This month I am trending to favour the vaccination scene, with a very openly critical attitude. My linked and followed sources are partly to ‘blame’, for their constant supply of material, introducing more and more compelling evidence of the injustices of the vaccination program(s) and the ever increasing serious of the injustices themselves.
A post received today, titled above, really ‘pushes my buttons’ and, in my opinion, reveals a proposal that is so blatantly unjust, medically and morally, that I fail to see how even the most uncritical persons, medical personnel or public, can not ask themselves, “How can this be justifiable? If questionable, why is this happening?”
Of all the vaccines being thrust upon the public, increasingly mandated, as distinct from consumer choice, documented as the most questionable product and having the weakest justification for need, the HPV vaccine stands out starkly.
Now we have a promotion to lower the applicable recipient age for its applicability. Whether the proposal goes ahead, or not, has no impact on the validity of this critique. The reality of the industry’s desire to implement the scheme exists, and is loaded with potential, globally serious repercussions. Serious, valid questions that need to be answered!
The issues raised in this article include:
- Aim of the vacccine
- Degree of seriousness of the health issue(s) being targeted
- Relativity of recipient’s age to the need (imagined or otherwise), for immunization
- Relativity of the recipient’s sex or sexual behaviour to that need
- Absence of meaningful safety verifications
- Inappropriate testing procedures
- Types of adverse reactions
- Seriousness of adverse reactions
- Frequency of adverse reactions
- Evidence of conflicts of interest
In each and all these areas of the overall issue, there are far more reasons to consider this proposal as suspect and dangerous, than there are for a genuine medical need for it.
A conclusion of its author,
” Now that it’s obvious that the HPV vaccine is exceptionally dangerous, the effort seems to be on how to hide the risks. If there’d been any concern, then why didn’t these authors bother to include adverse effects in their calculations?
The authors’ concern had nothing to do with the lives lost and devastated. Instead, it was for the poor sales job done with HPV vaccines. They think that the process of pushing them on people would have gone much more smoothly if, instead of referring to them as “cancer preventing”, they had said that the vaccines prevent “HPV-related disease”.”
supports the need for the whole medical industry to step back and have an impartial, critical look at these issues.
Please carefully read the source article by Heidi Stevenson, published by ‘SaneVax, Inc’ and consider its significance.
For further edification: (Ref- http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/hpv-genital-warts/hpv-vaccines-human-papillomavirus)
HPV vaccines protect against a very common sexually transmitted virus called HPV or human papillomavirus. HPV infects at least 50% of sexually active people at some point in their lives. The virus often clears from the body on its own. If it persists, it can lead to cervical, anal, and throat cancers and to genital warts.
The article has its own references and supporting documents, here are some more related articles:
- http:/tgrule.com/2012/04/20/8449/ (HPV Marketing Criticized).
- http://www.bbc.com/news/health-33504211 (Review of HPV vaccine side-effects)