Contaminated HPV4 vaccine?

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:14 pm

This is disturbing. Just when you think that vaccinations are safe...

http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/sane-v ... 4-vaccine/

I recently consented to free Hep-B vaccination at work since my occupation is considered at high risk of coming in contact with it. Now I may reconsider.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:15 pm

I look at this the same way as the flu shot. If I get sick, there are ways to treat it, why take something pre-emptive which could cause problems itself. Plus I'm a distrusting sonofabitch that refuses to get sick anyways >: )

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:20 pm

Recombinant DNA (rDNA) refers to novel DNA molecules engineered by joining natural or synthetic DNA segments to other DNA molecules so that they can replicate in a living cell. The possibility for these replicable forms of DNA as uncertain toxic substance or as environmental hazard has been a concern since rDNA technology was invented in 1973. Thus, rDNA is considered a potential biohazard, and NIH has mandated that research institutions monitor and regulate its use.2.

All recombinant or genetically engineered DNAs are considered potential biohazards if injected intramuscularly into the body. Merck’s Gardasil™ HPV4 vaccine is administered intramuscularly – as are many other vaccines. However, Gardasil™ is the first vaccine found to be contaminated by a genetically engineered DNA used to manufacture virus-like particle proteins for the vaccine.

SANE Vax Inc. believes the FDA should have required Merck to test for, evaluate and quantify the risks of residual recombinant HPV DNA in Gardasil™ before granting approval for marketing the vaccine. SANE Vax Inc. believes the FDA should require every lot of Gardasil™ be tested for residual HPV DNA prior to shipment.

LOL, this is some scary ★■◆●. They should lock-up Dr. Frankenstein and all his colleagues immediately.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 8:38 pm

now before anyone gets too worked up, it's best to do a little research into the elements of the story.

the questions that surfaced in my mind was: "what is the name of the lab that was contracted to test these vials?" "what is the specialty of the doctor mentioned in the article?" "what exactly is HPV?"

Recombinant DNA (rDNA) molecules are DNA sequences that result from the use of laboratory methods (molecular cloning) to bring together genetic material from multiple sources, creating sequences that would not otherwise be found in biological organisms. Recombinant DNA is possible because DNA molecules from all organisms share the same chemical structure; they differ only in the sequence of nucleotides within that identical overall structure. Consequently, when DNA from a foreign source is linked to host sequences that can drive DNA replication and then introduced into a host organism, the foreign DNA is replicated along with the host DNA.

Recombinant DNA molecules are sometimes called chimeric DNA, because they are usually made of material from two different species, like the mythological chimera.

The DNA sequences used in the construction of recombinant DNA molecules can originate from any species. For example, plant DNA may be joined to bacterial DNA, or human DNA may be joined with fungal DNA. In addition, DNA sequences that do not occur anywhere in nature may be created by the chemical synthesis of DNA, and incorporated into recombinant molecules. Using recombinant DNA technology and synthetic DNA, literally any DNA sequence may be created and introduced into any of a very wide range of living organisms.

The mother of a sexually naïve adolescent girl who developed acute onset Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis within 24 hours of her last injection of the Gardasil™ series contacted SANE Vax Inc. looking for more information.

really? you can develop an autoimmune disease from an injection? And she got very sick, even though the symptoms include swollen joints? and they found out using a toxicity test?

Stop the presses!

and HPV showing up after two years after an injection into a sexually naive 16 year old girl? really? come on. If you believe that, then I have a bridge to sell you.

yeah there's just so much that's wrong with that article.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 8:43 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these living organisms actually human beings in this case? If you don't mind finding out the results personally, which this study suggest,

then by all means let me know what you find out. LOL

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:08 pm

flip wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these living organisms actually human beings in this case?

what exactly are you saying?

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:14 pm

Eh all I'm saying is don't take the injection

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:42 pm

based on what empirical evidence?

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:49 pm

ROFL. About 3 shots of tequila and a few doobies. Even then I'm not letting some jackass inject me with their newest concoction until at least a few hundred thousand Ferno's do first

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 10:57 pm

flip wrote:ROFL. About 3 shots of tequila and a few doobies. Even then I'm not letting some jackass inject me with their newest concoction until at least a few hundred thousand Ferno's do first

well.... if you want to let the anti-vaccination crowd tell you what to do as opposed to medical doctors and the scientists that spend years researching and developing vaccines... don't let me stop you.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:05 pm

I have first hand experience dealing with these individuals you speak of in a matter of simple construction. So far none have inspired a great deal of confidence.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:14 pm

what does having confidence in a few people have to do with sound decision making?

you're letting a small vocal crowd override a very large scientific and medical body that has a great deal of research backing them up to the point of influencing your decision making. doesn't that strike you as irrational?

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:17 pm

No, I let my first hand experience, which includes many medical situations, my own and others be my guide. I've talked candidly with many medical professionals in matters that concerned me directly. I think you have a irrational confidence that many of them don't possess themselves.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:23 pm

oh so you're just letting your personal experiences and anecdotal evidence from others override good judgement.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:35 am

If you think this website is a credible scientific source, then I have a bridge I'd love to sell you.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:06 pm

flip wrote:I look at this the same way as the flu shot. If I get sick, there are ways to treat it, why take something pre-emptive which could cause problems itself. Plus I'm a distrusting sonofabitch that refuses to get sick anyways >: )

I am in the healthcare business and share your viewpoint.......

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:04 pm

So whats wrong with the website? I'm not looking to buy a bridge either.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:38 pm

quite a bit actually. just dig into the elements of the story and you'll end up seeing red flag after red flag.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:19 pm

VonVulcan wrote:So whats wrong with the website? I'm not looking to buy a bridge either.

In general, any site touting "Things the *whatever* industry DON'T want you to hear!" is trying to send you up BS creek without a paddle. It's a big red flag that signals, "Yeah, I'm basically promoting some quackery that has nothing to back it up, so to get people to read it, I'm going to start with this big attention-grabbing slogan!" The sort of cover-ups sites like this claim wouldn't even be possible, let alone desirable...it would run directly counter to the self-interest of those doing the research.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:52 pm

Scientists and researchers DO make mistakes, especially if they're in a rush to develop a vaccine. There are how many unknown people, mostly baby boomers, potentially infected with SV40, a virus that contaminated the polio vaccine because of the method of manufacture from 1954 to 1962, and up to the 1980's for some nations. For all I know, I and countless others been contaminated with SV40 and are at risk of getting some form of cancer. I remember taking the oral form of the vaccine when I was a young child. But I think getting Polio would have been far worse.

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/20 ... a-mvirus20

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:15 pm

my whole problem isn't with vaccination, per se. It is a life-saver in the case of deadly diseases with low survival rates. On the other hand, when you get carried away and start innoculating folks for common diseases that are easily recovered from and have a very low rate of long-term debilitation(best example:
Chicken Pox, Influenza in most adults), you are steadily pushing toward an immunologically feeble population. Not a good thing, IMO.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:23 pm

A vaccine that triggers an immune response will definitely not result in an "immunologically feeble" population. The entire point of a vaccine is that it strengthens the immune system.

Excessive use of antibiotics on the other hand...

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:28 pm

How about Bachmann and her ragging on Perry for his requirement that young girls have to get the HPV vaccine? By the way, they're even thinking that men should have it too.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63329.html

She accused him of doing it for money and that the government shouldn't be forcing people to get vaccinated. So should Americans be forced to have vaccinations, especially if it has a social benefit? Even vaccines against deseases that don't cause a deadly pandemic and impact a large segment of the population like the flu, but are more subtle and can cure some cancer in one segment of the population in the future. Where do we draw the line at a requirement?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:52 pm

aaaand this thread just took a right turn straight into a brick wall.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:53 pm

my whole problem isn't with vaccination, per se. It is a life-saver in the case of deadly diseases with low survival rates. On the other hand, when you get carried away and start innoculating folks for common diseases that are easily recovered from and have a very low rate of long-term debilitation(best example:
Chicken Pox, Influenza in most adults), you are steadily pushing toward an immunologically feeble population. Not a good thing, IMO.

Agreed, my thoughts exactly. I also have a huge gripe with the overuse of anti-biotics for the same reason. It's like shooting yourself in the foot. My wife was just in the hospital recently from a bad asthma attack. Well, the doctor ordered the normal breathing treatments, steroids.......then anti-biotics and blood thinners!!! When questioned at first the attitude was basically "just do what your told" but when pushed admitted it was just precautionary and the blood thinner "standard" protocol. Needless to say we "opted out" of the standard practice and became a SOB all at the same time.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:19 pm

Ferno wrote:aaaand this thread just took a right turn straight into a brick wall.

I wasn't dissing Bachmann or Perry. I was only asking if vaccinations should be required by the state. Perry just happens to say yes, and Bachmann just happens to vehemently disagree. Both from the same party. They were just examples Ferno. Pbfffffffft!

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:24 pm

It is a life-saver in the case of deadly diseases with low survival rates

Only under those circumstances should it be a "requirement", especially considering the risks in this case the risk would be greater NOT to take the vaccination.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:28 pm

Yeah, but some people don't even want the state to require it in any case.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:40 pm

That should be the only time it is a "requirement" the direst of circumstances, otherwise one's own free will and their own "envisions" should prevail. What's it to ya?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:24 pm

tunnelcat wrote:
Ferno wrote:aaaand this thread just took a right turn straight into a brick wall.
I wasn't dissing Bachmann or Perry. I was only asking if vaccinations should be required by the state. Perry just happens to say yes, and Bachmann just happens to vehemently disagree. Both from the same party. They were just examples Ferno. Pbfffffffft!

yeah you were, actually. but I've seen you debate people here enough to know you'll just shift the blame or accuse someone else of 'not getting it' using whatever terms you choose for the day. So, engaging you in debate would be counter-productive.

and as for 'examples'? examples don't consist of hyperbole.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:48 pm

Well, the Dems weren't debating the issue, so I couldn't use them as a example. It was the Republicans who were going after it, and they couldn't agree on the subject either.

If you want hear my beef, Perry far underestimated the amount of money he got from Merck during the tea party debate. Which happens to be very same company who supplied the HPV vaccine for all those required vaccinations. Can you say conflict of interest? I'm siding with Bachmann on this one.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:55 pm

To attend public school in Philadelphia, I was required to get vaccinations.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:04 pm

Spidey wrote:To attend public school in Philadelphia, I was required to get vaccinations.

So was I. What stinks nowadays is the money kickbacks from the drug companies. It's gone from the altruism of protecting the children to a money making scheme for politicians, lobbyists and drug companies.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:14 pm

Vaccines don't actually make much money for drug companies, at least as far as I'm aware. Hell, even the much-touted flu vaccine is only produced by two different companies. It's certainly far less than big blockbuster drugs, too, which is why I doubt any company would shell out additional money just to make sure a state is using their product.

Edit: Whoops, apparently Merck spent millions lobbying for their vaccine. So much for that line of thought.

Still, I don't think the possibly-dubious circumstances of Perry's action negate the legitimate benefits of the vaccination policy.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:35 am

Spidey wrote:To attend public school in Philadelphia, I was required to get vaccinations.

Those were for infectious diseases transmitted to other people by the carrier. What HPV4 prevents is not infectious by the carrier to others.....is it?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:08 am

It’s an STD. (virus)

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:28 am

Is the vaccine preventing the spread of the virus or preventing the resultant cancer?

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:19 am

It prevents the spread of the virus, thus preventing the cancer. A vaccine pre-conditions your immune system to respond to a particular virus, so when the real thing shows up, your body recognizes it and attacks it.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:31 pm

Krom wrote:A vaccine that triggers an immune response will definitely not result in an "immunologically feeble" population. The entire point of a vaccine is that it strengthens the immune system.

actually, you are wrong. The immune response to a vaccine is not the same as the natural immunity incurred through natural contact with the virus or other pathogen. Once again, this has been very well documented with Chicken Pox.

Excessive use of antibiotics on the other hand...

toss in 'antibacterial' products everywhere, and you have a disease trifecta. The antibiotics and cleansing products, however pose a different type of problem. What they do is push the bacterial population(via....ta-da! Evolution and natural selection) to become far more resistant. Thus, to summarize, excessive reliance on immunization enfeebles the human population's immune strength, antibiotics and disinfectants used in excess strengthen the microbial population's resistance to treatment.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:33 pm

Top Gun wrote:It prevents the spread of the virus, thus preventing the cancer. A vaccine pre-conditions your immune system to respond to a particular virus, so when the real thing shows up, your body recognizes it and attacks it.

you hope. However, the jury is out for the length of effectiveness or the totality of response over time. Thus, you could incur false hope in women that COULD result in less diligent hygene and screening practices which would negate the effectiveness.