You are currently browsing the daily archive for November 15, 2010.

This one’s for the ladies.  Right off the bat, it sounds as if it’s:

a) a press release.

b) based on spurious scientific extrapolations.

b) giving a licence to sexual experimentation.

The Daily Mail reports on the cervical vaccine which has been available to 12- and 13-year old British girls since 2008.  Sentences such as the following indicate why this article could well be a press release:

Experts say the good uptake of the jab means girls would only need to have a new type of smear test twice in their lifetime to check the vaccine is still working.

It would mark the end of the current unpleasant smear  tests that women are advised to take every three years.

Professor Sasieni [no first name?], a Cancer Research UK scientist of the University of London, urged the government to consider making the HPV test the main method of cervical screening even for women who have not had the jab.

Can anyone say ‘marketing’ and ‘public relations’?

Isn’t ‘Cancer Research UK scientist’ an oxymoron?

How can they predict this type of outcome after only two years of vaccinations?  What is the uptake?  Could the vaccine have any unforeseen side effects?

Commenter ‘JAR in the Med’ writes:

I have heard that this is part of the New World Order agenda.  It has been said that it will make the youngsters infertile.

Very possibly.  Why wouldn’t this surprise us?

Here’s a likely tactic to increase take-up — instilling FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt):

a) Explain to concerned mothers that the health of their daughters relies on having this vaccine.
b) Tell mums that their little girls will get cancer if they are unvaccinated and engage in sexual congress.
c) Make sure Mum is aware that all little girls are becoming young women earlier.
d) Remind Mum of the burgeoning STD rates in Britain.
e) Let Mum know that girls are experimenting with sex all the time!

I can’t imagine being faced with a school nurse or GP saying all of the above.

The pressure must be enormous.  What if you say ‘no’?  Do they say, ‘Well, your lovely daughter is the only girl in her year not to have had the jab.  None of the other mothers have had a problem with it …  What’s really on your mind?’

What do you say then?  You’re getting diapraxed — over some vaccine that will give girls a licence to, erm, well, experiment.  In ‘complete safety’!

About possible side-effects, remember that Thalidomide was a ‘perfectly safe’ drug for expectant mothers to use.  I knew a Thalidomide victim, quite well actually.  He was able to work full time in a middle-management position but only had part of one arm.  He said his mother never forgave herself.  He didn’t have a problem with it.  He was happy to be alive and working.  But I digress.

Suppose these girls get pregnant and give birth to a deformed child.  How would we know if the vaccine was a contributing factor?

Or suppose that a number of girls who have had the vaccine wish to have children one day and cannot get pregnant.  What then?  How would we know if the vaccine contributed to their infertility?

There are so many unanswered questions with this subject, not least the morality of it (‘safe sex’).  Yet, mothers are being railroaded into getting their daughters vaccinated.  There seems to be much hype and hyperbole surrounding this vaccine.

Message to UK mothers with daughters: if there is a way to sit this one out, I would.

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2022. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,542 other followers


Calendar of posts

November 2010
282930 - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,687,997 hits