¿Sabía usted que uno de los principales investigadores que participan en el desarrollo de las dos vacunas para el virus del papiloma humano (VPH), Gardasil (Merck & Co.) y Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline), admitió en el 2009 que los pinchazos son esencialmente inútiles y más peligroso que las propias condiciones que son aclamadas como prevención y tratamiento?
1) Diane Harper no desarrollo ninguna vacuna, ella es una consultora EXTERNA que estuvo involucrada en el proceso de ensayos clinicos
2) Lo que dice es que cualquier vacuna tiene un riesgo medico, y ella considera que el pap smear, que es la prueba para detectar cancer cervical (no se como se dice en espanyol) es suficiente para prevenir el cancer, pero que en casos donde la mujer nunca se va a realizar esa prueba, mejor prevenir que curar usando la vacuna.
Vaya, en la página me han moderado el comentario, debe ser que no les gustó que fuera crítico con el autor.
1) This woman never "developed" any vaccine, she deals with Public health issues and is a paid consultant of both GSK and Merck.
2) She participated in t he clinical trials of both vaccines. Clinical trials take place years after the drug/vaccine/compound has been "developed".
3) She never said the vaccien was deadly. She never "came out" to clear her conscience. She was always "out" in the sense that she was never bound to the confidentiality that you are bound to when developing therapies for the pharmaceutical industry.
4) She merely says that, just like with any other vaccine, these two particular vaccines carry some risk. She considers that in most cases it's not worth vaccinating young children because the immunisation is not going to last until they are adult women. She does, however say, that in cases when the patient will never be Pap smear tested, the vaccines probably outweigh the risks.
So, in summary, she is just saying that these vaccines are not that great and that doctors should discriminate better who to give the vaccine to and at what age.
This article is written in such a way that transmit irrational fear to medical developments. IT's full of misquotes and misconceptions, and should be disregarded altogether, for goodness' sake.
Comentarios
Mentira cochina.
1) Diane Harper no desarrollo ninguna vacuna, ella es una consultora EXTERNA que estuvo involucrada en el proceso de ensayos clinicos
2) Lo que dice es que cualquier vacuna tiene un riesgo medico, y ella considera que el pap smear, que es la prueba para detectar cancer cervical (no se como se dice en espanyol) es suficiente para prevenir el cancer, pero que en casos donde la mujer nunca se va a realizar esa prueba, mejor prevenir que curar usando la vacuna.
Menudo cúmulo de errores tan enorme en el artículo, vaya.
Declaraciones originales de esta senyora http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-g-yerman/an-interview-with-dr-dian_b_405472.html
Vaya, en la página me han moderado el comentario, debe ser que no les gustó que fuera crítico con el autor.
1) This woman never "developed" any vaccine, she deals with Public health issues and is a paid consultant of both GSK and Merck.
2) She participated in t he clinical trials of both vaccines. Clinical trials take place years after the drug/vaccine/compound has been "developed".
3) She never said the vaccien was deadly. She never "came out" to clear her conscience. She was always "out" in the sense that she was never bound to the confidentiality that you are bound to when developing therapies for the pharmaceutical industry.
4) She merely says that, just like with any other vaccine, these two particular vaccines carry some risk. She considers that in most cases it's not worth vaccinating young children because the immunisation is not going to last until they are adult women. She does, however say, that in cases when the patient will never be Pap smear tested, the vaccines probably outweigh the risks.
So, in summary, she is just saying that these vaccines are not that great and that doctors should discriminate better who to give the vaccine to and at what age.
This article is written in such a way that transmit irrational fear to medical developments. IT's full of misquotes and misconceptions, and should be disregarded altogether, for goodness' sake.