on the orthomolecular website. This is an abbreviated version of it and sums up the absurdity and restrictiveness of this act.


Most citizens of Great Britain are totally unaware of the 1939 Cancer Act which effectively prevents them from finding out about different treatments for cancer.

Excerpts from the UK 1939 Cancer Act:

"4 - (1) No person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement -

(a) containing an offer to treat any person for cancer, or to prescribe any remedy therefor, or to give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof; or

(b) referring to any article, or articles of any description, in terms which are calculated to lead to the use of that article, or articles of that description, in the treatment of cancer.

In this section the expression "advertisement" includes any "notice, circular, label, wrapper or other document, and any announcement made orally or by any means of producing or transmitting sounds."

Publication of such advertisements is permitted to a very restrictive group comprising members of either House of Parliament, local authority, governing bodies of voluntary hospitals, registered or training to become registered medical practitioners, nurses or pharmacists, and persons involved in the sale or supply of surgical appliances. A very tight grip, therefore, is exercised on information that is fed to citizens of Great Britain; interestingly, the Act does not apply to Northern Ireland.

That pretty much wraps it up, and wraps us up in the legal stranglehold that this outdated Act still exerts. Was this enacted to protect the citizens from charlatans and "quacks" or to safeguard the interests of the National Radium Trust, to whom the British Government lent money? If no one is allowed to tell us, how can we, the general public, ever find out what alternatives there are to those offered by mainstream medicine, mainly surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy?

No Freedom of Therapy, Information or Assembly

Sarah Ling and I unwittingly found ourselves in a maelstrom when we decided to hold a convention in Birmingham, later this year, to do just that - inform the general public about some of the other ways to tackle this hideous disease than those generally doled out to their mostly trusting, but fear-filled patients. A well-justified fear of the actual treatments as well as the disease prevails.

Last year, Sarah's sister was diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer. Chemotherapy was the only treatment offered, which she accepted out of fear. She nearly died within hours of having it, and very sadly died days afterwards. Sarah was determined to help prevent others from enduring such trauma and so, under the umbrella of our Institute, we organised a convention to educate people - conventional and complementary health professionals and the general public - about different ways to treat people who have cancer.

We quickly drew up a short list of speakers that we felt would have much to contribute, including Dr Stanislaw Burzynski who agreed to come and talk about his pioneering work on antineoplastins.

After posting our speakers on our web-site, one, an oncologist, pulled out due to a malevolent e-mail she had received, questioning her wisdom at sharing a platform with Dr Burzynski. She didn't want to cause her team any controversy. We then discovered that we had attracted a lot of adverse attention that was derogatory, critical of our speakers, casting aspersions on them and on us as an organisation. Unfortunately Dr Burzynski decided not to come - so as not to expose us to the sort of attacks that he has suffered. Regrettably, the public lost an opportunity to hear first-hand of his pioneering treatments in tackling cancers, including inoperable brain tumours.

Two speakers down, we then found ourselves possibly contravening the archaic Cancer Act. We've had to be extremely careful in how we word any publications relating to our event so that the Advertising Standards Agency doesn't come down on us like a ton of bricks and prevent us from holding it at all. Britain cherishes its long-held tradition of freedom of speech, but in recent years that seems questionable. However, we can still hold debates, and that is what we are doing.

We are aware that efforts will be made to stop us, from those who are not seekers of truth. If they were truly interested in the welfare of people, they would be advocating most of the alternative & complementary approaches instead of deriding them and trying to close down clinics and individuals who practise them, via the Advertising Standards Agency. This gagging Act affords them the guise of protecting the public and gives them ammunition that they can use against persons advocating alternatives.

We can't hold an open day of education on treating cancer in this country: how bizarre is that? How much longer can this information be contained?

The Cost of Ignorance

The UK National Health Service is overstretched and, as more and more people contract cancer (one in three presently), the rising costs of expensive and often ineffective treatments will surely mean they have to look at alternatives.

Conventional healthcare professionals are too often ignorant of the enormous value of unconventional treatments. How can they be otherwise, as those outside of their profession are prohibited from alluding to the fact that they can help treat cancer? Shockingly, even nutrition is most often totally overlooked during orthodox cancer treatment, and the very foods that promote cancers are given to patients in our hospitals (sometimes in order to maintain calorie intake). There is frequently no advice on diet, that most crucial aspect of our health. 

Thankfully, some oncologists do recognise the benefits that alternative/complementary treatments offer.  Hopefully more and more will come to accept that integrating the best of conventional and complementary/alternative methods is the way forward.

It is our opinion that a reform of the 1939 Cancer Act is long overdue. The tenacious grip that it holds on treating cancer must be relinquished, so that patients and their healthcare providers can make an informed choice as to what approach may be best for their individual needs. 

Madeline Hickey-Smith

August 2012

Cancer - When Do We Stop Treating The Disease?

It seems that no matter how much money we plough into 'fighting' cancer the results are hardly staggering, or may be they are but not for the positive.

It almost seems that to criticise the efforts of the fund raisers, researchers, charity givers etc has allowed no query into where all this raised money goes and what exactly does it pay for.

All those that 'Race for Life' or give to the vast array of cancer charities, usually after the disease has impacted on them or a loved one, give of their efforts and money with the best of intention, and it can seem churlish to not support this, but I must be in the minority. When I lost my sister to cancer, I couldn't give to the chosen cancer fund - I never have been able to.

I can't see how piling money into a bottomless pit that is not showing results to match the income is ever going to produce the 'cure'

Logic says that the cure for cancer is not in a test tube, you are more likely to find it in your supermarket!

That may sound flippant, but look at it, the lab has not been able to produce anything other than a sticking plaster for it - we need to address the 'host' and not the disease.

If we don't start looking at our lifestyle and easing the pressure on ourselves, questioning our food sources and just what goes on and in our food. Standing back and looking at our environment, we are heading for a massive rise in cancer.

These are the noticeable changes around us that impact on our systems. Our systems haven't changed, but our environment has.

So as more and more of us develop cancer and that figure is set to rise - we need to look to our own bodies and what we put in them to nourish them, protect our immune systems and give ourselves a fighting chance.

Don't get sick and expect a cure, do your best to keep well and healthy.

If all the money that the cancer industry has sucked up, was put into ensuring good nutrition, checking our vitamin and mineral deficiencies and creating a more stress free lifestyle - we would be healthier.

Next time you do the shopping, see it as a chance to start to change your health.

http://www.askimo.com/pages/PlayVideo.aspx?vid=2665

Gardasil - Should Your Daughters Have It?

At our last local therapists meeting, our speaker came to talk about homeopathy and vaccinations. She has worked a lot with children who have experienced a range of side effects since their vaccines. During the discussion afterwards we went on to talk about Gardasil, the vaccine to 'protect' against cervical cancer and that this is due to replace the Cervarix currently used in the UK.

I was asked after to pen some of the opposing data together and send it to one of the mums in our group so as she had something to pass on to other mothers.

She showed me the forms that the school had sent out to all parents of young girls ahead of this Septembers vaccination programme and within that was a link to an NHS site that had all the information on Gardasil and the HPV virus etc....well i say all the information, in fact it had the desired information!  There was a list of some 68 comments, mostly from concerned parents, who had written about the adverse reactions to the Cervarix vaccines their daughters had experienced, other comments from people worried they had not had the vaccine when they were young, others declaring their suspicion of it etc etc.

So i decided i would post the comment that is below, despite the fact that the comments from parents already would have been enough to deter me from considering it for my child, my comment was a step to far for the NHS site as later that morning my inbox had a mail from that site thanking me for my posting but it had been removed as it actively discouraged people from following the evidence based approach of taking the vaccine.

