Hello everyone.  My name is Lucy and I have just found this website while researching "itchy skin" for my husband.  The cervical cancer vaccination debate caught my eye because it is also big over here in Holland, where I live, and is being actively promoted by my employer to parents of girls in the target group.  I only have one child, a boy, so am unlikely to be put under pressure (for the time being?) to get him vaccinated.  However, I have been interested in the pros and cons of vaccination to the extent that he has only just received the MMR at 9 years of age, which is when the Dutch system prescribes the second round of MMR and DTP vaccinations.  My decision was based on not wanting to bombard the immature immune system with many vaccines all at the same time.  After his third "baby" round of vaccinations (DTP plus whooping cough, MenC and probably something else), he developed chronic eczema which only disappeared last year.  This prompted me to look further and we decided to skip the first MMR and booster DTP which are given at 15 months here.  My decision was respected by both my GP and the doctor at the baby clinic, although they did ask me to explain why I felt this way.  I was impressed with this approach as I feel very strongly that we should have the choice - provided, of course, we are prepared to research it and it is not just based on some vague emotion or current hype.  The Dutch Government is talking about making the full children's vaccination programme mandatory and that is something I totally disagree with.

Anyway, I digress.  I would just like to respond to your comment, bwg, about Alla's "patronising" comment.  Yes, it does appear that way but I have been very impressed with Alla's command of the English language.  It was clear to me from her first e-mail that she is not a native English speaker. For the record, although living in the Netherlands for more than 25 years, I am English.  I work for an international organisation where most people's mother tongue is not English and I often get e-mails which appear very aggressive.  Once I can shut down the first emotional response and re-read the content rationally, 9 times out of 10 I have misinterpreted the aggression which is due to not having the full range of subtleties of the English language at one's disposal.  I think the same may apply here to "patronising".

I would just like to say that I think having Alla participate in this discussion is very valuable.  I do not agree with everything she writes, but I find it fascinating to read.

I apologise if my contribution at this stage is not really related to this discussion but I shall keep following your postings.

Thanks for your understanding, Lucy. I am glad I am not offering linguistic services in the UK.

 

Getting back to the subject, I’ve red the abstract by Shaw et al – their findings suggest only possible

role for the aluminium adjuvant in some neurological features associated with Gulf War Illness (GWI). What’s interesting is that on British Psychological Society post-qualification training seminar in London last week Dr. Sarah Mackenzie Ross presented her findings on GWI causative factors, and in her conclusions she highlighted organophosphates in insecticide sprays; chemical weapons and anti-sarin drug pyridostigmine bromide which military personnel had to take every time an alarm went on in the barracks in case of sarin attack next day; depleted uranium dust inhalation and compromising immune system multi-vaccine campaigns (12-14 injections were administered per person over two days). Aluminium hydroxide was not mentioned.  

 

Brain lesions in Alzheimer's disease contain aluminium, the source of which is unknown, but high blood aluminium levels associated with consumption of well water, is found to result in dementia. The lowest published lethal dose for aluminium hydroxide is 1500 mg per kg of body weight. One shot of Cervarix contains 0.5 mg of aluminium (Al3+) in total. If you are worried about Cervarix adding to existent aluminium level in your child’s body – arrange a hair mineral analysis (has to be by mass-spectrometry method) for your child to set your mind at rest.

 

Unfortunately my 25 y.o. daughter has missed the opportunity with Cervarix vaccination. If Cervarix was available ten years ago, I would definitely have encouraged her to go for vaccination, but would have arranged her to be tested for CMV prior to that. My only apprehension regarding Cervarix vaccination campaign is the fact that Cervarix is currently offered to eleven y.o. girls, though vaccine is proven to give protection only for five and a half years.

 

All the best to all.

 

---

Alla Cranham, MSc ABMT,
Registered Homotoxicologist

Mercury House
Northgate
Nottingham
NG7 7FN

Tel +44(0) 845 450 7316
Mob +44(0) 77361 47458
Fax +44(0) 115 9163109
http://www.in-vivo-health.co.uk

I think that empowering girls to take control over their bodies is the most important way to prevent sexually transmitted infections. The implications of the vaccination are not fully known or understood, and as I have read there have been some horrific side effects including paralysis.

 May I throw a spanner in the works?  Circumcision of males has shown to cut back ( not only the foreskin) but on the spread of the wart virus. Maybe this is safer than injecting girls with this vaccine on the premise they will all end up being infected by the virus, not all women are. If condoms were insisted upon by all girls and women before engaging in sexual intercourse and men had to present a clean bill health from a GUM clinic when they wanted sex, numbers of cervical cancer might reduce more than by relying upon a  vaccination. My daughter is 20 and I am advising her not to have it done until more time has passed to assess its safety.

Alla,

I have followed and analysed your posts closely and have come to the conclusion that you use elements of NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) and Delphi technique to subtly create the impression that you are somebody of competence whose advice can be trusted with regards to vaccinations. Most startling is that you avoid answering valid and critical questions and choose to point people to some websites representing your own opinions.

Additionally, you repeat the myth that vaccinations are effective and make the absolutely outrageous claim that Homeopathy and vaccination is based on the same principle. Nothing could be further from the truth. Homeopathy is quantum energy based, vaccination is based on an immune system assault. This was a blatant attempt to misdirect people by suggesting that vaccination is as safe as Homeopathy. Such a statement gives rise to two assumptions about you:

1. Either you do not know what you are talking about in which case you are not reliable or

2. you made a deliberate misrepresentation to boost confidence in vaccines which also make your statements unreliable.

I still have difficulties understanding how anybody would deliberately choose to expose his/her body to toxic cocktails such as vaccinations but this is everybody's own choice. However, people like you who subtly manipulate people into believing that vaccinations are quite alright except some risks (like everywhere else) need to be challenged in an attempt to restore a balance between the subconscious which can easily be manipulated and the conscious.

Let us now look at some of the things you said:

Alla Cranham:

Getting back to the subject, I’ve red the abstract by Shaw et al – their findings suggest only possible

role for the aluminium adjuvant in some neurological features associated with Gulf War Illness (GWI). What’s interesting is that on British Psychological Society post-qualification training seminar in London last week Dr. Sarah Mackenzie Ross presented her findings on GWI causative factors, and in her conclusions she highlighted organophosphates in insecticide sprays; chemical weapons and anti-sarin drug pyridostigmine bromide which military personnel had to take every time an alarm went on in the barracks in case of sarin attack next day; depleted uranium dust inhalation and compromising immune system multi-vaccine campaigns (12-14 injections were administered per person over two days). Aluminium hydroxide was not mentioned.  

 

 

This is mostly irrelevant content for the purpose of distracting the reader from the important fact that Aluminium hydroxide was not mentioned. There is a difference of it not being mentioned and a statement to the effect of  Aluminium hydroxide not being at least a contributor to said illnesses and symptoms. So, here some question:

 

1. Does the fact that Aluminium hydroxide was not mentioned constitute evidence that it is not responsible for various serious illnesses as mentioned by previous contributor?

 

2. Are you aware that Aluminium hydroxide is an immune system stimulant driving the immune system into overload and do you have personal first hand knowledge that this does not cause any harm?

 

Alla Cranham:

Brain lesions in Alzheimer's disease contain aluminium, the source of which is unknown, but high blood aluminium levels associated with consumption of well water, is found to result in dementia. 

 

3. If the source of aluminium in the brain lesions of Alzheimer sufferers is unknown, how can you with any certainty say that it is not a result of vaccinations?

 

4. Do you have first hand knowledge that aluminium in the brain does not originate from vaccinations?

 

5. Do you have first hand knowledge that high blood levels of aluminium  comes from well water and are you aware of the fact that your wikipedia link does not even mention water let alone well water?

 

6. Are you trying to suggest that it is better to drink tab water than well water?

 

7. Are you aware that tab water is treated with aluminium? 

 

Alla Cranham:

 

The lowest published lethal dose for aluminium hydroxide is 1500 mg per kg of body weight.

 

8. Are you suggesting that somebody has to die before aluminium in the body is considered to be unacceptable?

 

Alla Cranham:

  

One shot of Cervarix contains 0.5 mg of aluminium (Al3+) in total. If you are worried about Cervarix adding to existent aluminium level in your child’s body – arrange a hair mineral analysis (has to be by mass-spectrometry method) for your child to set your mind at rest.

 

9.  Do you have first hand knowledge that 0.5mg of aluminium does not cause any immediate or longterm harm?

 

10. Are you suggesting that it is enough for a parent to know the levels of aluminium in the child's body to no longer be concerned about vaccination? 

 

Alla Cranham:

  

Unfortunately my 25 y.o. daughter has missed the opportunity with Cervarix vaccination.

If Cervarix was available ten years ago, I would definitely have encouraged her to go for vaccination, but would have arranged her to be tested for CMV prior to that. My only apprehension regarding Cervarix vaccination campaign is the fact that Cervarix is currently offered to eleven y.o. girls, though vaccine is proven to give protection only for five and a half years.

 

This is the typical NLP based spin. Appearing to make a personal commitment (which is irrelevant since your daughter is already 25) combined with the appearance of raising some points of criticism which pale into insignificance in comparison to the risks of death and permanent disability of young girls being given this vaccine. Therefore, your statements are hypocritical because you are not in the same position as concerned parents and teenagers are.

 

Something I have learned in my life is that one should never trust anybody who is not willing to accept full and unlimited liability for any actions which  involve third parties. Therefore, Alla, here the following offer:

 

I will pay for a solicitor who takes your sworn statement made under penalty of perjury and your own full personal unlimited liability in form of an affidavit of truth in which you swear that:

 

a. you have first hand knowledge that Cervarix will not cause any shortterm and longterm harm other than those injuries listed by the manufacturer as risk.

 

b. you have first hand knowledge that Cervarix is generally safe.

 

c. you have first hand knowledge that all the studies, references and links you used in your posts as evidence are correct, unbiased and impartial and that they constitute evidence as a matter of fact.

 

d. you have first hand knowledge that the risk of girls getting cervical cancer is as high as stated by the government.

 

e. you have first hand knowledge that Cervarix is not part of a general sterilisation program to reduce the population.

 

f. you have first hand knowledge that Scotland's growing birth rate is not linked to Scotland being the first part of the UK offering Cervarix to young girls and women. 

 

g. you accept full personal and unlimited liability for all those who are caused harm by Cervarix after having read your representations on this forum. 

 

Sections a to g should cover most of the concerns raised in this thread.

 

My point here is: Those who push for vaccinations never accept unlimited liability for the harm they might cause. The life of our children is priceless and therefore only the acceptance of personal unlimited liability of manufacturers and pushers (government) will give some sort of assurance.

 

Most parents have a very good intuition about what they should do in various situations. I am a parent and I trust this intuition more than any third party claim of which I have no first hand knowledge. I believe that, as a result, my family enjoys excellent health and this is what I wish to all of you and your families.

 

Brandon 

 

Brandon,

I am aware that aluminium hydroxide, apart from being a buffer solution constituent, is an immune system stimulant, but am not aware of it being able to 'drive the immune system into overload'. Immune system’s reaction to any antigen starts with Th1-mediated response (which means inflammation) followed by Th2-mediated response meaning antibody production. Aluminium hydroxide stimulates immune system to Th2-mediated response (which is the purpose of any vaccine) thus avoiding inflammation phase. I do not think that this vaccine was designed by the bunch of amateurs.

And perhaps you've forgotten - this is the site for blogging and you do not have to follow the advices written here. Internet is a free space and you have to be aware of believing what you read. But everyone is entitled to look for verifiable references and to express their own opinion here, and that was exactly what I have done.

It is wonderful that your family is currently enjoying good health, but it does not mean that this is a life span guaranteed, especially for children, and especially with regard to sexually transmitted disease: it's better to think about their future health now than when it's too late.

 

I wish you and your family the very best of health.

 

 

---

Alla Cranham, MSc ABMT,
Registered Homotoxicologist

Mercury House
Northgate
Nottingham
NG7 7FN

Tel +44(0) 845 450 7316
Mob +44(0) 77361 47458
Fax +44(0) 115 9163109
http://www.in-vivo-health.co.uk

Alla, 

Alla Cranham:

I am aware that aluminium hydroxide, apart from being a buffer solution constituent, is an immune system stimulant, but am not aware of it being able to 'drive the immune system into overload'. Immune system’s reaction to any antigen starts with Th1-mediated response (which means inflammation) followed by Th2-mediated response meaning antibody production. Aluminium hydroxide stimulates immune system to Th2-mediated response (which is the purpose of any vaccine) thus avoiding inflammation phase. I do not think that this vaccine was designed by the bunch of amateurs.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. It creates the impression that you are competent by making statements as facts. Perhaps, it would be a good idea if you talked to some of the parents of vaccine damaged children and explain to them what you just said above. I am not convinced that it will provide any sort of consolation. 

Aluminium is a toxin. It does not belong into our body. If it belonged there, nature would have made sure that we have a use for it.  

I am in full agreement with you that vaccine designers are not a bunch of amateurs which then raises the questions why they bring things to market which kill and harm and yet claim that they are safe.

Alla Cranham:

And perhaps you've forgotten - this is the site for blogging and you do not have to follow the advices written here. Internet is a free space and you have to be aware of believing what you read. But everyone is entitled to look for verifiable references and to express their own opinion here, and that was exactly what I have done.

I am fully aware of what this side is about. However, if you think that the free space Internet gives you a license to subconsciously program the minds of others, then your ethical standards speak for themselves. I am, however, glad that you stated that your postings were opinions only.
 

Alla Cranham:

It is wonderful that your family is currently enjoying good health, but it does not mean that this is a life span guaranteed, especially for children, and especially with regard to sexually transmitted disease: it's better to think about their future health now than when it's too late.

Nothing is garanteed in life. Mankind has attempted to bloom and blossom which usually worked best when free of any undue control. We live in the age of mind control where a multitude of techniques are used to induce fear into people. FEAR IS FOR PREY!

So, if you sign the affidavit as proposed in my last post, I will endorse Cervarix and make sure that parents know who they can turn to in case something goes wrong.

I completely reject your suggestion that I am not thinking about my children's future health. I rebutt this notion by claiming that you have made an attempt to suggest to me to harm my children. Can you give me any proof why I should let my children be injected with toxic waste containing who knows what?

So, just give it up. You are not expressing an opinion, you manipulate people by playing upon their fear turning them into fair game. Is it not so that you people don't stop at anything and do not even look at thousands and thousands of vaccine injured children? 

Is it not so that you boggle people's mind which scientific bla which nobody understands and dead and injured children are just collateral damage to you in the name of science?

I would also really appreciate if you could rebutt my previous post point for point. I think that people looking for advice or help or just some sort of understanding would really appreciate that.

Being healthy is a choice, not luck and not co-incidence. Just get up and do some research on vaccine injuries and death. 

Does it not worry you that you might support an act of genocide?  

Brandon 

All this sounds 'paranoia querulans' to me.

Sorry!

 

 

---

Alla Cranham, MSc ABMT,
Registered Homotoxicologist

Mercury House
Northgate
Nottingham
NG7 7FN

Tel +44(0) 845 450 7316
Mob +44(0) 77361 47458
Fax +44(0) 115 9163109
http://www.in-vivo-health.co.uk

Alla, 

Alla Cranham:

All this sounds 'paranoia querulans' to me.

 

Is that what you guys tell the parents of vaccine damaged children? Phew, shame on you.

I made my case and hope that the readers of this thread are able to recgonise what is going on here.

The two vaccines are virtually identical, except that Cervarix does not include the genital wart-related viruses.  There's very little info out about Cervarix, which I find scary. The FDA has no information on its website regarding studies used for approval.

I would suggest that the risks associated with Gardasil should be assumed to exist also for Cervarix.  Risks include sudden death.  Also, in Australia, the vaccine has recently been associated with pancreatitis, a very serious disorder.

I'd like to point out that there has never been a cause-and-effect connection made between HPV and cervical cancer, only an association.  This may seem like a minor point.  However, there are many things transmitted during sexual contact, including Chlamydia, which has been implicated in a number of problems.  (Systemic fungal infections can be very damaging.)  Gardasil is known to protect against some HPVs, but the assumption that it will protect against cervical cancer is merely that - an assumption.

These viruses are normally cleared by the body - though it takes several months - in a woman with a healthy immune system. (This information is in the document that the FDA referenced describing the studies to approve Gardasil.)

Personally, I would not consider allowing my daughter to be vaccinated with either Gardasil or Cervarix. 

Brandon,

I agree with Alla about the purpose and credibility of a blog and I think that you are being unfair in your attack on her.  I personally feel that having someone of her background blogging on a site such as this can be an interesting contribution.  Do you have first-hand knowledge of all the things you ask her about?  I do not remember her ever once claiming that she did, except about life in Russia.  I find her style of writing and approach nothing to do with NLP or anything like that, but very typical of her culture.  I really do think you should congratulate her on her command of the English language.  "Paranoia querulans" is extremely witty and I doubt it is intended to be taken as seriously as you obviously have!!

In your lengthy argument perporting to debunk Alla and her theories, you ask her if she has first-hand knowledge as to why Scotland has been selected and if it has anything to do with the high birthrate.  Well, this vaccination is about to be introduced here in the Netherlands while there is concern about the low birthrate.  It has already been introduced in Italy and true-blooded Italians are due to be extinct in about 200 years time as their birthrate is no longer self-sustaining.  So I really do not believe that this is a conspiracy by the government to secretly sterilise the population. And, no, I am not prepared to go to a solicitor and make an affadavit as this is just my personal opinion, for what it is worth. Just as I believe Alla is giving her personal opinion on these issues.  I do not agree with all of them, but find her argumentation interesting (if at times too academic and scientific for me to follow completely - I just block off those bits or research them further, depending on how I feel) and I am happy to see that she is open to counter-argumentation. 

At the end of the day, you should never believe everything you read.  I will never take anything uncritically onboard from a government who is being advised by a medical profession who has been brainwashed by the pharmaceutical industry.  There is just too much money involved and the first priority of shareholders and boards of directors is not the health of the general population.  They just want a higher dividend at the end of the year.  Added to that, the main reason for these wonderful cocktails of numerous vaccines is to cut costs and to ensure maximum coverage.  However, no one knows the long-term cost to the immune system and to society.  After all, the widespread innoculation with the MMR has only been going on for just over 20 years.  But what I really find criminal is the lack of information provided about the length of immunity.  Leaving aside Cervarix and Gardasil for the moment, is any parent warned that the Rubella vaccination does not give lifelong protection?  Vaccine-induced protection could wear off just when someone is about to start a family.  I feel it is the responsibility of every parent to ensure that their daughter has regular bloodtests to check her immunity once she becomes sexually active.  This is the only way to protect any future children of this girl and, after all, unplanned pregnancies are happening all the time. The bloodtests given during pregnancy are too late - you can't actually tell when someone has Rubella (they may not even know themselves) so you don't know to keep out of their way.  I had it at 17 and so did my mother and stepfather.  But none of us knew we had it, until I had a bloodtest at 19 which showed I was resistant.  We had all thought it was a nasty bout of the flu - mine was of course the mildest!  And for the record, I still tested resistant at 36 when I was pregnant.

I researched this thoroughly when my son was due for his first MMR at 14 months.  As this was nearly 9 years ago, I have lost the links I found at the time.  I have, however, found some more which bear this out:

 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TD4-40GJ27J-5&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2e55aa33e34dafe78f1706f4a1aca5f3

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3521365

A woman may or may not get cervical cancer.  It is not a certainty.  These vaccines reduce that risk - but don't remove it.  No vaccine gives 100% coverage.  I got typhoid in India - after being vaccinated.  But Rubella during pregnancy produces a damaged child.  The uncertainty lies in how much damage is done.  A friend of mine was born deaf thanks to Rubella.  Having heard about other cases, I think we can say she was lucky.

So, Brandon, please lay off the personal attacks on Alla and keep this forum for what it is - a blog for people to express their opinions or to ask for more information on this topic. 

 

Lucy, 

Lucy:

I agree with Alla about the purpose and credibility of a blog and I think that you are being unfair in your attack on her.  I personally feel that having someone of her background blogging on a site such as this can be an interesting contribution. 

What do you know about Alla's background other than what you believe to know about her according to her own statements?

Lucy:

Do you have first-hand knowledge of all the things you ask her about?  I do not remember her ever once claiming that she did, except about life in Russia.

Exactly my point. If I had first-hand knowledge, would I ask her or make any claims which go beyond my own personal experience?

 
 

Lucy:

  I find her style of writing and approach nothing to do with NLP or anything like that, but very typical of her culture.  I really do think you should congratulate her on her command of the English language. 

What do you know about NLP and Delphi technique? How do you know which culture Alla is from? I am not saying that she is lieing but you have to admit that accepting something which you cannot verify but then present it as a fact smacks again of misrepresentation.

Lucy, I believe that you are either a little bit too gullable or a shill appearing here (in accordance with the principles of Delphi technique) to create a rift  between myself and others by portraying me as somebody who "attacks" a victimised foreigner. Clever try but I am so used to such tactics that I can spot them blindfolded. I address the human being which claims to be Alla and who is making certain very clever attempts of manipulating readers of this forum.

And what should I congratulate her for? Are you wishing everybody you do not know happy birthday without first verifying that it is the birthday of the human being?

Lucy:

"Paranoia querulans" is extremely witty and I doubt it is intended to be taken as seriously as you obviously have!!

You bet it is witty. It is in my experience the last straw argument which manipulators usually issue in order to discredit the points made by the other party and to avoid the need to answer point by point.

Lucy:

In your lengthy argument perporting to debunk Alla and her theories, you ask her if she has first-hand knowledge as to why Scotland has been selected and if it has anything to do with the high birthrate. 

Perhaps you should read my post again. This is not what I asked. I asked her to state that:

"e. you have first hand knowledge that Cervarix is not part of a general sterilisation program to reduce the population.

 

f. you have first hand knowledge that Scotland's growing birth rate is not linked to Scotland being the first part of the UK offering Cervarix to young girls and women."

 

 

Lucy:

Well, this vaccination is about to be introduced here in the Netherlands while there is concern about the low birthrate.  It has already been introduced in Italy and true-blooded Italians are due to be extinct in about 200 years time as their birthrate is no longer self-sustaining.

 

Is this meant to answer e. and f.? I cannot see the connection. Just because Cervarix is introduced or will be introduced in other countries as well (even in those with a low birthrate) does not mean that is not introduced in the UK in Scotland first in order to reduce the birth rate. It just means that you in the Netherlands might have reason to be even more concerned.

Lucy:

  So I really do not believe that this is a conspiracy by the government to secretly sterilise the population. And, no, I am not prepared to go to a solicitor and make an affadavit as this is just my personal opinion, for what it is worth.

I do not believe that it is a conspiracy by the government either. What makes you think that I was talking about the government? Do a little research into the stakeholders and shareholders of phamaceutical companies and cross-reference that with the names of people in the banking and military sector. A diagram will help. Follow the money trail and then research the people as much as possible in respect of their memberships in certain trusts, clubs and societies. I promise you that you will be surprised but in the end your belief is your belief and if you are happy with it, great for you.

Your belief is worth exactly what it is worth to you. Nobody else can add or take away from it. 

Lucy:

Just as I believe Alla is giving her personal opinion on these issues.  I do not agree with all of them, but find her argumentation interesting (if at times too academic and scientific for me to follow completely - I just block off those bits or research them further, depending on how I feel) and I am happy to see that she is open to counter-argumentation. 

Alla has finally stated that her posts were personal opinions after much pressure so why are you saying that you "believe" she was giving her personal opinions? What first-hand knowledge do you have which you base your agreement or disagreement with Alla's comments on? Why are you trying to suggest that Alla's comments are academic and scientific? Is it because they sound like that or because they are? What first-hand knowledge do you have to make such qualifications?

Is Alla open to counter-argumentation? Where has she in any of her posts addressed the really critical questions or provided a point-for-point rebuttal?

Lucy:

At the end of the day, you should never believe everything you read.  I will never take anything uncritically onboard from a government who is being advised by a medical profession who has been brainwashed by the pharmaceutical industry.  There is just too much money involved and the first priority of shareholders and boards of directors is not the health of the general population.  They just want a higher dividend at the end of the year. 

So if you believe that the pharma industry brainwashes the medical profession and that there is too much money involved and that the health of the people is not the first priority, what makes you believe that anything that comes from the pharma sector can be trusted as per your statements further down?

Lucy:

Added to that, the main reason for these wonderful cocktails of numerous vaccines is to cut costs and to ensure maximum coverage.  However, no one knows the long-term cost to the immune system and to society.  After all, the widespread innoculation with the MMR has only been going on for just over 20 years. 

Lucy, nice try of subconscious programming. Are you suggesting that vaccines are wonderful because they are good or do you mean that in an ironical way?  

Lucy:

But what I really find criminal is the lack of information provided about the length of immunity. 

Typical NLP tactics all along here. Uttering some completely irrelevant criticism and at the same time assuming as fact that vaccines provide any length of immunity. Is this your believe or based on first hand knowledge?

Lucy:

Leaving aside Cervarix and Gardasil for the moment, is any parent warned that the Rubella vaccination does not give lifelong protection?  

Vaccine-induced protection could wear off just when someone is about to start a family.

Another of those usual tricks: Sidelining the actual issues at hand which is Cervarix and its potential risks and introducing an unrelated risk which can occur as a result from pregnant women getting Rubella. Wake up, people. Such tactic serves to create the impression that your risk of getting cervical cancer is higher and more real when not using Cervarix. Such a tactic is a trick played on the mind and is used in advertisement and news all the time. What have sweet little puppies got to do with a certain brand of toilet paper? Nothing. But it works unless one becomes conscious of it. It serves to accept an unproven claim by associating a feeling like bliss or fear and then take action to repeat the feeling of bliss or evade the fear.

Lucy, it is my firm belief now that you are a professional NLP and Delphi technique practitioner and that you post here for the purpose of misleading people, re-instate the reputation of your collegues and side-line all those who look through this kind of scam. 

Lucy:

 

I feel it is the responsibility of every parent to ensure that their daughter has regular bloodtests to check her immunity once she becomes sexually active.  This is the only way to protect any future children of this girl and, after all, unplanned pregnancies are happening all the time. The bloodtests given during pregnancy are too late - you can't actually tell when someone has Rubella (they may not even know themselves) so you don't know to keep out of their way.  I had it at 17 and so did my mother and stepfather.  But none of us knew we had it, until I had a bloodtest at 19 which showed I was resistant.  We had all thought it was a nasty bout of the flu - mine was of course the mildest!  And for the record, I still tested resistant at 36 when I was pregnant.

I researched this thoroughly when my son was due for his first MMR at 14 months.  As this was nearly 9 years ago, I have lost the links I found at the time.  I have, however, found some more which bear this out:

 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TD4-40GJ27J-5&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2e55aa33e34dafe78f1706f4a1aca5f3

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3521365

Here another trick. Trying to induce feelings of guilt if parents do not go along with the usual propaganda making them feel irresponsible, mixing that with some more or less related personal experiences  and then provide links to a medical study as an attempt to get you to accept a third party claim which you cannot verify. The mechanism behind this is as already discussed: Playing or associating your emotions which might confuse you and then linking to an "objective" third party resource. It is the attempt to accept as "evidence" something through your emotions and also serves to increase Lucy's credibility.

Lucy:

A woman may or may not get cervical cancer.  It is not a certainty.  These vaccines reduce that risk - but don't remove it.  No vaccine gives 100% coverage.  I got typhoid in India - after being vaccinated.

After all that nice psyops work above, a short returning to the actual issue of cervical cancer. This serves to ensure that people really associate the two unrelated risk (Rubella and cervical cancer) in their subconscious. Additionally, the unverifiable claim that vaccines reduce risks are re-introduced in a more general way.

Lucy:

  But Rubella during pregnancy produces a damaged child.  The uncertainty lies in how much damage is done.  A friend of mine was born deaf thanks to Rubella.  Having heard about other cases, I think we can say she was lucky.

This part is the "re-enforcing the fear" part and contains outright misdirections. Not every child whose mother has Rubella during pregnancy is damaged. Far from it. There might be a risk with or without vaccine. The claim that MMR vaccine reduces that risk is hear-say as far as I am concerned and even Lucy herself has said above that nobody knows for how long immunity is provided by a vaccine (if any, I'd like to add).

Lucy:

So, Brandon, please lay off the personal attacks on Alla and keep this forum for what it is - a blog for people to express their opinions or to ask for more information on this topic. 

Lucy, I deconstruct NLP and Delphi technique. That is what I am doing. I believe that Alla as well as you are not honourable in the way you post. I also believe that people who look for more information because they are confused for understandable reasons are misdirected by your posts. This is my opinion and belief and is offered to confirm your own statement above that "you should never believe everything you read". Perhaps you care to enlighten us what the reader of this forum should believe?

 

Blobby,

I can only assume that your roles as a Chek Practitioner, Chek Holistic Lifestyle Coach, Chek Golf Biomechanic and Sports Masseur do not take up much of your time considering how much nonsense you are able to spout on this forum.   

 

summersday:

Blobby,

I can only assume that your roles as a Chek Practitioner, Chek Holistic Lifestyle Coach, Chek Golf Biomechanic and Sports Masseur do not take up much of your time considering how much nonsense you are able to spout on this forum.   

 

Is it your belief that Blobby is posting nonsense or do you claim that it is nonsense?

Summersday

I'm unsure exactly what Blobby said that you consider nonsense, but I feel obligated to say that he gave me some very useful and relevant advice which I have used and which has helped me tremendously.

Could it just be that you don't have the same belief system?

Sue

I am thinking my daughter only has an approx 3 in 100,000 of death from cervical cancer but the chances of long term damage from the jab that could actually include cancer and infertility, auto immune disease etc  could be far higher than 3 in 100,000.

Without any long term safety information i feel the risks far outweigh any benefit.