Forced vaccination?

“I want to be one less” …. that’s the new push from Merck. Gardasil, Merck’s potential new money maker is being pushed heavily! My daughters just had their annual physicals. And their pediatrician is pushing the $400 HPV (a STD) vaccine (actually being marketed as a vaccine that will prevent certain types of cervical cancer). It’s a series of three shots over six months. The cost of the shot is $120 to $140 per injection.

The vaccine is designed to prevent infections of HPV 16, 18, 6, and 11. HPV types 16 and 18 cause about 70% of HPV-related cervical cancer cases. In addition, some types of HPV, particularly type 16, have been found to be associated with oropharyngeal squamous-cell carcinoma, a form of throat cancer. HPV types 6 and 11 cause about 90% of genital wart cases. Human papilloma virus (HPV) infection causes virtually all cases of cervical cancer, the 7th most common cause of death from cancer among women worldwide. Or so Merck would like you to believe.

My question is this: does a virus cause cancer? Back in 1992, this very same question was raised about the dominant and increasingly-entrenched theory that HPV causes cervical cancer. It came from Peter Duesberg and Jody Schwartz, molecular biologists at the University of California at Berkeley. Among the various issues they raised about the acceptance of HPV as the cause of cervical cancer was their fundamental concern that there was a lack of consistent HPV DNA sequences and consistent HPV gene expression in tumors that were HPV-positive. They instead suggested that “rare spontaneous or chemically induced chromosome abnormalities which are consistently observed in HPV DNA-negative and positive cervical cancers induce cervical cancer.”

Let’s make that a little easier to understand, Duesberg and Schwartz were pointing to the possibility that “carcinogens may be primary inducers of abnormal cell proliferation rather than HPV.” And here’s the key point: “Since proliferating cells [cancer cells dividing wildly] would be more susceptible to infection than resting cells, the viruses would just be indicators rather than causes of abnormal proliferation.” Click here to read more.

Hmmmm, I still want to know, does a virus cause cancer? Here’s what we do know about what cancer – cancer results from a complex mix of factors related to environment, lifestyle, and heredity. Scientists estimate that about 80 percent of all cancers are related to the use of tobacco products, to what we eat and drink, or, to a lesser extent, to exposure to radiation or cancer-causing agents in the environment and the workplace. Not a virus … or so I understand this site to read.

My guess is since a drug manufacturer said it is so, we should believe it. Right? Rrriiigggghhhttttt … I’m beginning to wonder if Merck’s push to make this vaccination mandatory … yes they are lobbying right now on your behalf to make this a mandatory vaccination if you want your daughter to attend public school … is a way for them to make up the lost revenue from the screw-up of letting people take Vioxx.

So, will my daughter’s get the vaccine? No. Why? Medically speaking, it’s not necessary. Merck and our pediatrician are making the assumption that my daughters will be participating in unprotected (or for that matter protected) sex before marriage. Statistics say they will, but, I’m certain and praying that the morals and faith they have today will continue and see them through to marriage. It means sitting them down and being honest about what the consequences are of pre-marital sex are. It means being open and honest. It means being an active parent and being a part of their lives. In short I am going to be “one less” to buy into the forced vaccinations or my daughters.



Filed under Journal

3 responses to “Forced vaccination?

  1. There are many problems with Merck’s HPV vaccine program which are described in this article:

    Guard Your Daughters from Gardasil

    1. The vaccine is costly. ($360 for series of three shots)

    2. Lack of testing in 9–13 yr olds.

    3. Lack of evidence of duration of protection (estimated duration of 5 years).

    4. Efficacy has not been demonstrated and is unknown. In fact, there’s already been talk of the need for booster shots.

    5. Benefit of Gardasil to 9–13 year olds is dubious. Cervical Cancer affects 45-55 year olds, 40 years later.

    6. Questionable Safety when used in conjunction with other vaccines (Hep B and Meningitis ).

    7. High rate of vaccine injury: the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System is showing considerable serious injury from this vaccine, especially neurological and immune dysfunction. Included are reports of collapse, paralysis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, dizziness, vomiting, rash, syncope, seizures and headache.

    8. Gardasil may actually cause an increase in cervical cancer due to a false feeling of security in the females who receive it and decline PAP smears.

    9. Gardasil does not guarantee safety from HPV: Regular Pap screening tests with their incumbent costs will still be needed.

    10. The incidence of cervical cancer is low, and it would cost $360 million to pay for vaccine to prevent only 1–2 deaths.

    11. HPV is usually benign: The virus clears up on its own within 8–12 months.

    12. Pap screening already works and has been very effective in reducing cervical cancer rates.

    13. Gardasil gives the wrong message to kids about sex and may encourage promiscuity.

    Jeffrey Dach MD

  2. Even when you take sex out of the equation, you are so right to not get your daughter’s this shot. There are other ways to get HPV and it’s not the enormous killer they want us to think it is.

    In addition, the shot contains Polysorbate 80, which caused infertility in mice. There are NO studies if this will also occur in women, but why wouldn’t it? Not only that, but considering the amount of vaccines they want our kids to get, this one is just more toxic chemicals on top of those when they aren’t needed.

    Check out my op-ed (shameless plug):

    Thank goodness we still have mothers with common sense or soon we could be a childless nation.

  3. Thank you both for re-affirming my position. Dr. Jeff I’ve added you to my blogroll. MaryAnna, great article! I just wish my wife would understand why I object. The feels the Drs are right and I’m overreacting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s