Cervical Cancer Vaccine connected to more deaths

By Ian Brockwell

A 14-year-old girl, who died shortly after receiving a cervical cancer vaccination at a school in Coventry today, is the latest death of many that appear to be connected to the vaccine.

A number of other girls, who received the vaccine at the same time, have also been reported as feeling unwell.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) causes more than 1,000 deaths each year in Britain and the vaccine is said to offer a 70% protection against this sexually transmitted disease (linked with cervical cancer).

Considering the number of deaths from this virus, the alleged 70% protection level, the cost of the vaccine (£242 per person) and the people who appear to have died as a result of the vaccination, is it really worth supporting?

Surely, it would have been better to have put that £242 million (one million vaccinations) into educating people about safer sex? But then the drug companies wouldn't be able to continue making such huge profits if that happened!

We will probably see the same routine with the Swine Flu vaccines, which will produce billions in profits (for another drug that hasn't been fully tested).

With viruses continually mutating, many of the vaccines are completely useless or have such a limited effect that it is hard to say whether they lessen the risk or not.

Although the mainstream media may not be highlighting the deaths connected to Cervical Cancer Vaccine (and others), there are many sites on the internet that do (like Rense.com for example). Parents (and those considering the vaccine) should make the effort to find out more about the dangers for themselves, rather than wait until it is too late and then ask "Why didn't someone help by telling me more about the risks?"

Drug companies are only interested in making profits, and the doctors who prescribe their medicine have very little choice but to help promote this scam.

There are many who believe that some anti-virus companies invent computer viruses in order to create a demand for their software. A growing number are starting to feel that drug companies are doing exactly the same, but including an "extra" ingredient in the vaccine to produce a new problem in the future.

It may surprise people to know that a patent for the H1N1 Swine Flu vaccine was granted long before the virus actually appeared in public. How did the drug company know such a vaccine would be needed in advance?

We could also ask why potential cures for well known illnesses (like diabetes for example) must undergo such lengthy testing periods (years), yet the Swine Flu vaccine is given a licence within months, even though it is not fully proven and deaths occurred in the few tests that did take place.

Could it be that the drug companies make more money from selling medicine to diabetics etc. than they would selling a cure? Don't you find it strange that drug companies can very quickly find solutions to problems that provide "repeat business", but are still struggling to find a cure for cancer?

We must all make our own decisions on what medicine we consider worthwhile taking, but if there is a good chance of surviving a virus without the need for a vaccine, it might be safer to JUST SAY NO!

Ian Brockwell writes straight talking, honest stories that engage readers. Contact Ian through NewsBlaze.