Cervical cancer vaccine punted to 300,000 more teenage girls

Source: Telegraph

An additional 300,000 girls aged 17 and 18 are to be offered a controversial vaccine to protect them against the sexually-transmitted infection that can lead to cervical cancer, the Government has announced.

The girls, who will be offered the Cervarix vaccine from this September, would not have been eligible for it before the announcement.

Miss Primarolo said the £10 million one-off programme would save up to 400 lives.

How does she know? None of these vaccines have guarantees.

Dawn Primarolo, the health minister, said: “Our policy to vaccinate girls against cervical cancer is one of the biggest public health campaigns in recent history. It will mean that up to 400 girls’ lives will be saved each year.

“By choosing the right vaccine we have been able to make savings which means we can extend the programme to 17 and 18 year olds. This could save an additional 400 lives.”

They are not saving money. They are spending less of our money. But they are still giving our money to these corporations.

But medics and health campaigners have accused such commentators of wilfully ignoring that teenage sex happens. They have said denying girls an HPV vaccine is morally wrong.

Bullsh*t.

Vaccinating against HPV in order to prevent cervical cancer? They obviously haven’t seen this report, from The Great Vaccine Hoax Exposed;

For the last several years, HPV vaccines have been marketed to the public and mandated in compulsory injections for young girls in several states based on the idea that they prevent cervical cancer. Now, NaturalNews has obtained documents from the FDA and other sources (see below) which reveal that the FDA has been well aware for several years that Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) has no direct link to cervical cancer.

NaturalNews has also learned that HPV vaccines have been proven to be flatly worthless in clearing the HPV virus from women who have already been exposed to HPV (which includes most sexually active women), calling into question the scientific justification of mandatory “vaccinate everyone” policies.

The Department of Health has refused to reveal the cost of the vaccine. Miss Power said GSK must have given a “considerable reduction” to win the deal. – End of source.

Unbelievable. It’s none of our business what they spend our money on apparently.

So, not only 12 and 13 year old’s, but by ‘saving money’ they will also try and inject 17 and 18 year old’s then the additional ‘top up’ for 14 and 18 year old’s in 2009. That’s three rounds of injections against a virus that most probably does not cause cervical cancer.

Glaxo’s balance sheet must be looking pretty healthy. They are still trying to get the vaccine approved in the U.S. as I write this, as Reuters reports;

Glaxo said it had responded to outstanding questions about Cervarix raised by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration but had decided to augment its application with results from a further Phase III study, called HPV-008.

Data from this trial are expected to be submitted to the U.S. regulator in the first half of 2009 and an FDA decision on the application is anticipated up to six months later.

Analysts, however, say the FDA is extremely cautious about approving new adjuvants because of the theoretical risk of side effects, increasing the regulatory hurdle for Glaxo’s vaccine.

Side effects? Nah, get out of here!

From European Public Assessment Report, Product Information PDF;

Side effects that occurred during clinical trials with Cervarix were as follows:

♦ Very common (side effects which may occur in more than 1 per 10 doses of vaccine):
• pain or discomfort at the injection site
• redness or swelling at the injection site
• headache
• aching muscles, muscle tenderness or weakness (not caused by exercise)
• tiredness
♦ Common (side effects which may occur in less than 1 per 10 but more than 1 per 100 doses of
vaccine):
• gastrointestinal symptoms including nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and abdominal pain
• itching, red skin rash, hives (urticaria)
• joint pain
• fever (≥38°C)
♦ Uncommon (side effects which may occur in less than 1 per 100 but more than 1 per 1,000
doses of vaccine):
• upper respiratory tract infection (infection of the nose, throat or trachea)
• dizziness
• other injection site reactions such as hard lump, tingling or numbness.

A look at Cervarix ingredients, from the same document;

The active substances are:

Human Papillomavirus1 type 16 L1 protein2,3,4 20 micrograms
Human Papillomavirus1 type 18 L1 protein2,3,4 20 micrograms

adjuvanted by AS04 containing: 3-O-desacyl-4’- monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL)3 50 micrograms

adsorbed on aluminium hydroxide, hydrated (Al(OH)3) 0.5 milligrams Al3+ in total

L1 protein in the form of non-infectious virus-like particles (VLPs) produced by recombinant
DNA technology using a Baculovirus expression system which uses Hi-5 Rix4446 cells derived
from the insect Trichoplusia ni.

– The other ingredients are sodium chloride (NaCl), sodium dihydrogen phosphate dihydrate
(NaH2PO4.2 H2O) and water for injections.

Some samples from the Scientific Discussion PDF that stand out to me (as a layman, obviously);

No pharmacodynamic drug interaction studies were performed according to the Note for Guidance on Preclinical Pharmacological and Toxicological testing of vaccines (CPMP/465/95) and Guideline on Adjuvants in Vaccines for Human Use (EMEA/CHMP/VEG/134716/2004).

Studies to demonstrate absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of the active ingredients in Cervarix have not been performed for any of the component viruses. This is in line with Note for guidance on preclinical pharmacological and toxicological testing of vaccines (CPMP/SWP/465/95).

Single-dose toxicity of the HPV-16/18 L1 VLP AS04 vaccine was assessed as part of the repeat-dose toxicity study in rabbits. The treatment was well tolerated and no treatment-related systemic effect was noticed on haematology, body-weight, clinical signs, mortality and clinical chemistry over a 14-day observation period.

According to the Note for Guidance on preclinical pharmacological and toxicological testing of vaccines (CPMP/SWP/465/95) and the Guideline on adjuvants in vaccines for human use
(EMEA/CHMP/VEG/134716/2004) genotoxicity studies are not required for this vaccine.

According to the Note for Guidance on preclinical pharmacological and toxicological testing of vaccines (CPMP/SWP/465/95) and the Guideline on adjuvants in vaccines for human use
(EMEA/CHMP/VEG/134716/2004) carcinogenicity studies are not required for this vaccine.

It’s 56 pages long, so I’m not going to go through it all here. I have provided the link above anyway if anyone is interested. Before I finish this however, I have one more query.

From the Discussion (to find these notes in the PDF, try copying and pasting one of the sentences into the PDF program search engine, that should take you right to it);

Based on their genomic differences within the oncogenes E6 and E7 and the capsid protein L1 over 100 genotypes are described to date. Thereof approximately 40 different genotypes lead to infections of the anogenital tract and about 16 are highly oncogenic with HPV types 16 and 18, being the most frequent found in cervical cancer. HPV-16 is detected in about 54% of cervical cancer cases, and the second type is HPV-18, detected in about 17% of cases.

The time from occurrence of HPV infection to cancer development usually exceeds 20 years.
However, persistent HPV infection is a necessary but not a sufficient factor for the development of cervical carcinoma. (what?) Other factors such as smoking, long-term use of oral contraceptives or high parity are suggested to play a role in the process that lead to cancer.

This next part is good;

The majority of genital HPV infections (>90%) however are transient sub-clinical infections that will be cleared or suppressed below the limits of detection by host cell defences within one to two years. In addition, any cervical lesion may spontaneously regress to normal without treatment with a probability of about 57% for CIN1, 43% for CIN2 and 32% for CIN3. The determinants leading to regression are not well understood.

Even according to this document, HPV isn’t looking much of a threat to me. Still they say this:

It is confirmed that persistent cervical infection by high risk HPV types is a precursor event to cervical cancer.

There was no evidence of protection from disease caused by the HPV types for which subjects were HPV DNA positive at study entry. However, individuals already infected with one of the vaccine-related HPV types prior to vaccination were protected from clinical disease caused by the remaining HPV type.

From the Product Information Report (again);

The duration of protection after vaccination is currently unknown. In clinical trials, sustained
protection has been observed in females aged 15 to 25 years for at least 5.5 years after the first dose. The need for booster dose(s) has not been investigated.

I hope you know, the average age of cervical cancer patients is 48. They want to give this vaccine to 12 year olds, although it lasts only 5.5 years? Why?

MONEY.

I feel stupid, I have a feeling I’m missing something here.

According to these documents, this vaccine ‘protects’ against two strains of HPV, of which there are over 100. They say that in patients that have been diagnosed with cervical cancer, HPV can be present (that is not evidence of causation.) Even then HPV 16 turns up 56% of the time, and HPV 18, 17%. It then says that other things can cause cervical cancer anyway. It doesn’t protect you if you already have HPV! Not that HPV causes the cancer. The body successfully deals with over 90% of HPV viruses anyway.

Somehow I don’t see the huge cost justified by these reports (of which I have barely skimmed.) These politicians are probably getting kick backs, it wouldn’t be the first time.

Gardasil vaccine deaths in UK
HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed
HPV Vaccine Gardasil 2
HPV Vaccine Gardasil
FDA and HPV — when did they know the truth?

Vaccine Nation – Directors Cut

The full length documentary by Gary Null PhD regarding health issues of vaccines, corruptions by courts, and the promotion of untested and unproven vaccines by Big Pharma in order to keep the multi-billion dollar industry ticking over. This includes Gardasil.

For most people, vaccinating themselves and their children seems like a good idea. Vaccines are safe, effective and are supposed to protect us against dangerous infectious diseases – Right? Wrong! What you don’t know can harm you or kill you! In this groundbreaking film, you will: * See the truth about the dangers of vaccines and their direct relationship to autoimmune diseases, infections, allergies and a massive increase of developmental learning and behavioral disorders in children, such as Autism. * Discover the truth about the history of vaccines and how they have NEVER been proven to be safe and effective for anyone. * Witness the legacy of governmental deception and cover-ups associated with vaccines. * Learn about the corruption within the scientific community and how vaccine studies are seriously flawed. * You’ll also follow heart-wrenching, real life stories of the parents and children devastated by the effects of vaccines. Join director Gary Null PhD and over 40 of the worlds foremost vaccine experts in this shocking expose’ that will shatter the truth as you know it. DVD copies are available at http://www.garynull.com.

Why Ireland should vote No to the Lisbon Treaty

I am going to keep this simple.

Firstly, as I am sure people following the progress of the Lisbon Treaty will know, Ireland is the only country in the European Union who’s Constitution requires the ratification of the Treaty to be put to a public vote. Good. The re-wording of the original European Constitution to a Treaty in reality changes nothing of its content as the orignal Constitution is for all intents and purposes, intact in the Lisbon Treaty, albeit hidden. Disagree?

How about from the mouths of those whom one would expect to know, starting with the architect of the original Constitution, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, who states, in the Telegraph, 27 June 2007;

“This text is, in fact, a rerun of a great part of the substance of the Constitutional Treaty.”

He also appears in the Telegraph again where it is stated;

Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the architect of the abandoned European Constitution, has admitted that the document has been rewritten by EU leaders in a different order just to avoid the need for referendums.

He made clear that the purpose of the rewritten Treaty (now called the Lisbon Treaty) was to make people think the new version did not merit being put to the people in referendums.

“Above all, it is to avoid having referendums thanks to the fact that the articles are spread out and constitutional vocabulary has been removed,” he added.

Here some more quotes, from an earlier article of mine;

Germany
“The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”
(Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, Telegraph, 29 June 2007)

Spain
“We have not let a single substantial point of the Constitutional Treaty go… It is, without a doubt, much more than a treaty. This is a project of foundational character, a treaty for a new Europe.”
(Jose Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister, speech, 27 June 2007)

Ireland
“90 per cent of it is still there… these changes haven’t made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed back in 2004.”
(Bertie Ahern, Irish Taoiseach, Irish Independent, 24 June 2007)

The European Commission
“It’s essentially the same proposal as the old Constitution.”
(Margot Wallstrom, EU Commissioner, Svenska Dagbladet, 26 June 2007)

And so on… So yes, it is all still there, just a different lick of paint and buried in other documents you have probably never read either.

But what is there exactly? What does the Lisbon Treaty mean for Brussels, and for its member states (who apart from Ireland, were all refused a say on the Treaty because the People were overwhelmingly against it).

In a nutshell;

An analysis by Prof. Anthony Coughlan

Today the European Union leaders signed the Lisbon Treaty. This treaty gives the EU the constitutional form of a state. These are the ten most important things the Lisbon Treaty does:

1. It establishes a legally new European Union in the constitutional form of a supranational European State.
2. It empowers this new European Union to act as a State vis-a-vis other States and its own citizens.
3. It makes us all citizens of this new European Union.
4. To hide the enormity of the change, the same name – European Union – will be kept while the Lisbon Treaty changes fundamentally the legal and constitutional nature of the Union.
5. It creates a Union Parliament for the Union’s new citizens.
6. It creates a Cabinet Government of the new Union.
7. It creates a new Union political President.
8. It creates a civil rights code for the new Union’s citizens.
9. It makes national Parliaments subordinate to the new Union.
10. It gives the new Union self-empowerment powers.

The complete article (which should definitely be read) is revealingly named ‘These Boots Are Gonna Walk All Over You‘ and is located here.

So, what to do? Your government is telling you to vote Yes (although they would much rather just refused you a vote altogether), many unions and groups are campaigning against the Treaty, not sure what you are going to do? Firstly, I strongly suggest you use your vote. This Treaty will give the EU superior powers over all of your Laws (including your Constitution). This is a FACT. The European Union is just dying to expand the EU into North Africa and accelerate its expansion. Also a FACT. The French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner is currently threatening Ireland at the prospect of you guys and gals kicking the elitists in Brussels where it hurts. Apparently;

Mr Kouchner said that a “No” vote would be met by “gigantic incomprehension” in the rest of Europe.

That is a lie. It is also a blanket statement made by one politician who claims to speak for Europe which is strange considering the Lisbon Treaty was crafted specifically to stop the People having a say on it. He is just trying to use the spectre of Europe as a battering ram to frighten you into capitulating to the demands of Brussels. In truth however;

75% of people in the EU want a referendum on any new treaty which gives more powers to the EU. In the UK, 83% would want a vote to be held. A majority in all 27 countries would want a referendum.

Which brings me to my final points. The first is, what is so democratic and freedom-loving about threatening countries who may disagree with the EU? The little dictator-in-training continued;

“It would be very, very, very troubling…that we could not count on the Irish, who themselves have counted a lot on Europe’s money,”

So the EU was just pretending to be helpful, when in reality it was trying to set Ireland up to leverage power from them in the future. Sounds like the antics of a loan shark doesn’t it? This brings me to my final point.

Whether you currently think Yes or No, there is a 99.9% change that you do not really know what is in the Treaty. I don’t mean you couldn’t understand it, I just mean that you haven’t read it. This is not surprising considering the EU is refusing to allow member governments to publish readable versions of the Treaty until it is completely ratified!

So when you go to vote, just imagine you are in a bank to sign a contract on a home you already own. The suit across the table is trying to convince you to sign it. The document you have is literally unreadable. You are not sure what is in it, but you do know that at the very least it will result in massive changes in the way you can govern your own home. You don’t know how though. You don’t know how much it will cost in the future or what direction it will take either. But you do know that signing this contract means the rules you used to live by will now become secondary to the rules of that Bank. But you don’t know what the Bank’s rules are. You do know that the Banks accounts have not been signed off for at least the past 14 years because of rampant corruption and misuse of funds. You do know that a very large number of people are against the EU’s legal framework and the Lisbon Treaty. You do know that the contract contains a self amendment clause (Article 48) which will enable them to;

give the EU powers to amend its own treaties, without recourse to an intergovernmental conference or a new Treaty. It is also unclear whether this ‘simplified revision procedure’ would be subject to a referendum.

These are some other things you do know, from the National Platform EU Research and Information Centre via Wise Up Journal (each point in explained in detail in the source article);

1. Lisbon makes the EU Constitution superior to the Irish Constitution in all areas of EU law.
2. Lisbon gives the EU the constitutional form of a supranational European Federal State and turns Ireland and the other Member States into regions or provinces of this Federation.
3. Lisbon shifts influence over law-making and decision-taking in the EU towards the Big States and away from the smaller ones like Ireland.
4. Lisbon removes Ireland’s right to a permanent EU Commissioner.
5. Lisbon deprives the Irish Government of its right to decide who Ireland’s Commissioner would be when it comes to our turn to be on the Commission.
6. Lisbon gives the European Union the power to make laws in 32 new areas that are removed from the Dail and other National Parliaments.
7. Lisbon is a self-amending Treaty which would open the way to harmonising Ireland’s company taxes.
8. Lisbon gives the EU the power to decide our human and civil rights.
9. Lisbon provides that if one-third of National Parliaments object to the Commission’s proposal for an EU law, the Commission must reconsider it, but not necessarily abandon it.
10. Lisbon militarizes the EU further.

Finally, if you think you can just opt out of it afterwards, think again;

David Cameron yesterday said it would be “almost impossible” to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty if it was already law in the UK and the rest of the EU.

So, would you still sign that contract or refuse to do so until you can appreciate the number of changes it may make and what the effects of those changes could be on your life and that of your community?

Go Ireland!

* * UPDATES * *

CCTV Part 1

There is something of a continual debate here in the UK regarding CCTV. On one side are those who see the technology as a benefit, to catching criminals etc, they usually have had something happen to them, or know someone who has so it is a lot more personal. Otherwise they just use the ‘well if you have nothing to hide…’ argument.

From The Guardian:

Your private life on show to civil servants? More bureaucrats, local and national, having access to your personal information – through data-sharing and data-matching bet- ween government databases, through access to your telephone and email data, through the national database that will lie behind a “smart” identity card. Your health records on tap to researchers by ministerial order – your doctor can’t say no. Local authorities, even health trusts, able to put you under covert surveillance.

I am firmly in the ‘NO CCTV’ camp. The idea that the ever-growing parasitic corporate government and its equally corrupt subsidiaries have eyes (and now ears and mouths) watching almost every square metre of Britain does not encourage the concept of a free people. Most people who bleat on about CCTV have little or no idea about how prevalent it is, who has access to it and the potential for function creep.

I am going to address some of these issues now.