(Linda Geddes, NewScientist, 31 January, 2009, p. 10)

Seems the immune system may be a lot more flexible than previously thought--Initially, T-helper (Th) cells were thought to be of 2 types:  Th1 which sent viruses and bacteria from host cells and Th2 cells that fought parasites and bacteria in blood in other body fluids and also fought allergens.  2 new classes of cells were discovered:  regulatory T cells (T-regs) which attenuate the immune system response and Th17 cells that trigger inflammation and autoimmunity.  Problem with this categorization was discovered when the T-regs behaved like Th1 cells when the T-regs cells were exposed to the molecults that normally result in a Th response.  (Immunity, COI:10:1016/j.immuni.2008.12.009).  Whoops--

In addition, study by Casey Weaver at Univ of Alabama showed that "Th17 cells can also morph into Th1-like cells" under certain conditions. Article concludes that "if Th1 cells are equally flexible vaccines may not work as they are intended, says Christopher Wilson of hte Univ of Washington State in Seattle.  For instance, if a vaccine against a virus triggers a Th1 response but the Th1 cells change their identity for some reason, 'the pathogen might yet subvert the protection induced by the vaccine', he says

Occurs to me that vaccines may result in immune responses in which the correct immune cell morphs into the wrong cell--causing inflammation or autoimmunity when none was wanted.......author cites the safety study in which 6 individuals in Northwick park hosp in london in March, 06 were given a drug that was to activate T-reg cells, but instead they were made seriously ill.  Perhaps the T-regs morphed into Th17 causing an autoimmune response????  Maybe this finding could have direct bearing on the autism-vaccine question....

The link to the article about the Nobel Prize winner in medicine is interesting and I didn't see it in the UK press. But it's no surprise to me at all.I read a variety of sources of information and have come to that type of conclusion for myself many times over.

Here's a link to an interview by a young girl who has suffered awful side effects after she had the Gardasil vaccine:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/videos/detail/ashley-story/ - then tell me if this vaccine is safe. There are many more stories like this.

I'm glad I don't have a daughter of the age when I would be asked to agree to vaccinating her for this disease. What happened to teaching your daughter about when is appropriate to start sexual relations? This is one way that this disease could be halted or at least slowed down burt no-one talks about this that I've ever seen or read. My step-daughter started sexual relations at 15, and has had more than one test for STD since. I've never had a test for an STD, routine or otherwise. I waited until I was 18, but I'm not sure if that's a factor. Maybe, maybe not. We'll teach our son of nearly 12 about this sort of thing when it's appropriate, and have already started dropping hints about what's appropriate and when, as they grow up a lot more quickly nowadays.

I agree with zseveral people on this thread who say they'd rather have the illness than the vaccine. I was vaccinated as a child and I was not a well child and I still had the illnesses I was vaccinated against! My younger sister wasn't vaccinated and was much healthier as a result. Unfortunately, she caught up on all her vaccines as an adult that were "missed" as a child and has had health problems since, as has her small son who was also vaccinated. She's done enough of her own research to know this to be the case and is going through a programme to detox herself and her son of the effects of these vaccines.

We didn't vaccinate our Son but used homeopathy to build his immune system; he had measles and chickenpox, which we were helped to manage effectively and safely by our homeopath. According to some naturopaths, these are childhood diseases which help the child's immune system develop as it needs to, not artifically via vaccines. He was the most healthy child in his peer group and has been ever since - and is also more sensitive to things that cause illness, which is a good thing, not a bad thing. the body needs a warning system to tell us if we're sick, not the other way round. We have been highly indoctrinated in the West to believe illness or a sensitivity to pathogens is a bad thing, when it's not. Illness is what helps the body produce the right anti-bodies at the right time when they're needed, and from all the research and reading we have done for ourselves, we don't need any medical or scientific degrees to understand how the body works naturally, when left to do what it does best when it's ill. So I agree with "blobby" or Robin Allan wholeheartedly in this respect.

When I travelled to India three years ago, I didn't take malaria medication, I used homeopathy for malaria. And I was fine. The same with Thailand and wherever else I have travelled in my many and varied travels.And this will the way we do things in the future.

At the end of the day, we all have to make our own minds up based on our own personal beliefs, based on the varied research we've done or we can otherwise accept the "truth" of the pharmaceuticals, the FDA and all the other agencies involved, which we don't. I have had to learn to respect the view of others who choose to vaccinate their children, even after lending out our many books about vaccinations. Hard to do but true.

Lastly, we all have an entitlement to our own opinions. I don't agree with some of what's been written here, but I'm not interested in taking the stand that some of the posters here have taken, and writing some pretty personal attacks in posts made by other forum posters in this thread. And I've seen it elsewhere on this forum, which is a real shame.

Let's agree that everyone has a right to their own opinion, and not slam others for what we may judge as incorrect thoughts or ideas. These may not be right to us but they're right for the person who holds that view however they have come to it, so respect it and find a way of writing your piece that doesn't descend into a personal attack, and gives others useful information or reports on your good or not so good experiences that you can share with others in a constructive way in order that others can learn about both sides of the argument.

Ania 

Dear Parent,

Greetings to you. I want to share some useful information to you.

Cervarix protects you against 5 oncogenic HPV types. They are responsible for over 90% of the cevical cancer. There are 15 types which are responsible for all cervical cancer. but covering this 5 types are nearly ok. The types are 16,18,31,33,45.

Now I am going to give you a stright comparison HPV TYPE 16/18  EFFICACY 98.4% WITH CERVARIX,  WITH GARDASIL 98.2%

                                                                      HPV TYPE 31  100% WITH CERVARIX   70% WITH GARDASIL

                                                                      HPV TYPE 33   72.3%         "                  24.0% WITH GARDASIL

                                                                      HPV TYPE  45   100%         ''                   00.0% WITH GARDASIL.

HPV TYPE TOTAL OF OTHERS 31,33,35,39,,45,51,52,56,58,59--- 68.4% WITH CERVARIX AND 32.5% WITH GARDASIL

Type 6 and 11 covered by gardasil is not oncogenic but that which cause genital warts. the protection is additional if you want you can choose

but gardasil has no protection against hpv 45 which is responsible for 95% of adinocarcinoma which is very hard to detect. the information is real

they are all taken from their own company websites. Thankyou.

m.sudhakarpaul

I am a bit confused - are you selling these drugs and what do all those numbers mean?  I have to assume that you've either cut and pasted this information from a medical journal or pharmaceutical drug list.

The meaning is a bit hazy or maybe I'm just not reading it right - are you saying that these drugs cause diseases or cure them?

Thank you

Sue 

Dear Sue

Greetings to you, The information that i have given you is a trail published two months back in a reputed Journal The Lancet. It is about the Efficacy of human papillomavirus (HPV) -16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against cervical infection and precancer caused by oncogenic HPV types(PATRICIA-Trial)

Published online july 7,2009 DOI:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)61248-4, Skinner R et al. Cross-protective efficacy of cervarix against oncogenic hpv types beyond hpv-16/18

I also compared it with gardasil data published in their web site.

Gardasil SPC.http://www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/PDFs/EPAR/gardasil/H-703-PI-en.pdf

And also a paper presented Harper DM,Gall s,naud p,quintW,Dubin G,Jenkins D et al.at the annual meeting of the society of gynecologic oncologists 2008.

If you want any more data i can give you. what ever i know i am just sharing with you. I am not an expert. it is just to help you know more. knowledge liberates. These vaccines can not cause the infection because only the capsid is taken without the DNA for the vaccine.I think without the DNA it has no potential to cause the infection.It is only to stimulate a powerful antibody response and B memory cell response in the body. A natural infection of HPV produce a very poor response in the body. so a person infected once and cured naturally because of T-cell response can be reinfected by the same type of virus when the body is weak or when their immune system is suppressed. Hpv is not like any other infection it silently proliferates. It does not cause cell death at the site of infection and also no viremia ie no toxins in the blood. it has a very poor representation to the antigen presenting cells. so there is poor antibody response to natural infection. vaccination is the only way to prevent the infection in my opinion.

Thank you

Sudhakarpaul.   

Thank you for the response.  No more data needed thank you.

Sue 

Alla Cranham:

Realistically, Richard, what is 100 percent safe on this planet?

Is that true jusitfication for administering vaccines then?

I decided against my daughter being vaccinated with the HPV vaccine, however the school/local authority/govt state clearly on the consent form that the child, (aged 12) could choose to be vaccinated against the parental wishes.