Well i challenge the evidence base for this, as this is a vaccine given to young girls who are to young for to be used in the 'clinical trial' so adult dosages have to be adjusted, as with all medicines for children.

What i have written is also evidence based and published!  Just because the evidence doesn't fit what the NHS want to show, it's still exists and should be considered by parents when making a decision that could effect their childs health.

So below is the article that the NHS removed.

How harmless is the Gardasil vaccine? And has it actually been proven to prevent cervical cancer?

The HPV vaccine only protects against TWO strains of HPV associated with cancer but there are MORE THAN 100 different strains of HPV in all. I recognise that it is also supposed to cover genital warts.

Dr. Diane Harper, one of the lead researchers for Gardasil blew the whistle on the vaccine, saying the available data suggests the HPV vaccine's protective effects do not last beyond five years. (we should then question the age at which this vaccine is given as hopefully these young girls are not sexually active at 13 – if so that is a reason for better education not vaccination)

The VAERS database continues to swell with reports of autoimmune disorders contracted after receiving the HPV vaccine. These side effects now include 137 reports of cervical dysplasia, and 41 reports of cervical cancer.

HPV infection clears up on its own within two years in 90 percent of all cases. It rarely leads to cervical cancer unless the infection becomes chronic and leads to cervical changes that remain untreated. Routine pap smear testing can identify chronic HPV infection and may provide greater protection against development of cervical cancer than reliance on an HPV vaccine that has not been adequately proven to be safe or effective.

Symptoms that have developed since vaccination

Bell's Palsy and Guillan-Barre syndrome,Seizures. Cervical dysplasia, and cervical cancer

Blood clotting and heart problems, including cardiac arrest          

Miscarriages and foetal abnormalities amongst pregnant women who received the vaccine

Sudden death.

What effect will the vaccine have on the other cancer-causing strains of HPV? Nature never leaves a void, so if HPV-16 and HPV-18 are suppressed by an effective vaccine, other strains of the virus could take their place. The question is, will these strains cause cervical cancer? Results from clinical trials are not encouraging. Vaccinated women show an increased number of precancerous lesions caused by strains of HPV other than HPV-16 and HPV-18. "

Andreas Moritz book ‘Vaccine-nation. Poisoning the nation, one shot at a time’ Accepting that the author is clearly not a supporter of vaccinations, he does go on to quote data.

In it he states the most recent figures and the back ground behind the vaccine.

This vaccine has been used in the states since 2008 and developed by Merck who were a substantial contributor to Rick Perry’s political campaign….no prizes for guessing who then ordered that all teenage girls within his state should be given the Gardasil vaccine…. Rick Perry was the governor for Texas at the time.

Should vaccine programmes come about due to political campaigning?

Are we in this country  ignoring the problems that this vaccine has caused in the US and India etc and are quite prepared to just introduce it here.

Deaths from Gardasil or any vaccine or medication are not a statistic if it is your child, it is not a low %, it is total!

Let us not even go as far as death. Illness and autoimmune problems, which so often remain a problem for years to come, are also total in the person that they afflict.

People don’t contract illness in %, it is all or nothing, why risk something through vaccination that is not essential to health and can in fact be the very opposite.

To quote the figures from Andreas Moritz book, up to 1/9/2009, 26million doses of this vaccine had been given in the states….nice profit for Merck!

So what have been the results…15,000 reports of adverse effects, 7% deemed serious.

In the short period in which it has been approved the vaccine has been linked to the deaths of women who died within hours of having the vaccine, it has also been linked to miscarriages in women, blood clots and strokes and linked to the Guillain Barr Syndrome.

Some public interest groups have evidence to show the Gardasil is linked to the deaths of 18 women, 11 of which were within a week of vaccination.

In the Canadian Medical Association Journal of 2009 researchers in Australia showed a significant rise in allergic responses and anaphylaxis is women that had been vaccinated with Gardasil.

