Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Facts about Gardisil

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Health Donate to DU
 
kimmerspixelated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 05:27 PM
Original message
Facts about Gardisil
Naysayers: Still think it's safe?!!!!

Some facts about this vaccine

1) Merck outsourced some of its Gardasil trials to Contract Research Organizations (CROs) in the developing world,including JayaJan Pharmaceutical Research in India. CROs are part of a $14 billion industry that recruits subjects and runs trials for BigPharma. Conflicts of interest can arise when CROs are paid royalties only after a drug is approved rather than getting a set fee independent of results, or when CROs believe favorable findings will lead to future contracts. Merck spokesperson Amy Rose refused to specify how, or even if, the company oversees CROs.
This information comes from the article HPV vaccine: Betting on a Mercky record by Terry J. Allen

2) Gardasil contains Polysorbate 80, which is linked to infertility in mice

3) Gardasil contains sodium borate (a common roach killer) In 2005 the National Library of Medicine (NLM) of the National Institutes of Health noted that sodium borate is now known to be a dangerous poison, it is no longer commonly used in medical preparations.

4) Anyone receiving the full set of 3 vaccines would be receiving 675 mcg of aluminum. Aluminum is a toxic metal when injected into our bloodstreams and can adversely affect muscles, tissues, nerves and brain. There are also associations of Alzheimers with aluminum.

How dare they try to mandate this toxic soup into the arms of our little girls!

www.organicandhealthy.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
CountAllVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. I sure would NOT recommend it
I don't think sodium borate (a common roach killer) is going to do anything but make a person sick IMO! :mad:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
2. superstitious hogwash.
gardasil works -- and it's the first anti-cancer vaccine in our history.

soon there will be breast cancer vaccine using shortened strands of dna -- are you going to hate women enough then to tell them not to get it?

or is this just about hating the vagina and sex?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kimmerspixelated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. There are so many things wrong with your post
I don't know where to start.

AS A WOMAN, A MOTHER of A Young Girl, I absolutely will do anything to protect her! Knowledge is power! Why would I allow her to be poisoned? I intend to feed her only good things to support her immune system which is the first line of any defense!!!!!!! Educate yourself about the dangers of all prescribed drugs!!! Think for yourself, and don't always do what your doctor tells you to do!
READ!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. phylis schlafly is a woman also --
and holds exactly the same views as you.

being a woman gives you no special consideration when it comes to hating and working against women.

there are -- unfortunately and as your post describes to perfection -- an unending supply of women who hate women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #11
46. Robert Kennedy Junior is a man who shares my views as well, what's your point?
Oh, that's right if you critique Gardasil you hate women. :eyes: Have you had your shot yet or do you hate men? Unless you conveniently forgot it can "save the lives of men" too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dropkickpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #46
67. RFK Jr does not live in my vagina
or my daughters, and he doesn't have one of his own. He's not a scientist, so why would I listen to a fucking word he has to say on the matter? I'd rather listen to a learned scientist and accept the 20,000+ (and growing, there are studies currently going on about the cross effectiveness of gardasil to protect against HPV 31 and 45 also) person study results than some guy riding the coat-tails of his ancestors famous name as some sort of credibility in this matter.

I am not technically eligible for the shot (too old and already had cervical cancer due to HPV, trying to convince my doc and ins to go off label and do it anyway). Dropkid is just 6, but when she's old enough, sure as shit I am going do this for her.

I've been through cervical cancer. Buckets of fucking fun, let me tell you, and mine was caught early enough that a minor surgical procedure was enough to get rid of it. The surveillence period alone that I went through (colposcopies and biopsies every 3 months for 3 years not counting the emotional toll) would have cost me thousands of dollars out-of-pocket. A good friend of mine hasn't been as lucky, she is currently undergoing chemo for the second time while trying to care for a 2 and 6 year-old, she gets the "not a bill" things from her insurance and they are a doozy! And the cancer itself is painful for her (the first sign she had of her recurrance). Another good friend recently lost her very young aunt (30 years old) to it after a 3 year fight, including rod implants and everything that goes along with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. I was responding to an idiotic comment by another poster. HOWEVER,
Diane Harper is a "scientist" and she worked for twenty years to develop the HPV vaccine, she shares many of the same concerns I do.

I do believe you've shared your story before, and I am sorry you've had cancer. However, you may wish to familiarize yourself with the FDA concerns that the vaccine can lead to cancer in some women.

Peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dropkickpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #69
71. I've read most of the studies in their entirety
and understood what I was reading. Have you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #71
74. I've read many of the studies as well, and yes, I "understood."
Edited on Wed Jul-04-07 02:11 PM by mzmolly
Do you suppose the primary researcher who worked to develop the vaccine for 20 years "understands" as well as you?

An aside, have you read and understood any information on how vioxx study information was suppressed by Merck?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dropkickpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. Vioxx
for one has absolutely mothing to do with this. Straw man.

Secondly, vioxx is a propietary drug developed solely within the confines of Merck. Gardasil is based on widely available science and is not propietary. There is at least one other company readying another HPV vaccine.

A vaccine and a drug are two TOTALLY different things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #76
78. Vioxx has much to do with how testing by Merck is conducted and shared with the public.
Further, Vioxx also met international standards.

Vaccines undergo the same approval/marketing/testing process as drugs, it's not TOTALLY different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. I guess you must prefer her to get cancer then
Because that is what this vaccine does- prevent cancer. A particularly nasty form of it too. Thousands of lives will be saved outright and many others will be saved from having to undergo chemotherapy because of this vaccine. Compared to whatever risks this vaccine has, it is well worth it.

You can bury your head in the sand if you wish but I won't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #16
47. I find it amusing that those who promote the vaccine here make stronger claims
than the scientist who "invented" the damn thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
24. There are over 100 HPV virus. Approximattely 40 are transmitted
Edited on Tue Jul-03-07 06:47 PM by notadmblnd
sexually... oh hell.. here's my research paper on it. don't be too hard on me. It's my first.

The Human Papillomavirus is the name of a group of viruses that includes nearly 200 different strains or types. Approximately 40 of these viruses can be transmitted sexually. Of these 40 viruses, two types cause 90 percent of genital warts cases and experts suspect there may be as many as 15 to 20 types that can cause cervical cancer. They are called papilloma viruses because certain types may cause warts, or papillomas, which are benign tumors. The HPVs that cause the common warts which grow on hands and feet are different from those that cause growths in the throat or genital area. Some types of genital HPV are associated with certain types of cancer. These are called high-risk carcinogenic HPVs. Currently; there are four types of HPV <16, 18, 31 and 45> that account for 80 percent of all cervical cancers in 22 countries. (PATH:Alliance for Cervical Cancer Prevention 4).
Genital HPVs can be passed through sexual contact by both men and women. This includes vaginal, anal and orally, they can infect the genital area of men and women including the skin of the penis, vulva , or anus, and include the linings of the vagina, cervix, or rectum. Most people who become infected with HPV will not have any symptoms and the infection clears up on its own (cdc.org). Detection of HPV in women is primarily done through annual Pap tests which can point out abnormalities or changes in the cervix. There is also a specific test available to detect the virus in women over 30, and even though researchers believe that infection with HPV may be a risk factor for penile cancer and research is ongoing (cancer.org), there are currently no tests that detect HPV in men (cdc.org).
HPVs are very common and can be spread by coming in contact with the lesions. However, the genital HPVs that can cause cancer can not be transmitted by casual contact with others; the virus must be active, and intimate contact with the infected genital area must occur. Because the lesions can be located outside the area that a condom covers, they are not considered effective in preventing the transmission of the disease.

Although cervical cancer is one of the most common cancers in women, it is an
uncommon disease. It occurs mostly in women over 40 and may spread throughout the body eventually causing death. However, if detected early, it can be completely cured (AMA Family Medical Guide 611).
In June of 2006 the US Food and Drug Administration approved the first vaccine against four types of HPV. Mercks Gardasil for women ages nine to 26 and has been added to the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions recommended immunization schedule for girls ages 11 and 12. The CDC has also recommended catch-up vaccinations for girls and women ages 13 to 26 (kaisernetwork.org). Experts in the pharmaceutical and medical fields are touting the efficacy and safety record of the vaccine and are advocating for mandatory immunization in several states. The Gardasil vaccine provides for immunization for four types of HPV, 16 and 18, which cause 70 percent of cervical cancer, and six and 11, which cause 90 percent of genital warts. However, this is a drug that has been on the market for less than a year, and studies conducted on women in the US have been limited in both numbers of women who have had the vaccine , and in duration of time that those women have been tracked. Although experts have reported no adverse effects associated with the vaccine in clinical trials, there could be incidences of severe adverse effects once the vaccine is given out to millions and millions of women (kaisernetwork.org). In fact, a recent report obtained from the FDA under the Freedom of Information Act by the group Judicial Watch states there have been over 1600 incidences of adverse affects ranging from
not serious to serious , and three reported deaths
(VAERS Line List report 1339, 1340, 1393; Judcialwatch.org). Side effects published by Merck & Co. warn the public about potential pain, fever, nausea, dizziness and itching after receiving the vaccine (gardasil.com). But other more serious side effects reported include paralysis, Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and seizures.
In a February 27, 2007 interview conducted by Judy Woodruff on the PBS program Newshour with Dr. Ralph Anderson, chairman of the obstetrics and gynecology department at the University of North Texas Health Center and an advocate for mandated vaccines for girls as young as nine, had this to say, we have roughly 10,000 new cases of cancer of the cervix per year in this country, and we have approximately 4,000 deaths from cancer of the cervix. (pbs.org). In the same PBS Newshour interview with Wendy Wright, a spokesperson for the conservative group Concerned Women for America, who counters the argument for the urgent need to mandate the vaccine, points out, need to take a second look at the vaccine itself. Pointing out that the vaccine has been tested, she says, but in those trials people were pre-screened. People with medical conditions werent included in it. By mandating virtually the entire population of young girls, would have to get it. She then goes on to compare the number of cases of cervical cancer deaths to the number of deaths caused by the flu annually, saying,
about a little less than 4,000 women a year die from cervical cancer. About 36,000 people a year die from the flu, but we dont mandate that each person get a flu vaccine. (pbs.org).
The vaccine is administered intramuscularly through a shot in the arm. Its given in a series of three doses. The first dose administered, the second dose two months from the first, and the last dose administered six months from the first. It is not known how long the effectiveness of the vaccine will last or if women will need to undergo boosters or another series of immunizations in the future.
Dr. Anne Schuchat M.D., director for the Centers for Disease control and Preventions national Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, in a series titled Ask the Experts, a web based informational program of kaisernetwork.org and sponsored by the Kaiser Family Foundation, offers this as an answer when asked in a January 10, 2007 interview, Why not boys? the evidence base that we had at the time of the recommendations did not extend to boys and men, and so the company is studying the vaccine in men right now and were looking forward to seeing the results of those studies, but we dont yet have effectiveness studies out in men. So there is not a recommendation that can be science based. (kaisernewtork.org; transcript, ask the Experts 7). Dr. Schuchat also tells us that pre-pubescent girls are the target because, we dont know how long this vaccine is going to protect for. The studies so far have followed some people as long as five years, and they are intended to go out to 10 to15 years, but were trying to protect girls and women for many, many years and if we were to start at age two months, thats asking quite a lot of the vaccine, so one of the things
that will be studied after the vaccine is in wider use, is the duration of protection and whether we need to add a booster in the future at some point. (kaisernewtork.org; transcript, ask the Experts 8). In other words, the experts just dont know what the long term effects of the vaccine are or whether there will even be long lasting benefits.
Cost is another concern; the vaccine runs between 300.00 and 400.00 dollars for the series of injections not including the Dr. fee and cost of administering the injections. If the immunizations are mandated the states will have to fund programs for the poor and low income and will create a hefty windfall for the pharmaceutical company.
The Food and Drug Administration gave it Fast Track approval last June after phase II studies showed promise. Gardasil was evaluated and approved in six months under FDAs priority review processa process for products with potential to provide significant health benefits (FDA.gov), and lobbyists for the pharmaceutical company Merck had been lobbying not only to make the drug available, but to make Gardasil mandatory for all 11-12 year old girls. Merck, one of the worlds largest pharmaceutical companies had been hoping to reap billions of dollars from Gardasil as every child overage 9 are potential customers for the expensive injections. However, revelations of money trails and the rush to make the vaccine mandatory created a backlash and forced Merck, on February 20th, 2007, to publicly end its lobbying efforts for mandatory vaccination of school girls (corpwatch.org).
Finally, the moral implications of mandatory immunizations for sexually transmitted disease need to be considered. Conservative groups will argue once again
that this will give our children permission to become promiscuous instead of advocating abstinence outside of marriage.
As with any new d rug, parents need to be able to evaluate the risks against the benefits. Currently, the information provided by both health officials and pharmaceutical companies is not conclusive, some is downright contradictory. The incidence of death from cervical cancer is low in comparison to other diseases such as the flu and even with the vaccine, annual Pap tests will still be necessary for the prevention and treatment of cervical cancer. More study of the long term effects on our children is needed before we allow the states to mandate this vaccine. There is no urgent need for the safety of the public health and the decision to immunize our girls should for now, be left up to the parents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. 90% -- more -- of cervical cancers are caused by just
4 hp viruses -- and gardasil has an incredible record of protecting against all of those.

if you have followed the countless arguments here concerning gardasil and my posts -- you will have seen that i and others have covered every one of your concerns.

it is simply that some people will not accept good medicine for any reason. period.


the vaccine has been tested in europe and here -- it's being used in something like 40 countries -- and the cost? -- have you considering the cost of cancer treatment for just ONE, ONE person?

your concerns about the cost of the vaccine compared to that pales -- especially when you consider what that means to poor women here and abroad.

i'm not having it -- like social conservatives and gay folk and women -- this is about willful ignorance and hate.

not about science.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #27
48. Ditto buddy.
if you have followed the countless arguments here concerning gardasil and my posts -- you will have seen that i and others have covered every one of your concerns.

Have you had your Gardasil shot yet?

Speaking of science, what are your thoughts about the fact that the primary scientist who developed Gardasil shares the concerns of many here YOU call anti-science?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #51
55. I'm curious about this notion that Gardasil will have side effects in 13 year olds...
...that it wouldn't have in an 18 year old or a 30 year old.

Do you have some resources to back this up?

Or would you care to share your vast trove of personal knowledge on this issue?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. The "concern" is that nine year old girls may have different side effects than
15-26 year olds. Is that difficult to comprehend?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #57
72. Wow...isn't that an interesting tidbit I just uncovered.
During the clinical trials, the data indicated that the only difference between the groups aged 10-15 vs. 16-23 years old was a slightly stronger response in the younger group (99.9% of the younger group developed an antibody response as opposed to 99.1% of the older group).

Interestingly enough, in researching that particular tidbit of information, I realized that in order for them to have that piece of information, the vaccine MUST HAVE BEEN TESTED ON GIRLS AGED 10-15 and imagine my surprise to find that 1151 girls between the ages of 10-15 were involved in the trials prior to approval without any of the scary side-effects that have been predicted by the anti-Gardasil folks.

Since you are so well versed in the potential side effects and methodology of the clinical trials, I'm shocked that you have never mentioned that.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #72
79. "Little" tid bit is right.
"Giving it to 11-year-olds is a great big public health experiment," said Diane M. Harper, who is a scientist, physician, professor and the director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth Medical School in New Hampshire.

"It is silly to mandate vaccination of 11- to 12-year-old girls There also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue."


Do you see the word "enough" before evidence?

Diane Harper indicates that in her scientific opinion the vaccine should be available for women 18 and older.

"Internationally recognized as a pioneer in the field, Harper has been studying HPV and a possible vaccine for several of the more than 100 strains of HPV for 20 years - most of her adult life.

All of her trials have been with subjects ages 15 to 25. In her own practice, Harper believes the ideal way of administering the new vaccine is to offer it to women ages 18 and up. At the time of their first inoculation, they should be tested for the presence of HPV in their system."


So you see LV, my opinion mirrors that on an internationally recognized pioneer in the field, and yours mirrors that of Mercks marketing department.

LINK http://ahrp.blogspot.com/2007/03/hpv-vaccine-researcher...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #79
80. Now that makes some sense....NOT!
Since 57% of teen-aged girls admit to being sexually active, let's wait until after they may have already been exposed to give them a vaccine.

And if some of them test positive for HPV prior due to having sex prior to 18, well....if they had kept their legs shut they would be at risk, right?

And what would be special about the age of 18? Why not 16 or 21?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #80
83. Well then, lets stop giving the vaccine to anyone who's been active sexually?
Is that what YOU suggest? What I suggest is that Merck should have undergone further studies in the age group they marketed the vaccine toward. Why is that so hard to grasp?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #83
87. How many? Give us a number you would be comfortable with?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #87
91. I would say if a vaccine is to be "mandated" the number differs for me than if it's
simply "available."

I wanted to reply quickly before leaving today.

In a dream world, for any product to be mandated, I'd like it to be available on a voluntary basis for a minimum of ten years. Further, I'd like to see double blind studies gathered in that time.

That would mean that many thousands of people would have been used in gathering comparative data. That said, I'd be fine with the standards we have today to simply make a product available to people.

Now, what's your answer to the questions you posed?

I'll check back after my picknic.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #79
81. Also let's lay our cards on the table. I want a definitive answer from your.
On these simple questions:

1) How many girls between the ages of 9-13 would have to be vaccinated in order for you to consider it "well-tested"?

2) How many years after vaccination are you willing to dismiss the probability of a medical event being "vaccine related"?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. Actually, I defer to Ms. Harper on question number 1.
As to number 2, that depends on what any double blind study would indicate. For example brain damage may not be apparent in a two year old.

Now, answer your own questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #82
86. So....essentially, you have given non-answers.
Why would you defer to say, "Ms. Harper", and not NACI or The Society of Gynecologic Oncologists of
Canada who the American Cancer Society?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #86
93. Because Ms. Harper was one of the researchers who made the vaccine available.
Edited on Wed Jul-04-07 03:28 PM by mzmolly
She has worked extensively on this vaccine for twenty years. In fact, I would expect the NACI to defer to her as well? However, "money talks" as they say. That said the NACI did not mandate and market the vaccine, Merck and it's corporate cronies did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #93
98. Is Ms. Harper anti-science, anti-women? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #98
100. Why she MUST be, and anti-sex too!
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #51
56. your position is anti woman and sexist.
your position is threat to the health women everywhere -- and most especially poor women.

you care nothing for them -- and in fact your position and that of phylis is hostile to them.

if the hateful sexist shoe fits -- WEAR IT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. Your position is @!#% LOONEY.
If the straight jacket fits -- WEAR IT!

Again, have you had your Gardasil shot yet?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #58
61. sometimes ignorance is funny -- and yours is very funny --
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Insanity is never funny,
thus you're not.

However, you fail to answer my question. Do you hate men or have you had your Gardasil shot?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. see -- that's another way you try to misrepresent the facts.
you and i both know that if i were to get the jab -- it would have the same effect as injecting saline.

there's nothing there for me -- due to my past sexual experiences.

you erroneously put it out there -- even though it's not effective -- that gay men are getting the jab to protect against something they can't protect against{if they have been sexually active past a certain amount}.

as though that means something.

your position is sexist, ignorant on purpose -- and threatens womens lives and health.

you. are. a. threat to peoples health and well being.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. Bologna, you can be cultured for HPV as is recommended by some for women.
Edited on Wed Jul-04-07 01:32 PM by mzmolly
I thought you "understood" the science? Well, not really....

