Five Ways To Prevent Cancer

A carcinogenic effect of electromagnetic fields is not established. And please provide evidence for a blanket statement of Melatonin "stopping cancer". Please provide evidence for Sodium lauryl sulphate as a carcinogen.
And in your last sentence surely you mean "effects".

I agree with the above about the fear-mongering in case of "new" "pandemics". But surely the disappearance of most deadly childhood infectious diseases is validation enough for vaccines as a concept. That we should err (!) on the side of caution, when it comes to carcinogens, agreed as well, but not when misinformation is continuously being spread.

Uninformed opinions are ones which can't be substantiated by FACT, and I was merely repeating what vaccine manufacturer's say in their literature about vaccines and cancer. The fact that I can provide medical sources for this means it is not uninformed. If you have an issue, take it up with Merck.

You're missing the point about measles. The age distribution of the disease used to be early childhood but now vaccination has delayed the starting age of the disease to adulthood, when it is much more serious. That is why all the recorded deaths in the UK since 1940 are in older people, except one child death in 1992. If it happened at an age appropriate time, a lot of those adult deaths would not occur as it is a much safer disease in childhood.

Also, the fact that most mums these days were vaccinated as babies means that they can no longer pass antibodies to their babies via breast milk and this means they are open to getting measles at a tiny age when it is also riskier. The NHS here is calling for babies to get immunoglobulin injections (a blood product) to try and prevent this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8074377.stm

The affects of the vaccine only last 5-6 years if that, just causing more cases in adulthood when it is more serious.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TD4-3Y44SK2-1P&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=697765fd6b771d119481d9b25915d635

There's far more to this issue than Wakefield and it is much more complex than autism/thimerosal. Wakefield is pro-vaccine anyway and never told anyone not to get vaccinated. His paper wasn't a medical study, but a case review where he had noticed a problem and asked for an indepth evaluation to be done. He always wanted people to get vaccinated for measles, mumps and rubella, but just in single shots while MMR was investigated. If the health profession were truly concerned about vaccination levels, they would have let parents have single vaccines instead of banning them and causing parents not to vaccinate.

The HPA wrote the paragraph about late effects. Late effects of measles are when you have had measles but then die of something else. For instance, you could have measles, recover and then 2 or 3 weeks later get pneumonia and die. Instead of classing the death as pneumonia it is recorded as measles, i.e. a late effect. So even those deaths recorded by the HPA are mostly not actual measles.

This article wasn't even about measles anyway, it was about cancer. Why did everyone start talking about MMR?

I've got to admit, it concerns me that a med student would not have read Merck's carcinogenic potential statement and thought I was making it up. Doctors should be reading this stuff in school without having to get it from me, then they wouldn't be disbelieving my sources. Just what do they teach in medical school these days? Truly shocking.

Joanna:
Thimerosal is not chemically irelevant otherwise Merck wouldn't have stated in their document I just showed you that it is very toxic and may be lethal even in small amounts.
FreeSpeaker:
Please do try to read what I write for comprehension. I never said Thimerosal is not chemically relevant. What I said is the fact that the atomic weight of the one mercury atom comprises approximately 50% of the molecular weight of Thimerosal IS chemically irrelevant. Whenever I see someone make the claim about 50%, etc. I know I am either dealing with 1) a scientific illiterate, or 2) a devout anti-vaccination liar, or 3) someone looking to make a buck or two by scaring people. Based on your writings, it is obvious to me that you are scientifically illiterate, as the vast majority of people in the US are. This brings great sadness to me as it shows that the educational system is failing.
Joanna:
The governments wouldn't have removed the majority of thimerosal from childhood vaccines if it was irelevant.
FreeSpeaker:
You must be new at this. I was involved in rebutting the anti-vaccination rhetoric what the CDC and FDA made this serious blunder. There was, and still is, no medical reason for them to have removed Thimerosal from vaccines. The purpose was to remove one aspect of the anti-vaccinationists scaremongering. Instead, following the rule of unintended consequences, anti-vaccination scaremongers use it as you have.
Joanna:
I personally wouldn't endorse information by Paul Offit because he holds the patent for Prevnar vaccination
FreeSpeaker:
Incorrect as a matter of fact. Dr. Offit developed the RotaTeq vaccine which has saved thousands of lives around the world. When the ACIP held hearings on approval, Dr. Offit properly recused himself from the deliberations and the voting.
Joanna:
and makes a lot of money from vaccinations.
FreeSpeaker:
Actually, he made some money. Just compensation for saving lives. I guess you oppose that. However, that is over with. He has assigned all future royalties from the vaccine to CHOP for autism treatment and research.
Joanna:
Anyone who advises on vaccines who also sits on the board of a drug company or holds a patent of a vaccine is not unbiased.
FreeSpeaker:
He does not sit on the board of any drug company that I am aware of. Feel free to correct me.
As for holding a patent on a vaccine being a disqualifier, who would you prefer? Jenny McCarthy? Don Imus? Diedre Imus? Bart Simpson? George W. Bush?
Joanna:
And yes they do make billions from vaccines. For instance, in a reuters article about hib vaccine, they state:
'Japan is the world's third largest vaccine market valued at $640 million and is expected to grow further.'
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssHealthcareNews/idUSLQ36267720090526
FreeSpeaker:
They may have income in the billions, but the cost of R&D, etc. and time to market negates that. The profit margin for vaccines in very small, and many of the companies that used to make vaccines are out of that business since investments in other markets are far more lucrative.
Joanna:
And none of that changes the fact that every manufacturer states on their data sheet (which you can get with the vaccine) that no vaccines have ever been tested for their carcinogenic potential, which was actually the issue my article addressed, and so when they say vaccines are safe they can't really say that with any accuracy because they haven't studied whether they cause cancer, affect fertility or mutate into other illnesses.
FreeSpeaker:
The young med student put that argument into the proper perspective. I will just add that there are thousands of things that have not been tested for carcinogenicity. Also note that childhood cancer is decreasing. Do I have to explain that to you?
Joanna:
It's not about being pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine or whatever label you'd like to put on it, it's about being informed of all the issues so that if a person decides to get a vaccine they at least gave full informed consent. Withholding manufacturer information on lack of cancer studies etc does not equate to informed consent.
FreeSpeaker:
No one is withholding that information. As for pro- or anti-vaccine, yes, it is about that. When someone spreads as much mis-information as you have, it is most assuredly about that.
Joanna:
And yes, I do have experience of the diseases. I had meningitis at 4 years old. I also had chickenpox and mumps and rubella which are now 'vaccine preventable' diseases. My MIL had measles, my first daughter had measles (she is now 13 and fine), I've had two other daughters with mumps and whooping cough and all 4 with chickenpox. My FIL died of pneumonia (which occured after 2 flu vaccinations).
FreeSpeaker:
Merely having the disease does not make you an informed person about the disease.
Joanna:
If you look at the death stats for measles in the UK between 1940-2007, you will see that they state:
'In 2006 there was one measles death in a 13 years old male who had an underlying lung condition and was taking immunosuppressive drugs. Prior to 2006, the last death from acute measles was in 1992.
FreeSpeaker:
First, let's not play the game where death is the only significant effect of a disease. Measles causes a form of encephalopathy that causes serious brain damage.
As for the stats, with the drop in MMR uptake caused by that swine Wakefield, the number of cases of measles has skyrocketed.
Joanna:
Other measles deaths shown above are in older individuals and were caused by the late effects of measles. These infections were acquired during the 1980s or earlier, when epidemics of measles occurred.'
FreeSpeaker:
What "late effects" of measles? I hav enever heard of them.
Joanna:
So apart from 1 death in 1992 and 1 death which was actually due to immune-suppression and lung disease, all measles deaths since 1940 were in 'older' people, i.e. teens and adults when the disease is more serious, so we are in effect vaccinating to protect adults from getting measles, rather than babies and children.
http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814?...
FreeSpeaker:
That is the good news. The drop in incidence and deaths is caused by the MMR vaccine.
Joanna:
Since my article was about cancer, I think the place for an indepth vaccine debate is not here, but if you want to email me directly, please do so.
FreeSpeaker:
No, since you posted your uninformed opinions here, this is the proper place.

For some reason the above posted as anon, but it is my response.

Actually, the data sheet DOES say that it has never been evaluated for carcinogenic potiential. See here:

http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/Datasheet/g/Gardasilinj.htm

Scroll down to carcinogenicity and see:

Carcinogenicity

GARDASIL has not been evaluated for carcinogenic potential.

Also this one:

http://www.csl.co.nz/files/1/Gardasil%20DataSheet%20A3.pdf

It also says under the heading Carcinogenicity, that 'Gardasil has not been evaluated for carcinogenic potential.'

Also from Merck's own site:

http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf

Scroll down to page 12, it says: 'Gardasil has not been evaluated for it's potentialt to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity.'

I didn't suggest that Gardasil is carcinogenic. No one knows that because they haven't studied whether it is or not, as they say in the data sheets. I am merely repeating information from these medical sources that I have read which I believe every person should know when weighing up the pros and cons. If they aren't given open and honest information, then if they consent it is not true informed consent.

To be honest, if you are a medical student then I think you should at least be reading the prescribing information which details this because then you would have known without having to read it in my article.

As for your remarks about my children and me as a parent, please keep your comments professional and stop name calling. If you are training to be a doctor, I would try to be more calm and objective because rsnting and calling people names is not very professional. In future I will only respond to constructive arguments and not personal insults.

You do realise that if there were some carcinogenic effects from vaccines, those risks would be greatly outweighed by the vaccines' benefits.
Interesting that you chose gardasil as an example. Gardasil is a vaccine against Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), specifically types 6 11 16 & 18.

HPV 16 and 18 are the greatest risk factors known for cervical cancer, yet in this article you imply that a vaccine against HPV (ie. a vaccine against cervical cancer) is likely to be carcinogenic.

I take it you "protect" your kids from the nasty MMR vaccine that causes Autsim (completely unfounded) or that you'd rather run the risk of congenital rubella rather than subject yourself to the imaginary dangers of the vaccines carcinogenicity.

Bottom line: Not vaccinating your kids = neglegent parenting

P.S.
"All vaccines have never been tested for their carcinogenic affect". I assume you mean "No vaccine has yet been tested for its potential carcinogenic effects"

I highly doubt the manufacturer’s data sheet says "Gardasil has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity", as carcinogenicity means "cancer causing"; you don't "cause cancer causing" and I expect for legal reasons they actually read over what they write to check for mistakes like that.

Do you guys have an editor or does empower her just give people a forum to write any old crap.

*****This portion of this post has been edited out by EmpowHer moderator due to content unrelated to health or the original article*****