It was in July 2009 that the US government finally gave a warning that there were 400times more adverse effects with the Gardasil vaccine than the anti-meningitis vaccine given at the same age.

September 28 2010 – VAERS Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, now has more than 18,000 Gardasil related adverse effects and deaths now at 65, so increasing all the time.

These are only the reported cases which are usually only 1 in 10 of all cases, so the real/true figure could be much higher.

The US government report now wants to know how this vaccine was fast tracked and of course only tested on adult women so what moral right did Governor Perry have to mandate the compulsory vaccine for children??

Luckily we don’t have compulsory vaccines here.  Merck make $400 dollars a shot! ‘Independent research shows that HPV naturally leaves the body within 2 years of infection in 70-90% of cases. If the human system can naturally eject the virus and protect the body from future attacks – why do women need a vaccine against HPV in the first place?’ quote from Andreas Moritz.

Clearly all data on this has come from the states. Has the UK examined this independently before coming to the conclusion to use the Gardasil vaccine?

Here is the NHS link http://www.nhs.uk/Planners/vaccinations/Pages/parents-rights.aspx

Measles Vaccines! Unbelievable?

The Article below is a good indication of just how the figures can be presented to indicate what ever you want to emphasise.
Clearly it is intended to get parents to ensure their children are vaccinated, even encouraging them to ignore the recommended vaccine programme for MMR and have the jabs earlier just so their children are 'protected'


But look at the figures carefully. Of the 113 cases, 29 are in the non vaccinated adults & teenagers and 27 are in the children under the vaccination age for the measles vaccine.  This obviously gives a combined total of 56.  Are we to assume then that the remaining 57 cases were in the vaccinated??
If this is the case, not quite the story it would seem then. At best the vaccine gives you   50/50 chance and at worst could mean you have a greater chance of contracting the disease. 
I'm sure if the un-vaccinated  figures were greater than those mentioned, they would show that proudly so as to really prove how 'effective' a vaccine is, but on these figures so far, that is not the case.
 Bearing in mind the awful adjuvants that go into vaccines, is the risk worth it for a 50/50 outcome at best.
For another side to the Measles vaccine read Vaccine-nation by Andreas Moritz.

Measles on Merseyside: Outbreak 'largest since MMR introduced'

Parents are being advised to ensure their children are fully vaccinated

Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

• More cases of measles confirmed
• NHS 'sorry' over measles letter
• Warning after outbreak of measles

An outbreak of measles on Merseyside is the largest in the North West since the MMR vaccine was introduced, the Health Protection Agency (HPA) has said.

There are now 113 confirmed cases of the illness and another 43 cases are being looked at.

Twenty-eight people needed hospital in-patient treatment and three of these, two adults and a child, were extremely ill but have now recovered.

The HPA is urging parents to ensure children are fully vaccinated.

Two doses of the MMR vaccine give protection against measles, mumps and rubella.

The HPA declared an outbreak of the illness last month after six people needed hospital treatment.

'Measles spreading'

It said most cases were in children who had not been given the MMR vaccine - which was introduced in 1988 - and babies and toddlers too young to be vaccinated.

Approximately 29 of the confirmed cases are in teenagers and young adults who were not vaccinated as children and 27 cases are in children under the age of 13 months who were too young to be vaccinated.

Dr Roberto Vivancos, a specialist with the HPA's Cheshire and Merseyside Health Protection Unit, said: "Measles is highly infectious and anyone who has not previously been vaccinated is at risk when it gets into a community, as it has done here.

"In this outbreak we have seen measles spreading amongst unvaccinated children, teenagers and young adults and affecting infants and toddlers who are too young to be vaccinated.

"Our advice to teenagers and young adults is to arrange vaccination now. Speak to your family doctor. It's not too late.

"Our advice to parents is, arrange to have your children vaccinated regardless of their ages. If you are not sure if they have been immunised in the past, check with your family doctor."