Prestrasno! :shock:
Printable View
Prestrasno! :shock:
Na ovoj web stranici se lijepo vidi koliko je ta udruga ECCA neovisna
http://www.gsk.com/responsibility/cr...eu-po-ecca.htm
Davor će sigurno dobro zbrojiti koliko su tisuća Eura dobili od GSK u zadnje dvije godine.
Inaće, to što piše u pismu za potpisivanje peticije (dobio sam ga i ja) je najobičnija glupost i laž.
Mogu oni prikkupiti i 10 miliona potpisa ako jhoće, ali zbog toga neće Europski parlament nikkome reči da mora uvesti cijepljenje u nacionalni program.
Niti ne postoji obaveza ijedne zemlje prihvatiti preporuke Europskog parlamenta niti Europske komisije, niti CEDC-a u vezi nacionalnih programa cijepljenja
Skoro da nemam što dodati :lol:
Inače ljudi misle kako europske institucije imaju nekakvu moć nad nacionalnim zakonodavstvom i tu su u krivu. Oni donose samo "okvir" i obično takve okvire prihvaćaju štreberske zemlje. Na kraju se okvira pridržava u prosjeku oko pola zemalja - skoro sasvim svejedno o kojem se području radi.
I to se onda zove regulativa, a zapravo je rulet.
vi'š dadica kak se razumijemo.
Jošd a priznaš da je individualno cijepljenje korisno za cijepljenu individuu jer smanjuje (iako ne eliminira) rizik od nastanka raka cerviksa, mogli bismo jedan u ime drugoga pisati tu na forumu.
(time bismo si uštedili vrijeme - svaki drugi dan bi tipkali, a svaki dan bi naši novi postovi visili na forumu).
To ti ne mogu potpisati jer nisam dovoljno religiozan za povjerovati u nešto što još nitko nije vidio. Ako si pri tome mislio na psihološki efekt gdje se cijepljena kikica iz 5. razreda osnovne škole odjedamput osjeća zaštićeno ... ni tu me nisi dobio. Previše nategnuto.
Osobno mislim da je to "cjepivo" opasna glupost. Nešto kao bungie jumping s nepoznatom duljinom užeta. Ili kako s tuđim ... gloginje mlatit.
tvoja je sreća što imaš muško dijete, pa ne može dobiti Ca cervixa.
A buduća snaha nek se sama brine za svoje zdravlje. To nije tvoja briga......
I da imam zensko dijete ne bi ga dala cijepiti, a ima tu i mama zenske djece, pa su svejedno protiv tog cjepiva.Citiraj:
mujica prvotno napisa
Jaaako zanimljive info http://www.vran.org/vaccines/hpv/hpv.htm s jako lijepim linkovima s vise detalja kog zanima.
Citiraj:
1. FDA documents reveal HPV vaccine may increase your risk of cancer if you already have HPV. In trials, Gardasil increased risk by 44.6% of developing high-grade precancerous lesions in women who are already sero-positive and PCR-positive for vaccine-relevant genotypes of HPV. However, pre-screening for HPV infections has not been included in the vaccination program.
2. The actual cause of cervical cancer is a persistent HPV infection: A "persistent HPV infection that may act as a tumor promoter in cancer induction", according to journalist Cynthia A. Janak's assessment of FDA document "Reclassification Petition for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA, Nested Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Detection" published March 7, 2007. "It is the persistent infection, not the virus, that determines the cancer risk".
3. Reactions and deaths following adminstration of HPV vaccine in the U.S.: "Since the approval of Gardasil, thousands of young women and girls have been adversely affected by this vaccine." Cynthia Janak's July 8, 2008 article "Gardasil Tragedies - Where are the Reports?" puts a human face to the vaccine victims.
As of July 3, 2008:
15 patients have died See: VAERS: Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System—Search for "HPV4" and "Patient Died"
105 reactions were considered life threatening See: VAERS: Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System—Search for "HPV4" and "Life Threatening"
255 patients were hospitalized
1236 patients had not recovered at the time of the report
159 patients are disabled at the time of the report
6697 reported incidents + 2141 (newly found as multiple entries in reports) = 8838 Total
In the U.S., vaccine reactions are available to the public via VAERS, the U.S.A.'s official Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. These statistics reflect the American experience. Canada does not have a publicly accessible vaccine adverse events monitoring system, thus preventing the public from knowing the degree to which vaccine reactions and injuries are occurring in this country.