However, I feel "bad" when I see so called progressives take big pharma propaganda bait: "The Times science reporters and editorial writers have artfully formulated the argument in favor of mandatory vaccination, by misrepresenting the opposition as comprised exclusively of right wing conservatives who are concerned 'about promiscuity.'"

http://ahrp.blogspot.com/2007/03/nyt-vital-discussion-c...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #66
90. you continue to post dangerous misrepresentations of
the vaccine -- what it does and what it represents.

and that is because like phylis you hate women.

you hate vaginas.

you hate -- and you want to see women get cancer -- suffer and die.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #90
94. You hate anal cavities, you hate men, you hate penis's, you love
GW Bush and his buddies at Merck. See, I can play too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #94
95. but not more than you hate women -- your posts remain dangerous and sexist
and your hysterical reponses asserting the absurd pretty much show it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #95
96. No you're the dangerous and sexist posting phenom here.
Edited on Wed Jul-04-07 03:38 PM by mzmolly
You hate men, you hate your own anus and you hate your largest appendage, you hate men who have anus's and you hate the men and women who love them. You also hate kittens and dairy products.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #96
97. does my position keep men or boys from gardasil? no.
your position cons and misleads women into keeping them from making decisions that will keep cancer away from them.

gardasil works -- for people of either sex -- who haven't had too many sex partners -- who are young enough to benefit from the vaccine.



you keep women -- especially poor women -- from something that is life saving with your position -- i do not and that is the difference.

but when you're interested in spreading deadly, deceptive and sexist information like you are -- you're going to project -- that some how because i don't get the jab it means the same.

it doesn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #97
99. My position doesn't keep anyone from anything.
I wish to have Gardasil available for FREE to all those who wish to partake. My postion is that the vaccine should be available, not mandated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-05-07 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #99
102. your position is to deceive.
that's all your position is.

deceive regarding womens health.

deceive regarding the benefits to the community that comes from mandated vaccinations.

deceive about what good medicine is.

deceive about public health policy.

the worst part is -- educated people with money or other means -- see the ignorance and deceptions you put out -- they won't be affected - but poor women -- yes -- they will continue to suffer the ravages you would consign them to.

pathetic and dangerous and sexist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-05-07 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #102
104. your position is to deceive
Edited on Thu Jul-05-07 12:51 PM by mzmolly
deceive regarding mens health.

deceive regarding the benefits to the community that comes from health care choice

deceive about what profit in medicine is

deceive about public health policy and the so called greater good

the worst part is -- you consider yourself an educated person -- and yet you fail to see the ignorance and deceptions you put out on behalf of the cronies at Merck and profiteers like Donald Rumsfeld and the George Bush family empire

sure you won't be affected as a man by this mass "public health experiment," your not a guinea pig -but poor women -- yes -- they will continue to suffer the ravages you would consign them to

pathetic and dangerous and sexist indeed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-05-07 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #104
107. see -- the great deception at the heart of it all right there.
public health -- mandates -- events from cholera epidemics -- that ''forced'' people to act collectively -- have done remarkable good for human kind.

they have helped to establish and incredible environment of over all good health and longevity for those of us in the west and japan.

but you can't stand that we would extend these benefits -- as they evolve to every one -- you make hysterical histories to suit your warped version of history.

claiming that any one who is against is -- gasp -- for money!!!

but the real catcher is -- you don't believe any of this tripe yourself.

what you can't stand is that these things work -- these institutions{Mandates} imperfect as they are -- deliver incredible health benefits to millions of people -- virtually underpining civilization that you are blessed to live in.

you know that liberals firmly believe in oversight, nationalized health care, and regulation -- what you can't stand is that those benefits would extend to people that you think should die.

poor people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-05-07 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #107
109. your deception is at the heart of this
claiming to support a medical procedure you refuse

public health -- mandates -- condoms that protect against cancer and aids -- have done remarkable good for human kind, yet you wish to see less use of condoms and more use of a fake sense of security

condoms have helped to establish and incredible safe sex environment of over all good health and longevity for those of us in the west and japan and beyond

but you can't stand that we would extend these benefits -- as they evolve to every one -- you make hysterical comments to justify your own hypocricy

claiming that any one who is against choice is -- gasp -- for libertarianism!!!

but the real catcher is -- you don't believe in any of this tripe yourself -- you prove that by refusing to get vaccines while lecturing others on their 'importance to mankind'

what you can't stand is that condoms work -- free condoms imperfect as they are -- deliver incredible health benefits to millions of people -- virtually underpining civilization that you are blessed to live in

you know that liberals firmly believe in practicing what they preach, nationalized health care, and regulation of an industry that you blindly defend -- what you can't stand is that some people think for themselves and wont allow you to bully them into testing a product that you fear using yourself
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-05-07 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #109
111. buwhahahahahahaha!!! -- what the fuck are you talking about -- condoms?!?!
:rofl:

lol -- wow -- some twisted shit there sister.

i'm not against condoms -- i love my condoms{i love the green ones best} -- but they won't protect against hpv.

you can get hpv from fingers -- you know that.

i don't care that you 'think'' for yourself -- delude yourself and trying to convince others of your dangerous delusions is another.

and that's what you do.

you have an irrational hatred -- beautifully displayed by this bit of incoherency from you i'm ''replying'' to here.

let it out girlfriend -- lets see just how far out on the limb you've gone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-05-07 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #111
112. lololololololo -- what the fuck are you talking about -- "brother?"
Edited on Thu Jul-05-07 07:42 PM by mzmolly
lol -- wow -- some twisted shit there boy.

for someone who "loves" condoms you don't know much. They are protective against HPV, so sad to see you buy the marketing campaign with such zeal

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2102991

you can get hpv as a man, you know that

i don't care that you 'think'' for big pharma -- deluding yourself and trying to convince others of your dangerous delusions is another story

and that's what you do 'sir'

you have an irrational hatred toward women who don't comply with the wishes of men who hate women -- pathetically displayed by your continued incoherency.

let it out 'little man' -- lets see just how far out on the limb you'll go
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-05-07 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #112
114. lol -- better and better --
wow -- men can get hpv?!?! -- who knew? -- lol

bizarre -- but it's fun to read.

your hatred for women -- poor women at that -- is making for very interesting and fun times.

you paint the perfect picture of the nuts who resisted the small pox vaccine -- and had to be carried into modernity kicking and screaming.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-05-07 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #114
116. you didn't know that men could get hpv!?
no wonder you're so full of shit

wow -- men can get hpv?!?! -- who knew? -- lol

Apparently you didn't

http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/HPV-Genital-Wart...

HPV Virus in Men

Much of the information about HPV virus (human papillomavirus) centers on women, since having the virus increases their risk of getting cervical cancer. But HPV virus in men can cause health problems, too. So its important for men to understand how to reduce the risks of HPV infection.

It can increase a man's risk of getting genital cancers, although these cancers are not common. HPV can also cause genital warts in men, just as in women.


bizarre -- but it's fun to read.

your hatred for women and children -- poor women and children at that -- is making for very interesting and fun times

your lack of knowledge on the subject matter is "fun" but not surprising. no wonder you spend your time hurling insults without actually addressing any issue, it's because you don't have clue one

you paint the perfect picture of the nuts who insisted on human sacrifice in order to spare "the so called greater population" from the scourge of the gods via superstitious fear mongering
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 06:04 AM
Response to Reply #116
118. you thought i was serious?!?!
oh. my. god. -- :rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #118
120. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. Do you have a REAL link or do you expect me to take a bloggers word for this?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. here you go
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14401


Testing in the Third World

JayaJan Pharmaceutical Research in India was one of the companies with which Merck had a contract to test Gardasil. Like most of the industry, Merck increasingly outsources its clinical trials to Contract Research Organizations (CROs) in areas of the world where trial subjects are plentiful, operating costs are low, and regulations lax.

Some $285 million worth of clinical trials are outsourced to CROs in India, according to biopeer.com. These CROs are a booming $15 billion industry whose revenues are rising at 15 percent a year.

"CROs are known for their speed and efficiency; they can complete a clinical trial in two-thirds the time a drug company can, shaving months off the process and offering $120 million to $150 million in increased revenue per drug." Sam Bidwell an executive with Quintiles a U.S.-based CRO told Nature. "Of the top 30 best-selling drugs, we've touched every one."

Critics point out that CROs can come with built-in problems. Conflicts of interest can arise when CROs are paid royalties only after a drug is approved rather than being paid a set fee that is independent of how safe or effective the drug turns out to be. Problems can also arise because CROs know that favorable findings mean that research into a test drug will continue, and they may also believe that results that please the hiring corporation can lead to future contracts. "ompanies know that the farther the compound moves through the research cycle, the more money they can raise," Nature reported.

Merck spokesperson Amy Rose refused say how many trials Merck contracted to CROs or what percentage of the Gardasil subjects these contractors recruited in the Third World. She also refused to specify how, or even if, the company oversees CROs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. and more reasons here...
<snip>

Some critics pointed out that the test period was too short to assess long-term effects and efficacy. In fact, the studies on children, who often react differently to drugs, were shorter yet, and smaller. Only 1,184 subjects in the nine to 15 year-old age test group got Gardasil, and they were followed for 18 months, according to New Scientist magazine. A Merck spokesperson refused to break down the data further to reveal how many of that small sample were below the age of puberty.

And then there is the possibility that, given time and real-world conditions, side effects will emerge. FDA briefing papers noted a small increase in birth defects in the babies of women given the vaccine within 30 days of becoming pregnant over those who took a placebo. The number, while not establishing causality, triggered an FDA recommendation that pregnant women not be vaccinated. The background documents also raised questions about whether selectively targeting a few HPV viruses (there are more than 100) would "advantage others." Another concern "was the potential for Gardasil to enhance disease among" subjects already infected "with vaccine-relevant HPV."

These kinds of concerns are not necessarily alarming or unusual for a new drug, According to a 2002 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, "The safety of new agents cannot be known with certainty until a drug has been on the market for years. Serious ADRs commonly emerge after Food and Drug Administration approval."

"The published data look great, but at the very least, I would like to see efficacy data among 11 and 12 years old, which won't emerge until they are sexually active," says Karen Smith-McCune, a University of California associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kimmerspixelated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. THANKS LEFTCHICK!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. you are welcome
people that blindly believe what Big Pharma is selling scare me. It enables them to experiment on yet more people without their consent. I was taking a pain killer that was discontinued a few years ago after patients had heart problems after long term use. Luckily I had only taken it a very short time at my Dr.'s insistence. (they were samples). It opened my eyes BIG Time.

Thanks for your thread.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. It is just as wrong to believe Bug Pharma is conducting some sort of conspiracy
to hurt people deliberately.

People will DIE if you continue to spread this unscientific hogwash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. are you for real?
Edited on Tue Jul-03-07 06:13 PM by leftchick
Bug Pharma is right! they have some bugs in them!


:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #17
52. It's a conspiracy to make money, that's what corporations do.
They 'conspire' to turn a profit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DawgHouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #8
21. the subjects were followed for 18 months?
That's insane!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. yes it is
so many drugs have been fast tracked for approval I am very afraid for myself, with chronic pain, and my children. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #8
26. Who are you citing here? Vaccines are NOT drugs
Whoever wrote this does NOT seem to understand the science here. And this vaccine is NEW to the US, but has been established in clinical trials in Europe and Australia.
I also question this statement.."with vaccine-relevant HPV". You can't get a viral infection from a vaccine if that is what they are suggesting here. Plus it is already noted that the vaccine is not effective if YOU ALREADY HAVE THE VIRUS. Older women should be screened for HPV before getting the vaccine. Thats why this is targeted at younger women who have not become sexually active
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #26
53. They go through the SAME APPROVAL PROCESS.
So what's your point? I know you like to muddy the waters and all but regarding your assurances:


"The trials centered on 25,000 women aged 15 to 26. The FDA, however, approved the vaccine for girls aged nine to 26 and the CDC recommends it for the same age group. Harper (the HPV Vaccine Researcher who developed the vaccine) says that the vaccine hasnt been adequately tested on girls under 15."

She has concerns about using this vaccine in nine year olds, why don't you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kimmerspixelated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. From the British Journal of Medicine
Amid controversy over state legislatures in the U.S. requiring young girls to take Gardasil, Merck's new vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV), severe side effects are being reported.

1,637 adverse reactions have been reported by Judicial Watch, a public interest watchdog, including three girls who died shortly after receiving the immunization. Judicial Watch obtained the reports from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration using the Freedom of Information Act.

In Australia, 25 girls who had just received their first injection of the vaccine experienced headache, nausea, and dizziness. In some cases, the problems were so severe that they were hospitalized. Shares of the vaccine's Australian developer, CSL, fell after the incident was reported in the news.



British Medical Journal June 9, 2007;334:1182-1183

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. Anyone who describes Judicial Watch as a public interest watchdog immediately loses credibitlity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dropkickpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
68. You do realize that
injection site soreness is counted among that number, right? Shit, I get soreness after a TB test (intradermal injection), I wouldn't call it an adverse reaction!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
4. Aw, geez...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Like anyone is stupid enough to see that this blog
is anti-medicine/anti-science.
Hogwash crap. Hard to believe anyone peddles that shit here in a reality-based community.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleedingheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
10. Oh MY GOD....This eyewash is going to kill everyone...it has Sodium Borate
egads.....


http://www.drugstore.com/qxp12165_333181_sespider/advan...


oh wait...it is a typical ingredient in eye washes...hmmmmm....

and it kill roaches too....my oh my...can a chemical have more than one purpose and can it be helpful in certain concentrations?

Why yes....

and is organicandhealthy twisting things around to suit their purpose ....could be...


