In August, I came down with conjunctivitis (Pink-Eye) in my right eye. Per usual, I set an appointment with my primary care provider for treatment. My eye was KILLING me!
During my visit, I also opted to have my blood-work done to make sure everything was okay. I was then offered the “complimentary” HPV vaccine.
I assertively rejected and almost found myself in a heated debate with my PCP on why I absolutely would not be injected with a vaccine which secretly did more harm than good. I guess he felt as if I was discrediting his 8 years of medical years and decades-long career, but no credential on earth is worth poisoning myself.
“About eight in every ten women who have been sexually active will have HPV at some stage of their life. Normally there are no symptoms, and in 98 per cent of cases it clears itself. But in those cases where it doesn’t, and isn’t treated, it can lead to pre-cancerous cells which may develop into cervical cancer.”
— Dr. Diane Harper(Lead Researcher on HPV and HPV Vaccinations)
The HPV vaccines available are marketed to women and now young men aged 9-26. It claims to prevent strains of HPV that would lead to cancer later in life. However, these vaccines are another dirty little secret of the pharmaceutical industry as well as job security: Pollute you with vaccinations now and then sell you the anecdote (chemotherapy, hell DEATH) later.t
The drug is being offered no matter what you go to the doctor for if your a young adult. and many providers put pressure on you to take it. well, that’s job security for them essentially. How else are they supposed to stay in business?
Read the explosive article before with shed light on the dark side of the HPV vaccines.
The Lead Vaccine Developer Comes Clean: Gardasil and Cervarix Don’t Work, Are Dangerous, and Weren’t Tested
Written by Sarah C. Corriher
Dr. Diane Harper was the lead researcher in the development of the human papilloma virus vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix. She made a surprising announcement at the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination, which took place in Reston, Virginia on Oct. 2nd through 4th, 2009. Her speech was supposed to promote the Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines, but she instead turned on her corporate bosses in a very public way. When questioned about the presentation, audience members remarked that they came away feeling that the vaccines should not be used.
Dr. Harper explained in her presentation that the cervical cancer risk in the U.S. is already extremely low, and that vaccinations are unlikely to have any effect upon the rate of cervical cancer in the United States. In fact, 70% of all HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment within a year, and the number rises to well over 90% in two years. Harper also mentioned the safety angle. All trials of the vaccines were done on children aged 15 and above, despite them currently being marketed for 9-year-olds.
One must understand how the establishment’s word games are played to truly understand the meaning of the above quote, and one needs to understand its unique version of “science”. When they report that untreated cases can lead to something that may lead to cervical cancer, it really means that the relationship is merely a hypothetical conjecture that is profitable if people actually believe it. In other words, there is no demonstrated relationship between the condition being vaccinated for and the rare cancers that the vaccinemight prevent, but it is marketed to do it nonetheless. There is no actual evidence that the vaccine can prevent any cancer.
From the manufacturers own admissions, the vaccine only works on 4 strains out of 40 for a specific venereal disease that dies on its own, so the chance of the vaccine actually saving an individual is about the same as the chance of him being struck by a meteorite. Why do nine-year-old girls need vaccinations for symptom-less venereal diseases that their immune systems kill anyway? Moreover, why are parents not being told that the ingredients in the vaccine are more carcinogenic than the virus that the vaccine is intended to prevent? It harkens back to the 1950’s, when doctors were promoting cigarette smoking as a means to obtain better lung health.