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, has published a special report on injuries and deaths following Gardasil. See: "Judicial Watch Uncovers New FDA Records Detailing Ten New Deaths & 140 "Serious" Adverse Events Related to Gardasil" June 2008
4. Excessive cost: Merck's Gardasil, the vaccine to be used for this program, will cost approximately $400 per person injected. The federal government is contributing $300 million, estimated to be about one third of the vaccine cost nationwide. The other two thirds must come from the provinces, bringing the total cost nationwide for this one vaccine to almost one billion dollars. This cost is to cover the specified 3 doses of Gardasil for all females 9–13 years as well as females 14–26 years who are deemed to be reasonably sure of not already being infected with one or more of the 4 HPV types in the vaccine.
5. FDA approval was NOT based on actual cancer prevention: FDA did not approve Gardasil based on the vaccine's actual prevention of cervical cancer but on the prevention of precancerous lesions. How effective is Gardasil in decreasing the incidence of cervical cancer? No one knows because this question has not yet been answered. As of April 2007, Gardasil vaccine has never been proven to decrease the actual incidence of cervical cancer.
6. Lack of testing in 9–13 yr olds: The Gardasil monograph states: "efficacy of the vaccine in this age group [9–13 yr olds] has not been demonstrated".
7. Lack of evidence of duration of protection: The only evidence of duration of protection stated on the Gardasil monograph is: "A subset of participants (n=241) in the Phase II quadrivalent vaccine study has been followed for 60 months after dose 1 with high sustained vaccine efficacy and no evidence of waning immunity." This means that the only test for duration of efficacy was in a minor sample of 241 older females, few of whom tested positive for any of the HPV types in the vaccine in a study that lasted a mere 5 years after the first dose of vaccine was given. Therefore, it can be said that, in general, the duration of any long term efficacy has not been demonstrated and is unknown. In fact, there's already been talk of the need for booster shots.
8. Benefit of Gardasil to 9–13 year olds is dubious: Due to the unknown duration of efficacy in older women, the benefit of Gardasil to 9–13 year olds is even more dubious than statement two reveals. To be reliably effective, HPV vaccine would need to be given reasonably near the time when one or more of the HPV types in the vaccine enters the body. This time is an unknown factor; vaccine efficacy could wane long before virus infiltration occurs or a child might already be infected at the time of vaccination. HPV infection occurs through skin-to-skin contact that's not necessarily due to sexual activity.
9. Safety in conjunction with other vaccines is questionable: The Gardasil monograph states that Gardasil "has no components that have been found to adversely affect the safety or efficacy of other vaccines." Does this mean that Merck has looked for adverse affects and not found any or that they just haven't bothered to look? Certainly the accumulation of ingredients aluminum and polysorbate, both known to cause cancer in lab animals and to alter immune response, together with similar types of ingredients in other vaccines is cause for concern. And Merck's statement doesn't mean that the vaccine as a whole does not affect safety or efficacy. Simultaneous injection of Gardasil with other taxpayer funded vaccines (such as meningococcal, chickenpox, DPT or influenza vaccines) could result in lowered efficacy and/or more adverse reactions.
10. Gardasil could cause other types of cancer: Unlike other drugs, vaccines are never tested for their ability to produce cancer. Gardasil could provoke other types of cancer, including cervical cancer that's associated with HPV types not in the vaccine. In addition, Gardasil has been very aggressively marketed with no emphasis on the fact that it can only possibly prevent HPV infection, not clear HPV that's already present; it may actually cause an increase in cervical cancer due to a false feeling of security in the females who receive it.
11. Gardasil does not guarantee safety from HPV: Since vaccination with Gardasil is obviously not a guarantee of freedom from HPV infection with vaccine type virus or others, regular Pap screening tests with their incumbent costs will still be needed.
12. Rate of targeted HPV infections is extremely low: The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI), the panel of "experts" who recommended funding of Gardasil states: "It [HPV infection] is not a nationally notifiable disease in Canada and, to date, no population-based studies have been published." A study estimating the American population prevalence of HPV infection published in the Feb 28, 2007 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association found that only 3.4% of women aged 14–59 yrs were infected with one of the HPV types in Gardasil; only 2% were infected with one of the two types that are in the vaccine and are associated with cervical cancer.