Oh look...an organic farm that uses organic Boric Acid based flea powder...hmmmm....

http://www.longacresfarm.com/pc-207-44-boric-acid-organ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. lol -- you are so good!
:spray:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleedingheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. thank you thank you...i will be in the lounge later...
hee hee

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #10
60. Have you researched the aluminum adjuvant?
Google aluminum adjuvant and gulf war syndrome. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #60
73. Google depleted uranium and gulf war sydrome.
or pesticides and gws, or parasites and gws, or aspartame and gws, or oil-well fires and gws....shall I continue?

Aluminum adjuvants are used commonly in vaccinations across the world....where is the epidemic among non-gulf war vets?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #73
77. Google french solders and gulf war syndrome, the depleted uranium.
thing has been examined. GWS does not appear to impact those who haven't had an anthrax jab inspite of exposure to DU. Further, the recent mouse study I posted above showing neuronal death after injection with AH may be of interest? Then again, likely not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #77
84. Yes, yes....I have read the wiki entry also. I'm not impressed.
So let's recap.

Aluminum hydroxide in anthrax vaccine is apparently responsible for enough cases of a medical syndrome to be clinically significant, yet, tens (if not hundreds) of millions of people have been given injections of the same adjuvant without showing the same symptoms in the exact same proportion as the gws in those who had anthrax vaccinations.

So....your conclusion is that it's the adjuvant that is causing the problem even though nothing remotely resembling gws has been identified in the proportions as the gulf war vets.

There is a huge discrepancy in your theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. No, AH is significant no matter who has an injection
but what one calls any given syndrome changes depending upon which group gets the jab. And, your second statement is really off: the problem even though nothing remotely resembling gws has been identified in the proportions as the gulf war vets. What makes you think gws has symptomology limited to gws?

I'm out for the holiday, I'll check back later. However, you can peruse my journal for more info.

:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #85
88. Have fun, but I'll pass on the journal.
I'm sure there is nothing in there I haven't read a million times before (usually the same thing worded differently).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #88
89. I don't know if you weren't familiar with MMF?
Peace to ya LV. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
15. Here is what you need to know about Gardasil
From the FDA approval letter:

http://www.fda.gov/cber/approvltr/hpvmer060806L.htm

>>
You have committed to conduct a short-term safety surveillance study in a U.S. Managed Care Organization (MCO). The study will include approximately 44,000 vaccinated subjects who will be followed for 60 days for assessment of general short-term safety (i.e., emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and deaths). The subjects will also be followed for 6 months subsequent to vaccination for new autoimmune disorders, rheumatologic conditions, or thyroiditis. Also, a sufficient number of children 11-12 years of age will be studied to permit an analysis of safety outcomes. The final study protocol will be submitted by December 31, 2006. Patient accrual will be completed by December 31, 2008. The study will be completed by June 30, 2009. The final study report will be submitted by September 30, 2009.
>>

THE STUDY WILL BE COMPLETED BY JUNE 30, 2009.


'nuff said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
20. here's another fact
there are over 1600 reports of adverse affects of the Gardasil vaccine including three deaths.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
25. okay more idiocy I see
1) CRO's--I have worked for them for years. They do the work the client requests and give unbiased results. They survive only because they do quality work. Most are what are called GLP/GMP compliant. Which are extremely strict rules on testing and quality. They are subject to both random and regular inspections by the FDA. And these inspections aren't casual. I have been through some. And companies who even just get WARNING LETTERS from the FDA lose business quite quickly. CRO's who do crappy work don't survive. CRO's who are compliant and test as requested do very well. And the CRO's design and run the tests on product that the client wants but the basic design is the CRO's responsibility and the clients only specify what type of testing they want (toxicology, stability,potency etc). There are also many conflict of interest rules about investing in certain clients. Sometimes CRO's do work for competing companies so they have to have strict rules on that. There are also non-competition clauses that keep CRO employees from jumping from one competitior to another which also could have legal ramifications.
2) Gardasil vaccines are the SAME TYPE of vaccine as long established Hep A +B (both mandatory for school age children). They have aluminum ADJUVANTS in them. An adjuvant is not free floating aluminum molecule. It binds to helper cells to stimulate the immune system and are quickly cleaned out of the body by the spleen.
So tell me why I don't know anyone who has been "poisoned" (including me) by the same type of vaccines. Gardasil is no riskier than any of the standard and accepted and often MANDATED vaccines on the market place.
3)Finally the preservatives are in such small concentrations that they aren't toxic. In fact, there is probably more toxins on many of the so-called organic foods (dead insects, natural toxins in the soil, farm contaminants ect, bacteria) than there are in a vaccine. The preservative keeps the bacteria out of the vaccine and makes it sterile and helps keep it potent. BTW, since vaccines bind to wbc's they don't get into nerves or the brain, unless you have had a stroke. The blood brain barrier does NOT let blood leak into a brain..thats what a hemoorrage is, so your "theory" about aluminum is a biological impossibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. kicking your reply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #25
43. Ooo....real science.
So much preferable to most of what is trying to pass itself off as science in this group (which might better be called "scienciness" because it uses the language of science to try to pass itself off as science, when in actuality, it's ranges from just junk science to conspiracy theories).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #25
50. "okay more idiocy I see" ... Indeed.
Edited on Wed Jul-04-07 12:13 PM by mzmolly
1) CRO's--I have worked for them for years. They do the work the client requests and give unbiased results. They survive only because they do quality work.

Those that survive in today's climate do so because the drug companies like the results. If they dont, they find another "unbiased research" body.

2) Gardasil vaccines are the SAME TYPE of vaccine as long established Hep A +B (both mandatory for school age children). They have aluminum ADJUVANTS in them. An adjuvant is not free floating aluminum molecule. It binds to helper cells to stimulate the immune system and are quickly cleaned out of the body by the spleen.

FROM THE NNII

Not all vaccines contain aluminum salts because an adjuvant may not have been needed, was not expected to increase the desired immune response, or was going to cause an imbalance in the immune response. For example, inactivated Polio Virus (IPV) vaccine, measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR), varicella vaccine, Meningococcal conjugate (MCV4) vaccine, and influenza vaccines do not contain aluminum salts. (2)

So tell me why I don't know anyone who has been "poisoned" (including me) by the same type of vaccines. Gardasil is no riskier than any of the standard and accepted and often MANDATED vaccines on the market place.

Perhaps because you refuse to admit what poisoning consists of? Some consider MMF a form of "aluminum poisoning." Some consider Gulf War Illness, "poisoning." Some consider collapsing after an injection evidence of "poisoning," some consider neurological damage, "poisoning." Some consider the data gathered via VAERS regarding this vaccine to be compelling from a "poison" standpoint. You go ahead and keep pretending that no one has ever been harmed from any vaccine EVER.

I know you've had trouble "understanding" this study, but read it carefully this time:

http://www.a-champ.org/documents/Petrik_Shaw_et_al.,%20...
Pay special attention to to the evidence regarding damage to the brain.

3)Finally the preservatives are in such small concentrations that they aren't toxic.

Says who?

In fact, there is probably more toxins on many of the so-called organic foods (dead insects, natural toxins in the soil, farm contaminants ect, bacteria) than there are in a vaccine. The preservative keeps the bacteria out of the vaccine and makes it sterile and helps keep it potent. BTW, since vaccines bind to wbc's they don't get into nerves or the brain, unless you have had a stroke. The blood brain barrier does NOT let blood leak into a brain..thats what a hemoorrage is, so your "theory" about aluminum is a biological impossibility.

Sorry, you don't consider this a "scientific" statement do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
29. So what part of the Gardasil approval letter don't people understand? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. The part that compels you to repeatedly post the same thing, ad nauseum.
I already addressed the fact that there is NOTHING abnormal about the FDA letter. Go look up the approval letters on biologicals and you'll find similar language.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. Right on cue. THank you again. You proved my point. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Uh.....yeah. That's what I did. (Backs away slowly)
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. HA! You don't even realize what you did. HA HA HA! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
31. Gasp! The same Polysorbate 80 used in such poisons as ice cream and pickles????
The horror! The horror!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varkam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
32. Aw geez, not this shit again.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Yes....again. I'm pretty much resigned to the notion that if...
...the vaccine contained nothing more than sterile water for injection, angel kisses, and kitten purrs, the anti-vaccine kooks and big-pharma conspiracy nuts would say the EXACT SAME THING.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varkam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #33
38. BREAKING: Children vaccinated with angel kisses 500 times more likely to develop autism!
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-03-07 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
36. JAMA editorial: The longer-term effectiveness and safety of the vaccine still need to be evaluated
Edited on Tue Jul-03-07 09:32 PM by antigop
among a large population, and particularly among younger girls.


http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/17/1921?m...

>>
The ACIP recommendation supports making quadrivalent vaccination the standard of clinical care. However, it is important to emphasize that the vaccine is supported by limited efficacy and safety data. Clinical trials have thus far involved a relatively small population (<12 000 participants) for a limited period of follow-up (5 years). The vaccine has not been evaluated for efficacy among younger girls (aged 9 to 15 years). Yet, if the vaccine were required nationwide, it would be administered to some 2 million girls and young women, most of them between 11 and 12 years old and some as young as 9 years old. The longer-term effectiveness and safety of the vaccine still need to be evaluated among a large population, and particularly among younger girls.
>>

I guess Dr. DeAngelis is anti-science?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 04:05 AM
Response to Original message
39. OMG Polysorbate 80!
Edited on Wed Jul-04-07 04:05 AM by depakid
and aluminum alarmism!

This kind of anti-science hysteria is precisely why Americans need mandates to protect their children from communicable diseases, while other Western countries don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
40. Is Dr. DeAngelis anti-science?

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/17/1921?m ...

>>
The ACIP recommendation supports making quadrivalent vaccination the standard of clinical care. However, it is important to emphasize that the vaccine is supported by limited efficacy and safety data. Clinical trials have thus far involved a relatively small population (<12 000 participants) for a limited period of follow-up (5 years). The vaccine has not been evaluated for efficacy among younger girls (aged 9 to 15 years). Yet, if the vaccine were required nationwide, it would be administered to some 2 million girls and young women, most of them between 11 and 12 years old and some as young as 9 years old. The longer-term effectiveness and safety of the vaccine still need to be evaluated among a large population, and particularly among younger girls.
>>

I guess Dr. DeAngelis is anti-science?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #40
41. Wow, you really have it out for this vaccine don't you?
I wonder if you'll be singing the same tune 10 or 20 years from now when it's not so new and "scary"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #41
42. No, I asked a simple question. And you didn't answer it. Please answer the question. n/t
Edited on Wed Jul-04-07 10:42 AM by antigop
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. That's because your same "questions" have been answered about a dozen times.
But you keep posting the same one's over and over again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. No, my question has NOT been answered. Is Dr. DeAngelis anti-science? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #44
54. Second question: Is Dr. DeAngelis anti-woman? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #54
59. Yes, and anti-sex too.
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
63. here's some real data for ya --
THURSDAY, May 17 (HealthDay News) -- An international study shows that the cervical cancer vaccine that received government approval in the United States last year also protects women against vulval and vaginal cancers.

The findings seem to confirm that human papillomavirus (HPV), which is responsible for virtually all cases of cervical cancer, is also responsible for many cases of vulval and vaginal cancer. HPV is present in 80 percent of the 6,000 cases of vulval and vaginal cancers diagnosed in the United States each year.

"We've spent a lot of time over the last 20 years trying to show that HPV was associated with vulval and vaginal cancers, so that's very exciting," said Dr. Leo Twiggs, professor and chairman of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. "It's the answer to whether the cause is HPV."

"This is very impressive," said Dr. Jay Brooks, chairman of hematology/oncology at Ochsner Health System in Baton Rouge, La. "We're having a paradigm shift. It's very hard for a lot of people to recognize that we can actually prevent cancer, and it's very hard for people to recognize that certain types of cancer are sexually transmitted. The vaccine is very good. It is not perfect. It does not protect against every viral infection from HPV, but it protects against the ones that are the most common."


http://www.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=604723
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. And your poor ass/penis remain vulnerable.
Why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dropkickpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #65
70. HPV testing in men
is inaccurate and prone to false negatives. This is why. Hard to test for effectiveness of the vaccine when testing for the virus is so ineffective in men. Plain and simple. Currently, the most effective (and it's not all that effective) test involves doing a urethral swab in men. Not a whole lot of men agree to this type of test, so it's pretty fucking hard to get the scientifically relevent numbers of men needed to sign up .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #70
75. It is in women too. And testing in men is underway.
so it's pretty fucking hard to get the scientifically relevent numbers of men needed to sign up. Gosh we have so many concerned men here, you'd think they'd undergo this important testing themselves? After all, pap smears are not pleasant yet we women have them, annually if not more so.

