Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Personalised cancer vaccines

  1. #1

    Personalised cancer vaccines

    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.
    Last edited by Firestarter; 07-08-2017 at 10:49 AM.
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-world/page2



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    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.
    My website: https://www.theherbsofthefield.com/

    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.” ~ Charles Dickens

  4. #3

    Tooth vaccines

    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
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-world/page2

  5. #4
    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/
    My website: https://www.theherbsofthefield.com/

    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.” ~ Charles Dickens

  6. #5

    HPV vaccines and cancer

    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)
    Last edited by Firestarter; 04-15-2018 at 08:40 AM. Reason: Postimage.org changed URLs
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-world/page2

  7. #6

    Swedish rising cancer rates

    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)
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-world/page2

  8. #7
    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.
    One thing we can say about Trump: Least Boring President Ever.

    Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'

    "Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    The article isn't freely viewable.

    Without evidence I have no reason to believe this...
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-world/page2



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Did you get your vaccine yet?
    My website: https://www.theherbsofthefield.com/

    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.” ~ Charles Dickens

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Firestarter View Post
    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.
    One thing we can say about Trump: Least Boring President Ever.

    Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'

    "Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    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!
    Last edited by Firestarter; 05-22-2018 at 06:11 AM. Reason: Removed double info
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-world/page2

  14. #12
    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.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 05-27-2018 at 01:54 PM.
    One thing we can say about Trump: Least Boring President Ever.

    Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'

    "Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    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.
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-world/page2

  16. #14
    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
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-world/page2

  17. #15
    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...
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-world/page2

  18. #16

    HPV-vaccines

    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!
    Last edited by Firestarter; 07-11-2018 at 03:38 AM.
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-world/page2



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    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.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 07-10-2018 at 03:46 PM.
    One thing we can say about Trump: Least Boring President Ever.

    Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'

    "Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by Firestarter View Post
    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”.
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-world/page2

  22. #19

    HPV-vaccines – infertility

    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
    Last edited by Firestarter; 07-17-2018 at 09:38 AM.
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-world/page2

  23. #20
    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
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-world/page2

  24. #21
    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.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Chester Copperpot View Post
    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.
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-world/page2

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Firestarter View Post
    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.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Chester Copperpot View Post
    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.
    One thing we can say about Trump: Least Boring President Ever.

    Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'

    "Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by Firestarter
    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?
    Biskind’s views fell into disfavour with the establishment, who favoured that polio was caused by a virus. By October 1955, Biskind’s career was destroyed.
    See the correlation between the most used chemicals, DDT, BHC, Arsenic and Lead, and the number of “polio” cases from 1940 to 1970.

    http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/eve...se-polio-wrong
    (archived here: http://archive.is/H8uz6)
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...vaccines/page2
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-world/page2



Similar Threads

  1. Vaccines Will be Made from Human Cancer Tumors
    By donnay in forum Personal Health & Well-Being
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-01-2014, 07:56 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-13-2013, 12:16 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-28-2011, 09:03 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-29-2009, 07:34 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-15-2007, 09:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •