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

Skip to comments.

Why Medical Authorities Cannot be Trusted on Gardasil HPV Vaccine
LifeSiteNews ^ | 12/19/07 | Gwen Landolt

Posted on 12/19/2007 4:02:50 PM PST by wagglebee

Medical health authorities have repeatedly assured us that Gardasil, the vaccine injection given to young girls to allegedly prevent cervical cancer, is perfectly safe. For example, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, a group of medical specialists, endorsed the vaccine last February. The Society of Gynecologic Oncologists of Canada claims the vaccine is safe, as does Dr. David Butler-Jones, Canada's Chief Public Health Officer. The Canadian Pediatric Society and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada have also endorsed the vaccine.

These medical authorities, however, are puzzled and also indignant that the use of this vaccine still remains controversial, ever since it was rolled out in lightening speed after Ottawa announced a $300 million funding package for participant provinces. After all, they reason, they have approved the drug, so what is the problem? Surely their expert opinion should be sufficient to allay the public's fears about the drug?

The reason the public has good reason to distrust the judgement of these medical authorities is because of their experience with them. It is a fact that the public has heard many similar assurances about other drugs, and used them to their lasting regret. For example:

- In the 1960's, thalidomide was pronounced a safe drug for pregnant women experiencing morning sickness. It was not safe, as thousands of adults with flipper arms and legs can attest.

- In the 1960's, the birth control pill was developed and women were assured that its use had no harmful side effects. Studies now report that the pill can be the cause of a greatly increased risk of stroke, heart attack and blood clots if taken for eight years or more. (British Journal of Medicine, 16 or 17 September, 2007).

- Between 1938 and 1971, as many as 4 million U.S. women and many Canadian women took the drug, diethylstilbestrol (DES) to prevent miscarriage. Daughters of these women who were exposed to DES in utero have experienced a range of structural reproductive tract abnormalities in the uterus, cervix and vagina. The incidents of abnormality occurs in 18% of cases, but it may be as high as 33% in women exposed to DES in utero. The male offspring of women who took DES during pregnancy, also have an increased incidence of genital abnormalities and a possibility of increased risk of prostrate and testicular cancer.

- Merck Frosst, the manufacturer of Gardasil, also developed a much-acclaimed painkiller called Vioxx, that was subsequently used by thousands of individuals suffering from arthritis. Unfortunately, the drug had the side effect of causing heart attacks and strokes. As a result, the medication was taken off the market in 2004 and Merck Frosst is now facing thousands of class action suits amounting to billions of dollars in claims.

- By 2001, 15 million women in the U.S. alone, as well a millions of women in Canada and abroad, were taking hormone-replacement therapy (H.R.T.). It became one of the most popular prescription drug treatments for menopause, supposedly to allow women to lead a long and healthier life. However, in July 2002, estrogen therapy was exposed as a hazard to health, rather than a benefit. It was found to constitute a potential health risk for post-menopausal women by increasing risks of heart disease, stroke, blood clots and breast cancer. The question lingers unanswered, as to how many women may have died prematurely because their physician prescribed this medication? A reasonable estimate would be tens of thousands of women. (New York Times, September 16, 2007).

- Europe's largest drug manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline developed and sold the diabetic drug Avandia, it's second best selling product last year, which was subsequently linked to a higher risk of heart attacks according to a study released in May 2007. This caused sales of the drug to drop 38%.

These are just a few examples of the here-today gone-tomorrow nature of medical wisdom. What we are advised about with confidence one year is reversed the next. One of the contributing factors to this reversal is that the kind of experimental trials necessary to determine the truth about the medication is excessively expensive and time-consuming and very often does not happen. Hence, the problem with these new drugs so enthusiastically recommended by the medical profession.

It is alarming that Gardasil's approval was based on the testing of only a few thousand patients and almost not at all (only 1200) on young girls, 9-13 years old, who are targeted for injection of the drug. (See REALity Sept/Oct. 2007, p. 5)

As its marketing plan, Merck Frosst used lobbyists with access to important public officials. In Canada, Ken Boessenkool, now with the public relations firm of Hill and Knowlton in Calgary, lobbied the federal government on Merck Frosst's behalf. Mr. Boessenkool was a former advisor to Prime Minister Stephen Harper when he was opposition leader. Jason Grier, former executive assistant to Ontario Health Minister George Smitherman, also lobbied on behalf of Merck and Ontario has now decided to administer the drug to young girls.

Even though only approximately 2-5% of women have Pap smears with cell changes due to HPV, the medication was pushed as a preventative cure for cervical cancer. However, no mention was made of the fact that the drug does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases, such as chlamydia, herpes, hepatitis, trichomoniasis, gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, AIDS, etc. It's all promotion; facts do not count.

The long-term consequences of Gardasil are not known. The manufacturer admits this and agrees it does not know its effect on young girls' cancer risk, on their immunity system, on their reproductive system, or its genetic effects. In due course, we will know this, possibly in twenty or thirty years from now when these young girls, the innocent subjects of the Gardasil experiment have become grown women and then report the consequences of their having taken the medication in their childhood on medical advice.

This artcicle was originally published in the Nov./Dec. edition of REAL Women of Canada's Reality magazine. Republished with permission.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: gardasil; hpv; hpvvaccine; moralabsolutes; teensex; vaccine
Yet the pro-teen sex crowd touts this as some sort of miracle cure that should be given to every female over the age of eleven.
1 posted on 12/19/2007 4:02:53 PM PST by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 230FMJ; 49th; 50mm; 69ConvertibleFirebird; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; An American In Dairyland; ..
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


2 posted on 12/19/2007 4:04:00 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

Ping


3 posted on 12/19/2007 4:04:24 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

this is clearly sexist. the drug should be given to young men as well!


4 posted on 12/19/2007 4:05:44 PM PST by tired1 (responsibility without authority is slavery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Why don’t they make it optional and let people decide.


5 posted on 12/19/2007 4:07:46 PM PST by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kinghorse

Since the drug is out there, why don’t they just let people who want it get it for themselves?

Once they institute the vaccination as an optional policy (no vaccination choice allowed), very soon it will morph into a standard policy with the onus to opt out on the shoulders of the dissenters. After that, it will go the way of most bureaucratic operations, i.e., the pressure will be brought to bear on the non-conformists. Soon after, it will be uniform compliance without exception.


6 posted on 12/19/2007 4:19:40 PM PST by WorkingClassFilth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

The “they’re gonna have sex so you might as well keep them ‘safe’” crowd hasn’t shown up yet?


7 posted on 12/19/2007 4:20:29 PM PST by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grizzled Bear
The “they’re gonna have sex so you might as well keep them ‘safe’” crowd hasn’t shown up yet?

Nope, is "American Idol" or some similar worthless garbage on TV tonight? The "they're gonna do it anyway" crowd seems drawn to that type of garbage.

8 posted on 12/19/2007 4:22:42 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kinghorse
Why don’t they make it optional and let people decide.

Because it might case painful periods, loss of pregnancy, mutations, and have unexpected side effects.

Also people might demand that it actually be tested over several years ... and the stock market cannot wait.

9 posted on 12/19/2007 4:33:23 PM PST by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth
Because if they can get it approved to be distributed in the schools and in public health clinics it will have to be paid for by tax money and Viola’....your tax dollar just made billions for this particular pharmaceutical.

In the long run, I dont really think they want to prevent you from getting cancer? If the doctor gave you a pill to make you healthy, you would never come back.

10 posted on 12/19/2007 4:40:15 PM PST by Delta 21 ( MKC USCG - ret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Delta 21
I dont really think they want to prevent you from getting cancer...

Could be.

My take is that the ideological idiots in the system believe that since some in the culture are trending towards becoming rutting pigs, we must assume all are headed this way and protect them from themselves. On the other hand, the cold blooded realists want to encourage promiscuity and anything that promotes the dissolution of the family.

So, getting the kiddies safely protected before they enter puberty and bombarding them with sexually explicit materials, sex education and free condoms will foster the kind of culture degredation that totalitarians want to keep a population docile and distracted.
11 posted on 12/19/2007 4:47:15 PM PST by WorkingClassFilth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
“The long-term consequences of Gardasil are not known.”

Which is why my child won’t be subjected to Gardasil vaccinations.
I made that decision after serious consideration, weighing the potential risks and benefits.
Very few potential benefits, an unknown number of potential risks.

With no family history of cervical cancer, it was less difficult for me to make my decision, than it would be for any parent who does have a family history that includes cervical cancer.

I can’t speak for any of them, obviously.
But I will not accept mandatory “experimental” vaccinations for my own daughter, under these circumstances.
And yes, I did vaccinate my child against certain debilitating diseases, knowing the risks and benefits.

12 posted on 12/19/2007 5:57:10 PM PST by sarasmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kinghorse
Why don’t they make it optional and let people decide.

What? In America? Your kidding right?

13 posted on 12/19/2007 6:05:50 PM PST by Navy Patriot (The hyphen American with the loudest whine gets the grease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Delta 21
You're sooooo right. The big pharma companies want you to stay sick in perpetuity, so they can make money off you for years. You see, these large corporations of 50,000+ employees, are really giant secret conspiracies. They are somehow able to find and recruit 50,000 highly-educated and dedicated individuals to work for them, and convince them ALL to put the screws to innocent patients. Many of these pharma employees are doctors, nurses and pharmacists, all of whom are well-known to have a vested interest in harming patients, to "keep them coming back for more".

Jonas Salk was the same type of SOB. He tested his polio vaccine on himself, his wife and HIS OWN CHILDREN before anyone else. My heavens, they should have taken his kids away from him! This vaccine was practically untested when it was given to millions of children (The Polio Pioneers) who MAYBE would have gotten polio had they not been vaccinated.

Instead, the polio vaccine should have been tested for approximately 20-30 years to make sure children who received it would not later develop some side effect apparent only later in life. Now, polio used to paralyze about 25,000 people a year in the US, but hey, better safe than sorry.

Let these girls get HPV and cervical cancer. Serves the dirty little tramps right for having sex before marriage!

14 posted on 12/19/2007 6:25:17 PM PST by Panzerfaust
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

That’s just scratching the surface of things the medical community has been wrong about. We don’t trust them because they don’t deserve the trust. They’re going to have to earn it instead of getting all indignant that the ignorant unwashed masses should deign to question their current pronouncements. Their arrogant, condescending attitudes do nothing to help the matter.

The general public has a better memory for the debacles that have occurred than the medical community would like; and apparently, a better memory that the medical community has.


15 posted on 12/19/2007 6:25:52 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kinghorse
Why don’t they make it optional and let people decide.

The usual reason.... $$$$$$$$

16 posted on 12/19/2007 6:26:32 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative; Politicalmom; MamaTexan

ping


17 posted on 12/19/2007 6:28:08 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; grellis; xsmommy; tioga; WhyisaTexasgirlinPA; SoftballMominVA; Amelia; metmom; ...

MOM Ping.........

Medical reasons, actually the unknown medical effects of this drug, not moral reasons is why I oppose this drug being mandated by the government for our daughters.


18 posted on 12/19/2007 6:56:47 PM PST by Gabz (Don't tell my mom I'm a lobbyist, she thinks I'm a piano player in a whorehouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

This might also qualify as a nanny ping.

I object to it being mandated just on principle alone. I just can’t see that a bunch of non-medically trained politicians who can’t even oversee that the DMV or post office is run right, is qualified to make personal medical decisions for me.


19 posted on 12/19/2007 7:00:22 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Panzerfaust

A Pap test can detect abnormalities that could lead to cervical cancer. Mandating a vaccine is not necessary.

If the HPV vaccine had been as thoroughly tested as the polio vaccine, there’d be less resistance. Aside from he fact that polio is a highly contagious disease and HPV isn’t, there’s no need to mandate the vaccine.


20 posted on 12/19/2007 7:04:04 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Panzerfaust

There is a HUGE difference between the means of contracting polio and contracting HPV.

If you don’t understand the difference, I feel sorry for you.


21 posted on 12/19/2007 7:10:11 PM PST by Gabz (Don't tell my mom I'm a lobbyist, she thinks I'm a piano player in a whorehouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I think they ought to give it to males, too.

After all, who are the main transmitters of HPV? I don’t think women are catching it from other women.

Besides, even if a woman remains chaste until marriage, she can catch HPV from her husband, if he is more “experienced” than she.


22 posted on 12/19/2007 7:32:25 PM PST by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amelia

Seems that vaccinating only half the population is the very thing the mandatory vaccination advocates are against. They complain that the unvaccinated part benefits from the herd immunity and they aren’t taking their share of the responsibility. So people who want to opt out to avoid any potential side-effects are strongly condemned for being irresponsible.

The vaccine crowd acts as if that’s an immoral thing to do, ride the benefit of herd immunity without taking the risks of the vaccine yourself. But that’s the very thing that’s being promoted here with only females being required to get the vaccine. Granted only females get cervical cancer, but since the vaccine targets the VIRUS that is implicated in the cancer, then it’s hypocritical for only females to get the vaccine and take all the risks of any side effects that vaccine may produce when males transmit the virus.


23 posted on 12/19/2007 8:16:10 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Panzerfaust
Was your particular gift horse gored?
LOL!
Well, better you, than my child, and everyone else.

“The long-term consequences of Gardasil are not known”

What part of the above statement of fact is unclear to you?
How many of your own daughters have undergone the vaccination schedules?
..............

24 posted on 12/19/2007 9:07:53 PM PST by sarasmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Gabz
I just can’t see that a bunch of non-medically trained politicians who can’t even oversee that the DMV or post office is run right, is qualified to make personal medical decisions for me.

Worth repeating, so I have :-).

Note to government: I am more qualified to make decisions about my children's medical care, education, diet, and housing than you are. I know their names!

25 posted on 12/20/2007 3:44:56 AM PST by Tax-chick ("The keys to life are running and reading." ~ Will Smith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick; metmom

OUCH........

But absolutely right on!!!!!


26 posted on 12/20/2007 5:26:34 AM PST by Gabz (Don't tell my mom I'm a lobbyist, she thinks I'm a piano player in a whorehouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

Even if I can’t recall their birthdates right off ...

I cribbed the line from Senator Phil Gramm. The story goes that he told a bureaucrat in a Federal child care program that parents were the best people to rear their children, since they loved their children most. The bureaucrat said, “I love your children as much as you do, Senator!” and Gramm responded, “Oh, I’m so glad to hear that! Now, what are their names?”


27 posted on 12/20/2007 5:30:15 AM PST by Tax-chick ("The keys to life are running and reading." ~ Will Smith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

LOL! I hadn’t heard that story before.


28 posted on 12/20/2007 5:35:45 AM PST by Gabz (Don't tell my mom I'm a lobbyist, she thinks I'm a piano player in a whorehouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

Senator Gramm was famous for his wit. I think Emmett Tyrell was the one who said, “Phil Gramm is the smartest man in the United States Senate, and he’ll make sure you know it!”


29 posted on 12/20/2007 6:16:25 AM PST by Tax-chick ("The keys to life are running and reading." ~ Will Smith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Granted only females get cervical cancer, but since the vaccine targets the VIRUS that is implicated in the cancer, then it’s hypocritical for only females to get the vaccine and take all the risks of any side effects that vaccine may produce when males transmit the virus.

Exactly! Vaccinating everyone would be far more effective, if vaccinating is indeed effective.

30 posted on 12/20/2007 3:24:15 PM PST by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
So how huge is the difference? If we can prevent a communicable disease with a vaccine that provides an acceptable risk/benefit ratio, should we not do it? Oh, sorry, I forgot that no Freeper's little angelic kids have unprotected sex. Nor will they ever marry someone who had unprotected sex.

If HPV can cause cervical cancer, I'd mandate a vaccine against it long before the already-required vaccines for nuisance diseases like chicken pox or the measles, which are rarely fatal.

The original post I responded to was so ludicrous in its paranoia, I thought my sarcasm would be evident. Next time I'll add the /sarc tag.l

31 posted on 12/28/2007 3:50:07 PM PST by Panzerfaust
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom
Don't worry, everyone in my family has been vaccinated against all diseases for which my doctor recommended a vaccine. You see, I lack the paranoia that many people exhibit, particularly around vaccines.

As a parallel example, consider that the long term effects of statins are unknown. They were only invented recently (late 1990's) and yet are the most widely prescribed drugs, with a proven ability to reduce death from CV disease.

Do some people encounter serious or fatal adverse events from them? Yes. Is it worth the risk? Apparently millions of peole think so. You balance risk/reward every time you get in your car to drive to work, risking a car accident to obtain a salary. The ride to the doctor's office to get the Gardisil vaccine is the most dangerous part of the process.

You can fail to vaccinate your daughter and someday maybe she'll become infected with HPV. If she's lucky, she won't develop cervical cancer. Then maybe she'll transmit HPV to someone's son, who will pass it on to someone else's daughter, who will then die from cervical cancer.

32 posted on 12/28/2007 4:02:57 PM PST by Panzerfaust
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Panzerfaust
If we can prevent a communicable disease with a vaccine that provides an acceptable risk/benefit ratio, should we not do it?

I absolutely agree it should be done. However, in the case of this particular vaccine they are seeking to mandate it for females who are far below the age of those on whom it has already been tested and without knowlege of any possible long term side effects. Thus there is no known risk/benefit ratio for the age range of the mandates.

The majority of the opposition I have seen here to the mandates is because of the age, not against the vaccine itself. The testing of these drugs were not done on pre-pubescent girls, yet that is the age these mandates are calling for.

My opposition to the mandates for these vaccines are based entirely on scientific reasons, and not morality. Talk to me about this vaccine when my 9 year old is 15 and there have been more studies done on the side effects.

33 posted on 12/28/2007 6:39:17 PM PST by Gabz (Don't tell my mom I'm a lobbyist, she thinks I'm a piano player in a whorehouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | 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