The Coming Push to Give HPV Vaccines to Infants [Revised 17th July]

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.Featured Image -- 16155

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-

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:




About Ken McMurtrie

Retired Electronics Engineer, most recently installing and maintaining medical X-Ray equipment. A mature age "student" of Life and Nature, an advocate of Truth, Justice and Humanity, promoting awareness of the injustices in the world.
This entry was posted in Conspiracies, Corruption, drugs & medication, HEALTH, Public Health, Vaccinations, vaccines, World Issues and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The Coming Push to Give HPV Vaccines to Infants [Revised 17th July]

  1. joekano76 says:

    Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth.

  2. hirundine608 says:

    What is HPV ?… Cheers Jamie

    • Thanks Jamie, for raising my awareness of something missing.
      First the “disease” definition itself, second I failed to acknowledge the author and source.
      I have rectified these omissions in a revision and offer this info:
      “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” (
      Note that this reference gives many clues as to the ineffectiveness of the vaccines and makes it clear that immunizing babies is absolutely crazy and unjustified.

      • hirundine608 says:

        Thanks Ken, I see a lot of your posts on the subject and I skim them. But I was not sure that acronym was.

        Since I do not have to make decisions around the use of them. Most of it, is over my head. ,, Schwing-g-g! There is just too much wrong with life these days …
        Cheers Jamie.

  3. “Dr. Diane Harper was a leading expert responsible for the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies which secured the approval of the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines, Gardasil™ and Cervarix™. Dr. Harper also authored many of the published, scholarly papers about the vaccines. She is now the latest in a long string of experts who are pressing the red alert button on the devastating consequences and irrelevancy of these vaccines. Dr. Harper made her surprising confession at the 4th International Converence on Vaccination which took place in Reston, Virginia. Her speech, which was originally intended to promote the benefits of the vaccines, took a 180-degree turn when she chose instead to clean her conscience about the deadly vaccines so she “could sleep at night”.

    • hirundine608 says:

      I suppose it’s interesting? I certainly know more about HPV than I did previously. Advertisements on American TV frequently have them for all sorts of conditions. They have pills for this or that the ads usually portray some actors in their mid fifties looking gorgeous. Being “active” with a pet or pretend grand-kids. If it’s for a sexual nature they will be seated together watching the sun go down. Or around a campfire,etc.

      Then at the end comes the warnings. Which are frequently dire. Which always makes me wonder why anyone would consider taking them? Yet, consider they do. Apparently doctors are overwhelmed with people wanting to be prescribed. Even when they do not have the condition.

      My conclusion? You cannot protect people, against themselves. It’s a bit like warnings about diving into a place, because of dangerous rocks or something. They are going to do it anyway. Authority knows this and much of it is tailored specifically, for the genetically challenged. .. Ho-hum. Cheers Jamie.

      • In the end, the people are the decision makers about their own food, drink, drug and excercise regimes.
        Yet, unless they do a lot of research and understand it, they are reliant on advice from wherever it comes. Then as you say, they may ignore good advice, for whatever reason, they are human and not perfect.
        BUT, to me, the situations become unjust and downright dangerous when they accept advice, or are forced to accept, in this case drugs, which are deemed by experts to be politically or financially motivated.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s