13. Incidence of cervical cancer is low: Annually, U.S. statistics (and we can assume that Canadian statistics follow suit) show only 3–4 cases of cervical cancer per 100,000 females aged 9–26 years. In her article "Not So Miraculous", Dr. Moira Terese Dolan, M.D. states in reference to the U.S.: "Gardasil's reduction of pre-cancers by 12.2% in the general population would mean that instead of 30–40 cases of cancer, there would only be 26–35 cancers. So it would take vaccination of a million girls to prevent cancer in 4–5 girls. About 37% die from cervical cancer, so that would prevent 1–2 deaths. So $360 million [U.S] in vaccine would prevent 1–2 [U.S] deaths."
14. HPV is usually benign: The March 21, 2007 article on fwdailynews.com states: "75% or more of girls and women may test positive for HPV at some points in their lives. But, in adolescents, in 75–90% of those cases, the virus clears up on its own within 8–12 months, including those that may be cancer-causing".
15. Pap screening already works: According to the NACI, "the time it takes for an infection to progress to invasive cervical cancer can vary widely, with typical progression estimated to take up to 10 years or longer." And that's why Pap screening has been very effective in reducing cervical cancer.
Conclusion: Allocating government funds for this vaccine is a shameful waste of Canadian taxpayers' money. More importantly, lack of evidence of Gardasil's safety and effectiveness for the 9–26 year olds targeted makes this program a public health experiment that endangers our precious young women. Don't buy into it; take action! Learn more about the vaccine or contact your governmental representative today; follow the links below.
Ovaj citirani dio mi je najbolji. :D Najzabavniji.Citiraj:
anchie76 prvotno napisa
Je.... sve je to točno. Izvučeno iz konteksta, doduše, ali sve to negdje piše i točno je.
Ali kada se sagleda cijeli kontekst, opet je veća korist nego šteta od primjene cjepiva.
Ne mogu se sloziti. Samo prisustvo virusa ne znaci i samu bolest (ne samo u ovom slucaju, nego i inace).Citiraj:
mujica prvotno napisa
Dakle do naseg je imuniteta, stila zivota i brige za zdravlje da li ce se nase tijelo pobiti virus ili nece.
Danas sam dobila mailom pziv da potpišem peticiju za besplatno cijepljenje :evil:
Ne moraš se složiti. Ni prva, ni zadnja. 8)
Ali citirani dio mi je smiješan jer bez virusa ne može niti biti perzistentne infekcije.
A ne znam koje su to dokazano djelotvorne mjere koje možemo poduzeti da budemo sigurni da će naše tijelo pobiti viruse?
(osim cijepljenja koje dokazano sprečava perzistentnu infekciju genotipovima 16 i 18)?
16 i 18
odnosno, da li ce se razviti infekcija ili nece, pa tako i rak.Citiraj:
anchie76 prvotno napisa
Ja glasam za 1!
Nakon 8 god.borbe protiv neplodnosti kojoj je jako pridonio HPV postala sam mama dviju curka i ako bude trebalo podići ću kredit ako im ne budem mogla platiti cjepivo.
Upravo sam ovih dana imala priliku razgovarati s mamama koje imaju sedmašice i iz razgovora sam skužila da se dvoume zbog nekakvog moraliziranja,a ne misle prvenstveno na zdravlje svoje djece i to me prestravilo.Totalni srednji vijek u glavama!
Bravo,npjaksic, :love: eto ima i jos neko:)
to je tvoja prosudba.Citiraj:
npjaksic prvotno napisa
ja bih ovako napisala da su odlučile suprotno. :/
prestravljuje me koliko roditelja misli da čini dobro cijepeći djecu.
neinformirano!
(mujica excluded, i ostali koji znju o čemu govore.
pa kako god da odluče).
samo me zanima koliko bi roditelja prošlo "blic - test" o HPV-u i cjepivu :?
bitna je pravilna prehrana, organska biološka, ekološka proizvedena hranaCitiraj:
anchie76 prvotno napisa
ne postoji mogućnost da staviš previše komposta (humus nastao raspadom biljnih djelova - organski proizvod) i naštetiš razvoju biljke
ali staviš li previše umjetnog gnjojiva može se pojaviti rak na biljci i deformacije u rastu
loša umjetna hrana puna slobodnih radikala = razvoj raka
treba zabrniti reklamirati junk food, kao što zabrana stoji na duhanske prozvode i alkohol
E tu sam te čekao. Osim kad prepričavaš kalendar cijepljenja ili vrijeđaš prisutne SVE što pišeš je izvučeno iz konteksta. Uostalom, daj specificiraj koji dijelovi ti nisu OK ili ih treba proširiti pa ćemo svi nešto naučiti. Znaš ti to.Citiraj:
mujica prvotno napisa
npjaksic, daj pojasni mi kakve veze ima tvoja borba s općim cijepljenjem cijele generacije i to s "cjepivom" potpuno nepoznatih svojstava, od proizvođača koji je već zaslužan za 140 000 ozlijeđenih i preminulih zbog njihovog drugog velikog dostignuća, Vioxx-a (isto tako temeljito testiranog, učinkovitog i pouzdanog). To što su isplatili skoro 5 milijardi dolara odštete ne znači da su dobrotvori ili da im je stalo do ičijeg djeteta. To samo znači da imaju puno para i da im nije problem ubiti dva-tri djeteta 'nako usput.
Kaje je tebi,dadica?Citiraj:
Davor prvotno napisa
Pa nemam ja vremena a tebe pisati elaborate o svakom cjepivo kojeg se dotakneš.
Imam jedva vremena ovako ukratko u natuknicama napisati što je potrebno o cjepivima.
A ono što sam napisao o ovom cjepivu nije malo.
Pregledaj stare postove na prethodnim stranicama, pa si čitaj.
:lol: reklo bi se da imaš puuuuuuno vremena, ali nekako ne vidim ništa osim marketinških natuknica :lol:
Ja to puuuuuno vremena makar koristim za svoj posao, koji je između ostaloga, edukacija stanovništva. Tak da se meni ne može niti zamjeriti što u radno vrijeme tipkam ovdje.
A zanima me koliko se tvoje tipkanje ovdje uklapa u tvoj posao.
dosta, vas dvojica! :evil:
svaki u svoj kut ringa!
.....svaki na svoj kraj kreveta.... :mrgreen:
i okrenite se leđima jedan drugome!
jesul` oni to na jednom krevetu?
čini se da jesu.
a u svoje svađe uvukli cijeli centar za socijalnu skrb :roll:
Da te upoznam, dva su proizvođača cjepiva za HPV registrirana u Hrvatskoj. Osim spomenutog MSD, tu je i Glaxo. Pa možemo odabrati i drugo cjepivo, tj. nadoplatiti za drugo ako nije na kalendaru cijepljenja.Citiraj:
npjaksic, daj pojasni mi kakve veze ima tvoja borba s općim cijepljenjem cijele generacije i to s "cjepivom" potpuno nepoznatih svojstava, od proizvođača koji je već zaslužan za 140 000 ozlijeđenih i preminulih zbog njihovog drugog velikog dostignuća, Vioxx-a (isto tako temeljito testiranog, učinkovitog i pouzdanog). To što su isplatili skoro 5 milijardi dolara odštete ne znači da su dobrotvori ili da im je stalo do ičijeg djeteta. To samo znači da imaju puno para i da im nije problem ubiti dva-tri djeteta 'nako usput.
Pa nijedno nije na kalendaru cijepljenja :? I zbog cega bi to drugo bilo bolje?
Čitam ove postove i ostajem zbunjena kao što sam bila i prije nego ih pročitah :/
Vidim da ovdje ima i ljudi od struke...
Molim vas napišite dakle dosadašnje nus pojave i moguće neželjene posljedice.
Majka sam djevojčice koja ulazi u skupinu koja bi trebala biti cijepljena. Također sam i žena koja se borila s HPV i koja je snosila posljedice jer sam došla i do CIN 3 :(
No ipak se bojim nedovoljne istraženosti cijepiva.
S jedne strane željela bih ju cijepiti da je poštedim muke od moguće zaraze, a s druge pak strane bojim se - što ako baš ona reagira neželjenim posljedicama?
U velikoj sam dilemi i iskreno ne znam što ću, a vremena za odluku je još malo...
Meni je najgore to sto su neistrazene posljedice, i sto cjepivo navodno stiti 5 godina. Cijepimo dijete kad je 9-13 god, i gdje smo onda? Taman ce postati seksualno aktivno kad izgubi zastitu od cjepiva. Nonsens.
Nisam rekla da je bolje ili lošije, samo naglašavam s obzirom da se proziva MSD da postoji i drugi proizvođač čije se cijepivo malčice razlikuje.Citiraj:
anchie76 prvotno napisa
Taman ce postati seksualno aktivno kad izgubi zastitu od cjepiva. Nonsens.
x
ne znam zašto se stalno spominje to "nedovoljno istraženo".
Koje je cjepivo "dovoljno istraženo"?
HPV cjepiva su kraće u upotrebi od večine ostalih cjepiva, ali su prije uvođenja u upotrebu istražena temeljitije od svih ranije uvedenih cjepiva.
Tako da mislim da silno ponavljanje "nedovoljno istraženo" ima samo jedan cilj: ponoviti laž dovoljno često da postane istina.
Nije mi to bila namjera...
Zbunjena sam i molim te da podijeliš svoja saznanja s nama koji nemamo veze sa strukom.
Napisala sam da sam i za i protiv. Ništa još nisam odlučila i ovim sam u biti molila za pomoć.
Educiraj me ukratko - pls.
Ja ne razumijem, kome je veca korist nego steta od primjene cjepiva?Citiraj:
mujica prvotno napisa
Tim curicama sto ce se cijepiti u dobi od 9-13 godina, pa izgubiti zastitu za 5 godina?
Uzasno puno curica je nastradalo od tog cjepiva
a cjepivo se reklamira kao da je u najmanju ruku spas od SIDA-e. Sto se ne bi curice RANIJE vodilo ginekologu i ukazivalo im se na vaznost redovnog papa pregleda? To se ionako mora nastaviti raditi (jer cjepivo nije 100% zastita), tak da cjepio ne cjepio - nema nikakve garancije za zastitu od HPV-a. Samo lazan osjecaj sigurnosti koji samo moze biti kontraproduktivan.Citiraj:
As of July 3, 2008:
15 patients have died See: VAERS: Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System—Search for "HPV4" and "Patient Died"
105 reactions were considered life threatening See: VAERS: Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System—Search for "HPV4" and "Life Threatening"
255 patients were hospitalized
1236 patients had not recovered at the time of the report
159 patients are disabled at the time of the report
6697 reported incidents + 2141 (newly found as multiple entries in reports) = 8838 Total
In the U.S., vaccine reactions are available to the public via VAERS, the U.S.A.'s official Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. These statistics reflect the American experience. Canada does not have a publicly accessible vaccine adverse events monitoring system, thus preventing the public from knowing the degree to which vaccine reactions and injuries are occurring in this country.
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, has published a special report on injuries and deaths following Gardasil. See: "Judicial Watch Uncovers New FDA Records Detailing Ten New Deaths & 140 "Serious" Adverse Events Related to Gardasil" June 2008
Ukratko.....Citiraj:
maza36 prvotno napisa
cjepivo uz uobičajeni rizik nuspojava smanjuje rizik od nastanka raka cerviska time što sprečava trajnu infekciju HPV tipovima 16 i 18, te premaligne intraepidelne neoplazije, koje su prekursori raka cerviksa.
Rizik nuspojava je uobičajen. Sva ova silna navođenja djevojčica koje su obolile od ovoga ili onog ili umrle nakon cijepljenja su davno prežvakana i nikakva uzročno-posljedična veza između cijepljenja i strahomornih posljedica nije utvrđena.
Evo nekoliko linkova s time u vezi (stranih i domaćih).
http://www.who.int/entity/immunizati...wbookFINAL.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/hpv/default.htm
http://www.fda.gov/CbER/safety/gardasil071408.htm
http://www.hcjz.hr/clanak.php?id=13602&rnd
http://www.plivazdravlje.hr/?section...d=23141&show=1
http://www.hzjz.hr/skolska/hpv_preporuke.htm
....uzrokovane tipovima u cjepivu (16 i 18 ) naravno.Citiraj:
mujica prvotno napisa
Da ne bi bilo zabune i netko pomislio da sprečava premaligne lezije bez obzira na tip HPV-a.
Zato naglašavam da smanjuje rizik od raka, a ne eliminira ga.
(
I puno jeftnije i bolje stvari smanjuju rizik od raka, a svejedno ih vecinom ignoriramo :)
npr...?
uravnotežena prehrana...?