That said, men are getting the vaccine off label.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #65
92. willfull ignorance and misreperesentation.
it's a wonder you don't hurt yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-04-07 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #92
101. Not at all, you wish to mandate a vaccine for children when you wont have it yourself.
Hateful and hypocritical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-05-07 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #101
103. your positon is deceptive and dangerous.
it is the same willful ignorance of pat robertson and phylis schlafly in action.

but at a ''liberal'' board.

that's all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-05-07 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #103
105. your position is hypocritical and dangerous
demanding that young girls be your guinea pig and refusing a vaccine for yourself that you claim to support

you haven't had any of your adult booster shots - yet you demand small children comply to keep arrogant white men like you safe.

it's the same willful arrogance that george bush and rush limbaugh demonstrate. jail is for other people, not us wealthy white men. vaccines are to be the burden of poor women and children not us wealthy white men. you love white male privileged and demand women and children submit to your collective will.

and you do this on a "liberal" board

that's all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-05-07 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #105
106. you try to chip away at good practises of public health -- why?
to make people sick of course -- people of your choosing -- and your sex -- poor women -- women who obviously you feel deserve their fate.

you can't stand the idea that cancer -- a sexually transmitted cancer -- is now prevantable -- an achievement truly remarkable in human history. it's good. it works better -- than they hoped for -- and there's going to be at least one more.

you want to play ''keep away'' with poor women -- obviously smart women, educated women -- and their boys and girls -- will be innoculated.

they're not going to fall for your deceit -- they're not going to fall for your dangerous rants against tried and true medicine.

more governments will issue warnings aganst the dangerous and deceitful sexist posts made all over the internet by you and other ''libertarian'' and social conservative loons.

that's eventually why mandates are there -- because of irrational, uneducated, backward folk like you, phylis, and pat.

your projections about my statu, my races only underlies the deceit you under pin your ''arguments''.

the same is not true about you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-05-07 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #106
108. You keep blathering idiotic insane nonsense, why?
because you are sick of course

you can't stand the idea that a cancer that effects both men and women is not being shoved down my throat in spite of the risks -- you cant stand that the vaccine is only effective in some people for an undetermined period of time -- you hate the fact that the FDA has concerns that the vaccine can cause cancer in some -- you hate uncertainty and struggle with your own mortality and morality imposing your doubt upon others with your pseudo ''concern'' -- you put others at risk by your own standards by refusing an injection you deem a remarkable achievement in human history -- you leave the "risk" to poor women and children instead of taking part in what you claim to support

you want to play "risk is for the lesser" with poor women and children -- so that you can someday feel "safe" taking the injection yourself

but we're not going to fall for your deceit -- we're not going to fall for your dangerous rants against common sense and medical choice

more people will issue warnings against the dangerous and deceitful sexist and hypocritical posts made all over the internet by you and other ''hypocritical'' and holier than thou loons

that's why mandates are imposed on children -- because grown white men would rather lecture than partake -- uneducated, backward folk like you, limbaugh, and georgie W.

your projections about my motives, only underly the deceit and ignorance you under pin your ''arguments'' on
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-05-07 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #108
110. lol -- gardasil is safe and working better than they thought.
mandates work -- and they bring desirable results to people who would other wise not get them.

your projections are amusing.

nuts -- dangerous and full of deceit and hatered of women-- but amusing none the less.

:rofl: :woohoo: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-05-07 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #110
113. lol --- condoms are safe and they work better than Merck shills claim
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2102991

ABC News: Condoms Highly Effective Against HPV, Study Shows
One of the Most Prevalent STDs Can Be Prevented


condoms work -- and they bring desirable results to people who will use them contrary to your Merck propagandist campaign

your projections are transparent and put little girls in the way of unnecessary risk

nuts -- dangerous and full of deceit, hypocrisy and hatred of women -- but sadly amusing none the less
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-05-07 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #113
115. so you love the radioactive pellets in your vagina or asshole?
or you love others have radio active pellets there?

you love to see the poor suffer the medical burdens of extreme illness -- why do you hate women -- why do you hate poor women?

why do you want them to die?

condoms will work ok -- no duh -- but they're NOT very good with a virus you can get from fingers.

please.

this std doesn't take the kind of exposure that some others do to pass.

what you hate are vaginas -- sex -- and vaginas and sex together -- just like the nutty bible thumpers.
you do their work -- you do the work of phylis and pat and the late great jerry.

there is a vaccine that works BETTER than they thought it would.

dramatically reducing the suffering of women and poor women in particular.

the effects of this FIRST and good anit-cancer vaccine ever is remarkable for the incredible benefits it will provide to millions of women.

what it means is that you won't get to sit in the dark -- with horny musings of women suffering their ''just desserts'' -- i just know that you and phylis LOVE that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-05-07 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #115
117. i'm sorry, but debating about hpv with a MAN who doesn't know he's at risk
is absurd

however, in the interest of continuing to mirror your apparent madness:

you love to see the poor suffer from the effects of aluminum toxicity -- why do you hate women and children -- why do you hate poor women and children?

why do you want them to die while drug companies profit?

this std doesn't take the kind of exposure that some others do to pass, yet you don't know that a MAN can contract the disease and spread it to others -- you dont know that condoms prevent not only aids, but hpv

what YOU hate are vaginas -- sex -- and vaginas and sex together and your own penis and sushi -- just like the nutty bible thumpers who raised you, the ones you run from with your "get your christian endorsed anal fuck on" mantra.

you do their work -- you do the work of rush and george and the late great nixon. you do the work of self loathing men who pretend to be comfortable with their sexuality while they secretly hope they don't "burn in hell" like their mamas told them they would

there is a vaccine that you claim works BETTER than "they" thought it would, and YET YOU REFUSE IT while deeming that young poor children should partake

the effects of the inexpensive and proven anti-cancer condom is ever is remarkable for the incredible benefits it has provided to millions of women and men all over the globe

what "it" means is that you will continue to sit in the dark with the rest of the closeted women haters who claim to "care"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #117
119. oh baby -- bring those rants ---
copy my posts and insert your phrases -- ooohhh --

wow -- i'm truly enjoying your display --

you know that men and women -- more willful ignorance -- use condoms -- you just wanna push the agenda that it's the fault of the person who gets sick.

men in this country generally have more partners by the time they're married than women.

but both come to the marriage with more than one partner in their past -- it's the same old store as with aids -- you sleep with a persons past.

and people are imperfect -- they use condoms -- but maybe not all the time.

all kinds of reasons.

your hatred of women is so telling because you want to consign her to disease -- when the vaccine is right there.

no, you'd rather spread misinformation about vaccines -- you're like a bible thumper who can't accept evolution and modern science.

you and pat and phylis -- what a menage a trois.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #119
121. i am surprised you dare show your hypocritical head in this conversation?
1. you didn't know that you as a man could get hpv
2. you are a clinically insane hypocrite -- like pat, phyllis, rush, george, dicky ...

do yourself a favor and leave the conversation to informed DU-ers who have something valuable to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #121
122. you mean leave the conversation to ''DUERS'' who
purposely distort the facts.

people who line up exactly with phylis, concerned women of america, the late great{ :puke: } jerry falwell, pat robertson, etc.

people who would consign poor women to disease and death.

people whose posts read exactly like yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
123. Locking
This thread is a flamefest.

mvd
DU Moderator
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Dec 27th 2014, 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Health Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC