Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Merck's [HPV] vaccine tied to 3 deaths [Company lobbied states for shots to be required]
WND ^ | 05.24.07 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 05/26/2007 1:55:38 PM PDT by Coleus

At least three deaths and more than 1,600 adverse reactions including spontaneous abortion and paralysis have been connected to Merck & Co.'s new vaccine for the human papilloma virus, a treatment the company has lobbied state lawmakers to make mandatory for young girls across the nation. The report comes from Judicial Watch, the Washington-based public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption.   "The FDA adverse event reports on the HPV vaccine read like a catalog of horrors," said Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president. "Any state or local government now beset by Merck's lobbying campaigns to mandate this HPV vaccine for young girls ought to take a look at these adverse health reports. It looks as if an unproven vaccine with dangerous side effects is being pushed as a miracle drug."

One report, No. 275438-1, describes the reaction as coronary artery thrombosis, sudden cardiac death. "Given Gardasil vaccine dose #1 3/12/07. Collapsed and died on 3/26/07… Echocardiogram revealed very enlarged right ventricle, small left ventricle as well as large blood clots within both the right atrium & right ventricle." A second report  noted that the woman was vaccinated and "died of a blood clot 8 hours after getting the Gardasil vaccine."

WND earlier reported how the company's campaign to promote its $400-per person vaccine was sweeping the nation.

It was being facilitated by donations from Merck to Women in Government, whose members are women state lawmakers across the country, who in turn often were introducing legislation that would require young girls to be given the brand new vaccine in order to be enrolled in school.  Judicial Watch said documents it obtained from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration under the provisions of the Freedom of Information provided information on 1,637 reports of adverse reactions.   The reports of the deaths cited myocarditis, coronary artery thrombosis and pulmonary embolism as causes for the deaths.  Besides the only hours-long lapse between vaccination and death, two other reports, on girls 12 and 19, reported deaths relating to heart problems and/or blood clotting, the Judicial Watch analysis said.

Jill Farrell, a spokeswoman with Judicial Watch, said its own tabulation uncovered 371 serious reactions among the 1,637 total reported. She said JW found more cases of serious situations than did the official government report, because of the way reactions were classified.   "Stopped breathing later revived. … 13-year-old developed pain, sought physical therapy, later could not tolerate therapy due to pain. … Hives, sent home, found unresponsive by mother, who called 911, revived at ER…" Farrell noted. "You decide. If these were your children, would you consider these non-serious?"   Of the 42 women who got the vaccine while pregnant, 18 experienced side effects ranging from spontaneous abortion to fetal abnormities, the report said.

"Side effects published by Merck & Co. warn the public about potential pain, fever, nausea, dizziness and itching after receiving the vaccine. Indeed, 77 percent of the adverse reactions reported are typical side effects to vaccinations. But other more serious side effects reported include paralysis, Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre syndrome (a disorder in which the body's immune system attacks part of the peripheral nervous system), and seizures," Judicial Watch said.   Merck declined an opportunity to respond to WND requests for comment on the report.  WND also reported earlier a researcher who worked on a vaccine for HPV is warning it hasn't been tested on young girls, is "silly" for states to mandate, and in a worst-case scenario even could increase cervical cancer rates.  Researcher Diane M. Harper said giving such a vaccine to 11-year-olds "is a great big public health experiment."

The target of the vaccine is cervical cancer, since studies show that those who have HPV have a higher chance of later developing cervical cancer. However, opponents note that such cancers develop most often in older women, while the plan is to require girls as young as 11 or 12 years old to be inoculated. They cite the lack of evidence that the vaccine would have an impact later in life.   They also question the imposition of a vaccine against a condition that is spread only by sexual contact.   Merck's vaccine was approved last year by the Food and Drug Administration, but a doctor at the Centers for Disease Control's advisory committee on immunizations has reported that while the vaccine may be helpful, it should not be mandatory.

Merck has lobbied for its product by contributing financially to Women in Government, an organization for women state lawmakers, and at least partly because of that effort, almost three dozen state legislatures have been given proposals regarding Gardasil.    Harper noted that the vaccine is not a cancer vaccine or cure – it just is thought to prevent development of a virus that could lead to cancer.   She earlier had warned that Guillian-Barre syndrome had been reported among those who got the vaccine.   The National Conference of State Legislatures set up a special website just to track and update the various campaigns.   That site confirms that about three dozen states have had such plans introduced. But it shows slow progress in many locations.    Officials with the Abstinence Clearinghouse noted in a position paper that groups including the Texas Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and the American Academy of Environmental Medicine have come out publicly against mandatory vaccination.

"The reasoning of these medical associations is clear. They are not opposed to medical progress, and certainly support all efforts to combat life-threatening diseases. The problem, as these organizations see it, lies in the fact that the drug only went through three and a half years of testing, leaving the medical community somewhat in the dark as to what serious adverse effects might result in the long term," the group said.  "Along with the potential of serious adverse effects is the question of efficacy. There is evidence that after approximately four years, the vaccine's potency significantly declines. The long-term value of the vaccine has yet to be determined; if it wears off within six years, will girls and women need to repeat the battery of injections they originally received?" the organization wondered.   "It is negligent to require any person, especially a child, to receive a treatment which might in the future prove to be dangerous," the group said. "It is pertinent to note that by mandating a vaccine, the state assumes all liability. If it causes harm to patients, to whatever extent, Merck is immune to legal retribution. No state ought to be so ethically or fiscally irresponsible as to mandate this vaccine."

Leslee Unruh, chief of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, told WND her organization's research shows that such vaccines actually can increase cervical cancer rates, because women believe they are "protected" by the vaccine, and fail to follow up with their physicians for routine exams.  She also said Merck's campaign has extended far beyond state lawmakers, reaching into school districts and other organizations that are pressured to advocate for the vaccines.   "They come in and shame these poor teachers and schools into sending out letters that make it sound like the best thing since sliced bread," she said.   The NCSL said federal studies show HPV infects about 20 million people in the U.S. and 10,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer annually.   Texas Gov. Rick Perry in February issued an executive order requiring those vaccinations, but the state legislature rescinded it, citing those concerns. Perry's reaction was to describe the lawmakers' policy as "social Darwinism."

"Banning widespread access to a vaccine that can prevent cancer is short-sighted policy," he said.  Michigan was the first state to introduce a plan to require the vaccine to be given to young girls, but the proposal failed. Ohio also considered a failed plan in 2006.   Then in 2007, after Merck's aggressive lobbying campaign and contributions to WIG, lawmakers in at least 39 states and the District of Columbia worked on sponsoring such plans.   The Merck campaign's results so far include New Hampshire and South Dakota, which have announced they will provide the vaccine on a voluntary basis, and Virginia's requirement for the vaccine, although that was heavily marked up with exceptions.  

The NCSL also confirms that Colorado also set up a fund to provide the vaccine, Indiana set up a plan to require the vaccinations and New Mexico is requiring that insurance plans cover the costs. A plan there to require the inoculations was vetoed.    In Maryland a plan to require the vaccine was withdrawn, and a similar proposal was killed Mississippi. Utah has approved an awareness campaign.    In California, the requirement is being set up for girls as young as 11. Lawmakers, instead of setting the requirement in the law, decided that an administrator shall adopt federal recommendations to impose the HPV vaccine.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: corporategreed; cultureofdeath; gardasil; hpv; hpvvaccine; humanpapillomavirus; merck; moralabsolutes; morality; multiplesexpartners; nannystate; sex; tweens; vaccinations; vaccine; vaccines
Merck and the other companies are also in the business of creating vaccines from aborted fetuses.

ABORTED FETAL CELL LINE PRODUCTS AND ETHICAL ALTERNATIVES

Disease

Vaccine Name

Manufacturer

Cell Line (Fetal)

Ethical Version

Manufacturer

Cell Line (Non-Fetal)

Chickenpox

Varivax

Merck & Co.

WI-38, MRC-5

None

N/A

N/A

Hepatitis A

 

Vaqta

Havrix

Merck & Co
GSK

MRC-5

MRC-5

Aimmungen
Not available in US

Kaketsuken

(Japan & Europe)

Vero (monkey)

Hepatitis A & B

Twinrix

GSK

MRC-5

Engerix Hep-B Only

Recombivax Hep-B Only

GSK

Merck

Yeast

Yeast

Measles, Mumps, Rubella

MMR II

Merck & Co

RA273, WI-38

None

N/A

N/A

Measles-Rubella

MR VAX

Merck & Co.

RA273, WI-38

Attenuvax – Measles

Merck

Chick embryo

Mumps-Rubella

Biavax II

Merck & Co.

RA273, WI-38

Mumpsvax – Mumps

Merck

Chick embryo

Rubella

Meruvax II

Merck & Co.

RA273, WI-38

Takahashi

Not available in US

Kitasato Institute

(Japan & Europe)

Rabbit

MMR + Chickenpox

ProQuad

Merck & Co.

RA273, WI-38, MRC-5

 

None

 

N/A

 

N/A

Polio

Poliovax

Sanofi Pasteur

MRC-5

IPOL

Sanofi Pasteur

Vero (monkey)

Rabies

Imovax

Sanofi Pasteur

MRC-5

RabAvert

Chiron

Chick embryo

Rheumatoid/OsteoArthritis

Enbrel

Immunex

WI-26 VA4

Synvisc

Genzyme Bio.

None

Sepsis

Xigris

Eli Lilly

HEK-293

Ask your doctor

N/A

N/A

Shingles

Zostavax

Merck & Co.

WI-38, MRC-5

None

N/A

N/A

Under Development Ebola

TBA

Crucell/NIH

PER C6

None

N/A

N/A

Under Development :Flu,

Avian Flu

TBA

MedImmune

Vaxin, Sanofi

PER C6,

HEK-293

FluVirin, Flu Shield

Flu Zone, Flu Blok

Chiron, Wyeth

Sanofi ,Protein Sci

Chick embryo

Caterpillar

New: HIV

TBA

Merck

PER C6

None

N/A

N/A

New: Smallpox

Acambis 1000

Acambis

MRC-5

ACAM2000

MVA3000

Acambis/Baxter

Vero (monkey)

Chick embryo

 *TBA:  To Be Announced – Vaccine is under development; unnamed at present.   NOTE:  ALL CURRENT FLU VACCINES USE ETHICAL CELL LINES.

Physician Order Line:                                   

Merck (Measles, Mumps) 800-422-9675                       GSK: (Hepatitis-B) 866-475-8222       

Sanofi Pasteur: (Polio) 800-822-3463                             Chiron:(Rabies) 800 244-7668 (PST)                  Wyeth:  (Flu) 800 666-7248 

Note:  Immune-Globulin shots will provide temporary immunity (3-5 months) for Hepatitis-A and Rubella.  IGIM is a series of antibodies taken from donor blood designed to boost the immune system against specific diseases.  No aborted fetal cell lines are used.

 NOTE:  IF THE VACCINE YOU ARE QUESTIONING IS NOT LISTED HERE, IT DOES NOT USE ABORTED FETAL CELL LINES.

1 posted on 05/26/2007 1:55:40 PM PDT by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...

.


2 posted on 05/26/2007 1:56:34 PM PDT by Coleus (I Support Research using the Ethical, Effective and Moral use of stem cells: non-embryonic "adult")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; Gabz; patton

i have said since day one, there is no way we’re touching
this vaccine with a 10 ft pole. it’s way too new still....


3 posted on 05/26/2007 2:09:42 PM PDT by leda (19yrs ... only 4,981yrs to go ;))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

I’m glad I saw this.


4 posted on 05/26/2007 2:10:35 PM PDT by Tax-chick (We all thread in this earth swathe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Good grief. The Culture of Death strikes again. The feminists allied with the abortionists and the politicians.

I don’t normally trust Judicial Watch, but this report appears to be factual, with plenty of details.


5 posted on 05/26/2007 2:11:12 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: leda

I wonder if the side effects are due to the fact that some of these girls may have been exposed to the hpv virii but had not yet developed a reaction to it. The vaccine forces the body to develop an immune response and low and behold why here is the virus already floating around in the body, thus an immune response, clots, ect!


6 posted on 05/26/2007 2:21:13 PM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

So that’s why Merck was pushing for states to make it mandatory. If the state requires the vaccine by law then the state is responsible for problems it causes, not Merck.

Verrry sneaky.


7 posted on 05/26/2007 2:26:08 PM PDT by sinanju
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sinanju

It should be a mandatory vaccine for the Merck stockholders.


8 posted on 05/26/2007 2:29:25 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

We know from many studies that women that have circumcised partners have a lower rate of cervical cancer, but notice no one is suggesting that we force all males no matter the age to be circumcised .

This was fine because the women bear the risk and the potential complications and pain.


9 posted on 05/26/2007 2:30:00 PM PDT by ears_to_hear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Very interesting read - thanks for posting.


10 posted on 05/26/2007 2:35:55 PM PDT by Gerish (Feed your faith and your doubts will starve to death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ears_to_hear

Thread hijacking in process.


11 posted on 05/26/2007 2:36:34 PM PDT by John Will
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
This is a promiscuity vaccine. If a young woman is not skanking around then she doesn’t need it. It is an outrage that any state would mandate this vaccine for any girl. Keep the stuff for whores.
12 posted on 05/26/2007 2:38:11 PM PDT by all the best
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
This is a promiscuity vaccine. If a young woman is not skanking around then she doesn’t need it. It is an outrage that any state would mandate this vaccine for any girl. Keep the stuff for whores.
13 posted on 05/26/2007 2:38:38 PM PDT by all the best
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

“It should be a mandatory vaccine for the Merck stockholders.”

Absolutely. Their kids first.


14 posted on 05/26/2007 2:41:32 PM PDT by Mrs.Z
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: John Will
Thread hijacking in process.

Sporting of you to admit it!

15 posted on 05/26/2007 2:43:22 PM PDT by Graymatter (FREDeralist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Merck and the other companies are also in the business of creating vaccines from aborted fetuses.

I know a very devout Catholic who works for Merck. Militantly pro-life, a true activist.

I guess my next encounter with that person is going to be very different from all the preceding ones. :(

16 posted on 05/26/2007 2:47:52 PM PDT by Graymatter (FREDeralist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

One has to wonder how it will be handled. Anthrax vaccine has SIX deaths attributed on its package insert...it was NEVER tested for what Clinton forced the military to take it for and we still have to deal with it.

Some agencies never learn and some people dont give a dang.


17 posted on 05/26/2007 2:53:12 PM PDT by ICE-FLYER (God bless and keep the United States of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ears_to_hear
This was fine because the women bear the risk and the potential complications and pain.

Yup.

18 posted on 05/26/2007 2:53:41 PM PDT by Tax-chick (We all thread in this earth swathe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: leda

Absolutely. Our daughter is almost 7, so she might have been affected in the near future by this “immunization”, but there’s no way in heck that I’d have allowed them to give it to her.


19 posted on 05/26/2007 2:59:35 PM PDT by mombyprofession
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

There is a lot of pain from
cervical cancer if untreated (it is highly curable)
and from strokes,infertility,etc from the vaccine.
These risks of the vaccine and the disease it
is meant to prevent are also shared by the families
of these women. With the vaccine that might involve
large fractions of the population.


20 posted on 05/26/2007 3:06:55 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
While I am not defending Merck, reading stuff like this and then the 'educated' comments that follow make me crazy.

There is something in logic that is a 'classic' fallacy, and it goes like this:

A follows B; therefore B caused A (in latin 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' I think).

Some lady has a vaccine and then 2 weeks later dies of 'coronary artery thrombosis' with changes highly suggestive of a chronic heart condition...and the vaccine is necessarily to blame? It might be, but it wouldn't be first on my differential diagnosis.

Vaccines all have risks...if you want the vaccine to try and get the protective benefit, you have to accept the risks (like possible Guillan-Barre with an attenuated/live virus base). For something like this that is not a public health menace the government should have no business dictating it's necessity...but still, people need to accept that NO vaccine is 100% safe.

The evidence that the vaccine caused the deaths listed in this case is circumspect at this point to say the least...but that doesn't keep those opposed to the vaccine (and the lawyers) from trumpeting the association in the furtherance of their agenda.

Be careful people...there may come a time that a vaccine is needed (and everyone will be clamoring for assuming the associated risk as the disease will be far worse)...and running the vaccine businesses out of business is not a prudent course.

21 posted on 05/26/2007 3:09:12 PM PDT by Ethrane ("semper consolar")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ethrane

You are defending Merck.

First the ‘ladies’ you claim were MINORS some of them
13 and 14. The normally die of accidents.

Second, vaccines ought to be about 100% safe if they
are used for a disease which otherwise generally
CURABLE (like cervical cancer) and which impacts only
a very small number of women.

Most of those vaccinated would have never got
cervical cancer in the first place, so there better
be almost NO risk.

Finally, since you are defending Merck, how many
women and little girls were treated to get about 1500
with reportable symptoms, signs and some deaths?
5000?, 20,000? [Do you think this number matters?]


22 posted on 05/26/2007 3:14:36 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BartMan1

ping


23 posted on 05/26/2007 3:20:07 PM PDT by IncPen (The Liberal's Reward is Self Disgust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Thank God the Texas legislators refused to let our blow-dried idiot of a governor, Perry, endanger the lives of sixth-grade girls in Texas when he ruled this vaccine would be required in Texas schools.
We would not have had enough money in Texas to pay all the lawsuits this moron would have been responsible for.


24 posted on 05/26/2007 3:21:53 PM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Men are also getting cancer from HPV (see the articles on oral sex in recent months).

Any reason why this vaccine was only being forced on women? Would it not work on men? Was it easier to shove it down the throats of Americans by claiming this is a “women’s issue” thereby taking it off the table for discussion?


25 posted on 05/26/2007 3:24:32 PM PDT by weegee (Libs want us to learn to live with terrorism, but if a gun is used they want to rewrite the Const.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee

not sure it was a man/woman thing rather than
a company seeking younger targets.

the vaccine was FORCED onto prepubertal girls because
the women who took it got painful menses, spontaneous
abortions, infertility, strokes, death.

the company thought younger, more docile girls
would be better candidates if FORCED to take it by the
state. another advantage, there were already thousands
of complaints in older women, so perhaps the prepubertal
girls would at least not have the painful periods.


26 posted on 05/26/2007 3:31:57 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Ethrane

My point in post 18 was that all the risk was borne by women, even though common sense tells us that women generally contract HPV through relations with men. If Merck, state governments, etc., are truly concerned, they would want the vaccine to be used by anyone who might contract the virus.


27 posted on 05/26/2007 3:42:11 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("Is there any extra food around here anywhere?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

Iirc, one of the arguments against this vaccine is that, in spite of the warnings, women who receive the vaccine will believe they can’t get cervical cancer, and therefore won’t get Pap tests. With early detection, cervical cancer is highly treatable, but it won’t be detected if women don’t get the test.


28 posted on 05/26/2007 3:46:59 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("Is there any extra food around here anywhere?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Ethrane

People like you say “anecdotal evidence” when a perfectly healthy child gets a shot and keels over dead. NOTHING is EVER good enough evidence for you.


29 posted on 05/26/2007 4:09:30 PM PDT by Politicalmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom

Don’t bother arguing with statists, they won’t listen.


30 posted on 05/26/2007 4:13:01 PM PDT by darkangel82 (Socialism is NOT an American value.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ethrane

It would indeed be well to compare the ill effects documented following administration of Gardasil to that for other vaccines, since as you point out there could be some nonzero possibility of the ill effects happening anyhow.

But given the vigorous opposition to virtually ALL vaccines by a certain segment of the body politic, especially where mercury is involved, it is strange indeed that few such problems have been publicized in connection with non-Gardasil vaccines. Gardasil is genuinely looking like it is a big problem.


31 posted on 05/26/2007 4:31:30 PM PDT by drlevy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6

i tend to doubt it. this vaccine is targeted
at very young girls, not likely to have been
exposed to the hpv virus.


32 posted on 05/26/2007 5:25:42 PM PDT by leda (19yrs ... only 4,981yrs to go ;))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mombyprofession

our daughter is just 6 yrs old and i am not convinced
she will ever get the vaccine. i’m not a big fan of
vaccines, in general, so when a new vaccine pops up
with very little long term research and it’s being
forced down your throat, i get very resistant.


33 posted on 05/26/2007 5:30:10 PM PDT by leda (19yrs ... only 4,981yrs to go ;))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Thanks for the thread!

I was emailing and phoning our state legislators when it first came up. Then the day they were voting on it, the drug company pulled the lobbyists in DC and I was on the phone again! They didn't care.

They claim it is no big deal because it is optional in SD...however, I had a local clinic try to PUSH it on my 12 yo when we went in for something totally unrelated. optional?!

I would like to know how much money was given to each of the state's Governors to push this thing.

Thanks for posting this thread!

34 posted on 05/26/2007 6:27:48 PM PDT by MountainFlower (There but by the grace of God go I.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ears_to_hear
We know from many studies that women that have circumcised partners have a lower rate of cervical cancer, >>

We do? Please share them with us.

but notice no one is suggesting that we force all males no matter the age to be circumcised. >>>

I hear the violins playing. There is a solution, don’t have sex with uncircumcised males. Don’t have more than one partner, there are also studies that women with multiple sex partners have a greater risk of cervical cancer. Women should keep their legs closed; it’s that simple. Monogamy is the way. No woman will get HPV if she and her husband stay monogamous with each other. Abstinence until marriage and monogamy through marriage, it works.

35 posted on 05/26/2007 6:43:18 PM PDT by Coleus (I Support Research using the Ethical, Effective and Moral use of stem cells: non-embryonic "adult")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
"No state ought to be so ethically or fiscally irresponsible as to mandate this vaccine."

Unfortunately, there are states that have and are. I heard that DC was going to require it for girls at the age of 9!! I hope this information causes the states to STOP it!

36 posted on 05/26/2007 6:58:10 PM PDT by MountainFlower (There but by the grace of God go I.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/346/15/1105

http://general-medicine.jwatch.org/cgi/content/citation/2002/430/4

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2817902.html

Now you know too.

So do we circumcise all the males in Texas?


37 posted on 05/26/2007 7:01:43 PM PDT by ears_to_hear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

I second that thought!!


38 posted on 05/26/2007 7:30:09 PM PDT by MountainFlower (There but by the grace of God go I.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6
#6. i don't think that would be a fair assumption to make...hold the company responsible! it is not the fault of the child, or woman who died. our society makes it so easy to shrug off the responsibility and push the blame onto someone else. the drug is faulty! if it were your 11 or 12 yo daughter that suddenly died from it, how would you feel about that statement you made??

the legislators also need to be held responsible for not digging into it before passing the bill! (especially when their constituents were raising a cry about it, and they were ignoring it!)

39 posted on 05/26/2007 7:35:00 PM PDT by MountainFlower (There but by the grace of God go I.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ethrane; All
perhaps the issue should be this --- the vaccine study was NOT done on the age of girls they are saying it has to be given to! at that age, their hormones are totally out of whack and they are hitting puberty. this will also effect the vaccine, will it not? so a drug is being recommended for an age bracket that it has not even been properly test for!

then lets get into long term effects! how long has the drug been available? have they studied it over a period of 20-30 years to know what effect it will have on the babies of girls that were given this drug? NO. Case in point...DES! It was available in about 40 different names, and given to women to stop their lactating, among other things. If given to a mother while a female baby is still in the womb, that drug then not only effected the mother it was given to but also the baby girl she was carrying AND -- the eggs in that baby girl's ovaries for the next generation! We are JUST NOW seeing the huge effects of DES.

so this vaccine was to help deal with a cancer issue that strikes women in their early to mid 20's...yet the vaccine will not even be strong enough, at that point in their life, to do what it was tauted to do.

further, this vaccine will only effect 4 out of 40 cancers...so how is there a justification for mandatory shots? it is not a virus nearing epidemic proportions that anyone can get(ie. measles, mumps, chickenpox).

then i wonder...why are they making a vaccine for girls, and not for guys?! wouldn't it make sense??

i am currently seeing the effects of DES given to my mother's generation...now effecting my children and grandchildren. i do NOT wish this an ANYONE. this drug (HPV SHOT) should not have been released at this time and MERCK knows it. why do you think they suddenly pulled their lobbyist?

children are precious. their lives should be guarded and protected. sometimes that means even protecting them from things like the HPV shot.

i am done ranting now. i will go sit down.

40 posted on 05/26/2007 7:55:22 PM PDT by MountainFlower (There but by the grace of God go I.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: leda
Smart move on your part. While a vaccine for this virus is desirable this one was promoted much to highly and quickly and because of that raised my suspicions from day one. I was particularly offended by those who criticized parents for not wanting their daughters to have it and it appears they have now been vindicated. I’m sorry for the parents of the girls who have died.
41 posted on 05/26/2007 8:07:48 PM PDT by pepperdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pepperdog

absolutely! the criticism was outrageous and very offensive.
our kids have had all the tried and true vaccines that have
been given over our lifetime. they’ve been around alot longer,
so there have been long term studies done.

i can’t imagine what those families, who lost daughters, are
going through. my heart goes out to them. :(


42 posted on 05/27/2007 5:58:00 AM PDT by leda (19yrs ... only 4,981yrs to go ;))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Very informative article.

Thank you for posting it.


43 posted on 05/27/2007 6:12:24 AM PDT by Mrs.Nooseman (Proudly supporting our Troops,Allies and our President GW!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: leda

The girls who are having the reactions are in their early to late teens and even twelve year old girls are having sex. I suspect the parents who are having their early teen girls vaccinated are doing so because they already suspect their girls as being sexually active.


44 posted on 05/27/2007 11:27:27 AM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MountainFlower
have they studied it over a period of 20-30 years to know what effect it will have on the babies of girls that were given this drug? NO.

I agree that the vaccine should not be mandatory. That said, are you really advocating conducting clinical trials for 20-30 years?

45 posted on 05/27/2007 11:32:40 AM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MountainFlower
Oh I wasn’t blaming the girls, I was blaming the company. I don’t think the company had tested its vaccines in all possible scenarios and may not have fully considered the effects of the vaccine on girls who may have already been sexually active but who had not told mum when they got vaccinated. These girls may have already been exposed to hpv.

The types of reaction cited here are thrombo/hemolytic type reactions which can occur when the immune system is reacting helter skelter fashion to a perceived antigen. DIC or disseminated intravascular coagulation can occur spontaneously when the body goes into extreme shock with the patient dying of stroke, PE, heart attack, or hemmorrhage!

46 posted on 05/27/2007 11:38:30 AM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson