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

Skip to comments.

Feds contine to ignore mounting Gardasil bodycount
Washington Examiner ^ | 10/19/11 | Barbara Hollingsworth

Posted on 12/22/2011 5:35:47 AM PST by markomalley

It was too late for 21-year-old Christina Tarsell and 17-year-old Jessica Ericzon. Both healthy, athletic young women suddenly dropped dead shortly after receiving their final injection of Gardasil, a vaccine developed by Merck to protect girls and young women from cervical cancer caused by the human papilloma virus (HPV).

But when Christina’s and Jessica’s shocked families tried to get the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to investigate a vaccine it had inexplicably fast-tracked through the approval process even though only one percent of all cancer deaths are due to cervical cancer, they hit a brick wall.

The Tarsells and Ericzons have been vindicated by new documents just released by the FDA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) under a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Judicial Watch.

In just one year - between Sept. 1, 2010 and Sept. 15, 2011 - 26 new deaths and many more severe adverse reactions – including seizures, paralysis, and blindness – were reported in patients receiving Gardasil injections.

The stories are heartbreakingly similar to the Tarsell and Ericzon tragedies: One healthy 14-year-old girl suffered more than 150 seizures – during which she stopped breathing for up to 40 seconds - following her third Gardasil shot. Another vaccinated 15-year-old suddenly became paralyzed from the waist down the day after receiving her second dose of Gardasil and had to be hospitalized for two months.

The grieving parents of Christina and Jessica told The Washington Examiner that the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) both ignored their repeated requests to investigate possible links between Gardasil and their daughters’ unexplained deaths. It never happened. Since then, dozens more people who were vaccinated with Gardasil have also mysteriously died, and many others experienced serious and debilitating reactions.

That alone should have triggered at least some interest in these two federal public health agencies as to whether there was a cause-effect relationship, but it never happened.

CDC still insists that ìthere was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccineî - even though VAERS itself reports 18,727 reports of “adverse events” following Gardasil injections, including 68 deaths.

"These reports raise additional concerns about Gardasil’s questionable safety and provide ample reason to end the push to give it young girls and boys. And the CDC’s continued caginess on reported deaths is disturbing," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.


TOPICS: Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: biggovernment; gardasil; merck; moralabsolutes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-163 next last

1 posted on 12/22/2011 5:35:54 AM PST by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Bachman Perry overdrive.


2 posted on 12/22/2011 5:40:21 AM PST by Happy Rain ('The GOP establishment thinks a conservative can't win--Liberal Democrats KNOW conservatives win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Search for the money trail.


3 posted on 12/22/2011 5:41:29 AM PST by Panzerlied ("We shall never surrender!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain

That is some mental retardation. DEAD


4 posted on 12/22/2011 5:48:25 AM PST by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fooman

Many are getting POTs Syndrome. It ruins the lives of the girls.

Now they are going to stick the guys. Maybe that is when the wake up call will happen.


5 posted on 12/22/2011 5:52:29 AM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Thank you for posting, Mark! Politics aside, many parents need to be informed about this vaccine and the risk it poses. If you have a daughter, granddaughter, niece, goddaughter.... you need to know about this vaccine sooner than later. Many pediatricians will start pushing this vaccine as young as 12. Our DO NOT and there is no way on G*d’s green earth that I would let my girls get it.


6 posted on 12/22/2011 5:56:13 AM PST by momtothree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; wagglebee
CDC still insists that ìthere was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccineî - even though VAERS itself reports 18,727 reports of “adverse events” following Gardasil injections, including 68 deaths.

*****************************

I wonder if this will change any minds in Texas?

7 posted on 12/22/2011 5:56:31 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Both healthy, athletic young women suddenly dropped dead ...

Now they won't get cervical cancer!

Winning!

8 posted on 12/22/2011 5:58:12 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Before everyone jumps on the hate Perry train I’d like to know how the adverse reaction numbers compare to other vaccines.


9 posted on 12/22/2011 5:58:50 AM PST by ChuckHam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Any reports on young women dieing from not getting a Gardisil vaccination?
10 posted on 12/22/2011 6:02:13 AM PST by mac_truck ( Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Gardasil does not use aborted baby cells, but here is a list of those that do: http://www.cogforlife.org/vaccineListOrigFormat.pdf


11 posted on 12/22/2011 6:05:19 AM PST by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

The gays (particularly guys) are after this drug. It won’t go off the market because of them.


12 posted on 12/22/2011 6:05:47 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

They drank water containing fluoride all their lives. It finally caught up with the.


13 posted on 12/22/2011 6:06:00 AM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 ..... Crucifixion is coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun

But it looks like they’re not human embryonic cells.


14 posted on 12/22/2011 6:07:48 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
The article is two months old and apparently people still can't understand what a VAERS report is and is not.

32 deaths alleged to be related to Gardasil in 6 years is absurdly small as epidemiology goes.

There is no evidence which directly relates Gardasil to any significant risk compared to the risk from the cancer it prevents. This is just another "mercury in vaccines" type myth. More people die from Tylenol in a month than have died from Gardasil since it was released.

Just goes to show that people looking for something to blame or some bugaboo to be worried about will find it, even when it isn't real.
15 posted on 12/22/2011 6:07:53 AM PST by Sudetenland (Anybody but Obama!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Here we go again.

From the VAERS website:

Are all adverse events reported to VAERS caused by vaccines?

No. VAERS receives reports of many adverse events that occur after vaccination. Some occur coincidentally following vaccination, while others may be caused by vaccination. Studies help determine if a vaccine really caused an adverse event. Just because an adverse event happened after a person received a vaccine does not mean the vaccine caused the adverse event. Other factors, such as the person's medical history and other medicines the person took near the time of the vaccination, may have caused the adverse event. It is important to remember that many adverse events reported to VAERS may not be caused by vaccines. Although VAERS can rarely provide definitive evidence of causal associations between vaccines and particular risks, its unique role as a national spontaneous reporting system enables the early detection of signals that can then be more rigorously investigated.

Seriously, at this point, some of the incidents being publicized sound more like the anecdotal fear-mongering we saw after the introduction of Equal (which, according to all studies, is safe).

While the article is dismissive of the danger of cervical cancer, keep in mind that because of the PAP test, over 99% of pre-cancers caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) are caught and treated before they ever progress to cancer. And pre-cancers might not be fatal, but they can destroy a woman's fertility--so if it's your daughter you don't want vaccinated, it's your grandchildren that may never exist. Men also get HPV diseases; the virus doesn't care about gender.

My main concern about the vaccine is not its supposed safety issues. It's that the vaccine only protects against 4 of the over 100 HPV strains out there, and people receiving it might get a false sense of security because of that. The vaccine reduces risk; it doesn't eliminate it. Vaccinated women still need PAP tests.

16 posted on 12/22/2011 6:08:39 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun

Whoop...Didn’t interpret the list properly.


17 posted on 12/22/2011 6:08:57 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

These are only immediate concerns. I can’t imagine what the long terms concerns cold be.


18 posted on 12/22/2011 6:09:07 AM PST by riri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Anything sold by Big Pharma needs to be scrutinized very carefully. Actually, it’s like an update to your OS or browser. Wait and watch a while before you download and install.

I’m over the hill now, but not on any prescription medication (yet). You can bet I’ll be checking anything a doctor recommends twice. If I have to have my liver function checked before I can take it, I’m not taking it.


19 posted on 12/22/2011 6:10:24 AM PST by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
What's not reported is that Gardasil doesn't even prevent *all* strains of HPV.

So, approximately, best case is that the 4 (I think) strains that are protected against will die out, and the ones left over will fill the gap. The inoculation, ultimately, will accomplish nothing.

IMHO, 26 deaths (assuming that the article is correct) is an awful lot, for a "cure" to a disease that's wholly preventable.

20 posted on 12/22/2011 6:15:57 AM PST by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Gardasil only “protects” against four strains of HPV, which means that those who receive the shot must still get screened for the disease. Four strains out of how many? There is a much easier, cheaper, and safer way to prevent HPV and it works 100% of the time. Since you referenced Tylenol so will I. The method is called the Tylenol method. If you hold a Tylenol between your knees you won't get HPV.
21 posted on 12/22/2011 6:22:42 AM PST by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou

I had a particularly bad case of systemic candida while nursing my son. I was put on some anti-fungals that did nothing for the problem, and when the docs wanted to give me a loaded dose they started talking about liver tests. I never got the perscription filled, went to see a natural health expert, was cured in two weeks, and haven’t gone back to a doctor since then.


22 posted on 12/22/2011 6:25:31 AM PST by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

that was the plan from the start. Rather than have the gals suffer, you do it to the guys. Who cares?


23 posted on 12/22/2011 6:28:18 AM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wbill

Not only that, but it doesn’t even inoculate. Even if you had 80 percent of the people getting the ‘vaccine’, it won’t bring out herd immunity.

HPV - doesn’t work that way, sadly. It’s not like MMR or DPT, where once you get above a certain percentage, you start seeing the effects of herd immunity.


24 posted on 12/22/2011 6:31:15 AM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ChuckHam

I’d like to know how the adverse reaction numbers compare to other vaccines.

Before spending time looking for statistics, might we know what your "acceptable kill ratio" is?


25 posted on 12/22/2011 6:34:46 AM PST by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

“One healthy 14-year-old girl suffered more than 150 seizures – during which she stopped breathing for up to 40 seconds - following her third Gardasil shot. Another vaccinated 15-year-old suddenly became paralyzed from the waist down the day after receiving her second dose of Gardasil and had to be hospitalized for two months.”

So you are saying that these specific events are just coincidence? That these type of things happen all along in a small percentage of random people?

Surely you realize that’s ridiculous.


26 posted on 12/22/2011 6:37:14 AM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

This is what you get when drug companies climb into bed with the government.

Obama had this stupid vaccine mandated in Obozocare. Nothing but a payoff.

I can rest assured the Obama daughters will never take this vaccine.

You know, who cares that the drug is ruining lives and killing kids? The Government and Merck made a deal and they are doing it all for you, because they care and you are stupid like sheep. /sarc


27 posted on 12/22/2011 6:40:23 AM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
An entire "news" article written by someone who apparently has ZERO knowledge base in the subject matter they are discussing. VAERS is a self-reporting system. Entries in VAERS are consumer-driven; if someone says they had a reaction, it goes in the database. The database is not error-checked or otherwise filtered. It is the raw data. You can do it online: Online VAERS report. It's a trivial thing to do.

VAERS reports are a totality of bad things that are reported in proximity to taking a vaccine. Let's say you have a heart attack. If you happen to have a vaccine two days ago, it goes in VAERs. If you didn't have a vaccine, it doesn't go in VAERS. There is no checking to see if there is any causality when items are put in VAERS.

VAERS reports are public, and are on the web. The Gardasil VAERS report summary information is here: VAERS Gardasil Report, October 2011. The reports are updated regularly. You don't need a FOIA to get the information, it's not a secret.

Healthy people get sick and die ALL THE TIME. Last time this came up, I did some research on the number of deaths of people in the age group of the girl mentioned here. I then did a percentage of deaths number, and compared it to the percentage of vaccinated people of that age who were reported to have died. The numbers matched. In other words, the number of people who die 2 days after taking the vaccine is equal to the number of people who you would expect to die within two days of any random chosen date.

"Side effects" reports in VAERs are even less useful. Not only do people have minor health issues ALL THE TIME, but people are watching for minor health issues after getting a vaccine, especially if the vaccine is controversal. A person might have 20 headaches a year; but they'll only think about it after a vaccine, and they make an "adverse reaction" report.

Human nature is to find MORE causality when there are reports of causality. See for example the Audi "unexpected acceleration", or the Toyota "unable to stop the car" events. In both cases public reports suggested there was a problem, and suddenly there was a huge increase in reports. Gardasil suffers from this because of news articles like this one -- each article that claims the VAERs data shows a huge problem causes the VAERs data to grow exponentially.

People simply don't expect healthy individuals to die, even though it happens all the time. They want an explanation, and the search for some "reason" often leads to faulty beliefs, because most people are not trained to understand that "Correlation does not imply casuality".

The CDC uses VAERs for several purposes, one of which is to be an early warning system -- but Gardasil's reports are not out of the norm for a drug that has had multiple news stories about it. They have the statistics. The VAERs data is also used as a starting point for two other analyses that are done, one which is more of a regression analysis, and the other is specific clinical study.

In the regression analysis, they do what I did poorly with google -- they compare the reported information to what you would expect with random selection, and see if there is any mathematical indication that more bad things are happening after a vaccine than you would expect. In the case of Gardasil, those regression studies have shown NO increase in the adverse data above what would happen randomly.

In the clinical analysis, they might go back and actually collect medical data from cases of adverse reactions, to see if they can determine what actually caused the problem. They routinely do this for death reports, and sometimes for other severe reactions. Here is the CDC summary for their death report analysis:

As of September 15, 2011, there have been a total 71 VAERS reports of death among those who have received Gardasil®. There were 57 reports among females, 3 were among males, and 11 were reports of unknown gender. Thirty four of the total death reports have been confirmed and 37 remain unconfirmed due to no identifiable patient information in the report such as a name and contact information to confirm the report. A death report is confirmed (verified) after a medical doctor reviews the report and any associated records. In the 34 reports confirmed, there was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine and some reports indicated a cause of death unrelated to vaccination.
In that paragraph, we first find that 37 VAERS death reports didn't contain enough information for CDC to find the patient. These are considered unreliable -- there are few protections in the VAERs system for keeping anonymous people from making false reports (I can't remember if it is considered a crime to falsely report something to VAERS).

Of the 34 that were confirmed, in some cases the direct cause of death was found and was unrelated to the vaccine, and in the other cases there was nothing in the reports to suggest unusual death occurances that could be associated with the vaccine.

There have been 40 million Gardasil vaccinations. There are 20,000 VAERS reports -- That is .5 per 1,000 population, or 0.05%. Of those 20,000 reports, 8% are considered non-minor. (something more than a temporay pain, swelling at the injection site, etc. -- things that are temporary and do not require hospitalization).

That leaves 1600 reported serious reactions in 40 million vaccines, or 4 per 100,000 population (0.004%). Remember, these are self-reported, not reactions that have been proven to be related to the vaccine).

FOr comparison, cervical cancer caused by HPV has a rate of 6.7 deaths per 100,000 population for black women, and 2.5 deaths per 100,000 population for white women. So the REPORTED rate of serious side effects for the vaccine are in the same range as the known deaths from the disease for which the vaccine is being used.

The CDC has done regression analysis and other scientific inquiry into the serious side effects being reported, and their online page has a summary of those studies, and found no indication that any of the serious side effects occur more frequently in vaccinated people above the general population.

As an example, they looked at reports of blood clots, and found that most people reporting blood clots after getting vaccinated were people who had other risk factors known to cause blood clots. The GBS rate for vaccinated girls was no higher than the rate in the general population.

It is certainly true that there is significant money involved in this vaccine, and it doesn't hurt to question government action because of this. We pretend we can use government to protect us from bad actors, but government regulation is always driven by the people regulated, because they have a specific monetary interest in making those regulations work for them, while the rest of the population has only a passing interest in being "protected" from any particular thing.

But don't confuse the fact that every regulation costs companies money, and ever government action changes the costs to business, and therefore business has a reason to spend money to get favorable rulings, with actual proof that a company MUST have bribed multiple science officials in the CDC to falsify studies in order to hide an epidemic of adverse reactions to a particular vaccine.

I urge the use of some critical thinking. We know that there is a core of conservative thought that finds the idea of vaccinating young girls for a sexually transmitted disease somehow distasteful, and is therefore looking for an excuse to find fault with the vaccine. That would explain why ordinary illness and death are seen as a sure sign the vaccine is evil.

28 posted on 12/22/2011 6:48:04 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trisham

Why Texas? They have no required Gardasil vaccination program now, so there is nothing unique about Texas vs any other state in the union.

I doubt you meant that since the reports are remarkably low given the number of vaccinations given, it might change the minds of some of those who opposed the Gardasil vaccine.


29 posted on 12/22/2011 6:49:48 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun

Oops, I think you addressed this to the wrong person (since I did not mention Tylenol). But thanks for the birth control advice! ;-)


30 posted on 12/22/2011 6:53:23 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: indylindy
Many are getting POTs Syndrome. It ruins the lives of the girls.

*gasp*

That's awful. My best friend, a very hard-working lady who doesn't like to be down, has POTS. It's always present to some degree, compounds basic physical issues into extended, more debilitating illnesses, and affects her life DAILY. She has to ration her energy expenditures because she can overdue it and put herself out of commission for hours or days. I had already determined that none of my kids will ever get this nasty vaccine; now I have another good reason.

I am so sick of the federal government. It has become an evil, self-serving and often utterly ridiculous monster that destroys much of anything good in its path.

31 posted on 12/22/2011 6:56:25 AM PST by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wbill
What's not reported is that Gardasil doesn't even prevent *all* strains of HPV.

So, approximately, best case is that the 4 (I think) strains that are protected against will die out, and the ones left over will fill the gap. The inoculation, ultimately, will accomplish nothing.

IMHO, 26 deaths (assuming that the article is correct) is an awful lot, for a "cure" to a disease that's wholly preventable.


you have absolutely no knowledge of which you speak.
how many strains of HPV are there?
how many strains of HPV cause cancer?
how many do not?

32 posted on 12/22/2011 7:04:05 AM PST by wafflehouse (RE-ELECT NO ONE !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: wbill
What's not reported is that Gardasil doesn't even prevent "all" strains of HPV

Gardasil-Wikipedia:

Gardasil (Merck & Co.), also known as Gardisil or Silgard,[1][2] is a vaccine for use in the prevention of certain types of human papillomavirus (HPV),[3] specifically HPV types 6, 11, 16 and 18.[4][5] HPV types 16 and 18 cause an estimated 70% of cervical cancers,[6][7] and are responsible for most HPV-induced anal,[8] vulvar, vaginal,[9] and penile cancer cases. HPV types 6 and 11 cause an estimated 90% of genital warts cases.

The OFFICIAL Gardasil Web Site:

GARDASIL may not fully protect everyone, nor will it protect against diseases caused by other HPV types or against diseases not caused by HPV. GARDASIL does not prevent all types of cervical cancer, so it’s important for women to continue routine cervical cancer screenings. GARDASIL does not treat cancer or genital warts. GARDASIL is given as 3 injections over 6 months.

When Wikipedia AND the official web site for the drug both clearly state that it doesn't prevent all strains of the HPV, I think it's pretty clear that it is "reported". IN fact, if you search on the question "Does Gardasil prevent all strains of HPV", you will get 38000 results, all telling you the answer is no.

I've never seen any pro-Gardasil argument that suggested otherwise.

Meanwhile, most of the HPV strains do not cause cancer, so it wouldn't matter that they would "fill the gap". Nor, since the different strains do not compete with each other, is there a "gap" to be filled when one strain is prevented.

for a "cure" to a disease that's wholly preventable.

That is the uninformed bias that leads to a lot of false claims against Gardasil -- the idea that women who get HPV do so because they engage in improper sexual activity, and they could easily prevent it simply by being moral.

Fact is, HPV is ubiquitous in the population. Even if you adhere to a strict monogamous post-marriage sex regime, you could get HPV from your spouse. You could also get it from rape. And like it or not, a lot of people do have more than one sex partner in their lives.

I completely agree that a woman should evaluate her own risk/reward. A woman who knows her husband is clean and doesn't expect to have an affair could well decide the risk is too great.

But a lot of women don't want to chance getting HPV, and they do seem to want to have sex, and not necessarily with men who they can first take to the doctor to have them checked for HPV. And since we aren't talking about forcing women to get the vaccine, the argument seems to be that you don't want the CDC to approve the drug since women should just refrain from sex, or something like that.

Frankly, I'm not sure exactly what your argument was.

33 posted on 12/22/2011 7:04:34 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; Sudetenland
My main concern about the vaccine is not its supposed safety issues. It's that the vaccine only protects against 4 of the over 100 HPV strains out there, and people receiving it might get a false sense of security because of that.

That's a good point.

Like anything else, a vaccine is a risk. You need to sit down and do a cost benefit analysis for each one. If there were to be a new smallpox epidemic raging, and a vaccine is offered, yeah it's probably a good idea to take the risk.

But when you start talking about diseases where the risk is minimal (chicken pox) or easily prevented by behavior (HPV), or like you said where the vaccine doesn't cover a good number of strains, the risks of the vaccine itself start looking pretty high in comparison.

34 posted on 12/22/2011 7:08:38 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

A dear friend of mine just took her daughter in for a visit with her regular pediatrician—just the routine check-up for an 11-year-old. The doctor pushed the vaccine, and my friend declined. The doctor became upset and started to berate her about her “unfounded” fears, and this was all in front of her daughter. She said that when she politely, yet firmly told him “we have discussed this and have decided this is not a vaccine we will get”, he acted as if this was some sort of personal affront to him. He was extremely defensive and patronizing, when in the past he had been very respectful and attentive.

She told the doctor that it was inappropriate to have this conversation at that time, but he would not stop. She said he grew increasingly hostile until she finally told him that the converstation was OVER, and she walked out. She is switching doctors, and she will NOT be getting that vaccine for ANY of her three daughters.

I just emailed her this article. Thank you.


35 posted on 12/22/2011 7:08:51 AM PST by Shelayne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wbill
So, approximately, best case is that the 4 (I think) strains that are protected against will die out, and the ones left over will fill the gap. The inoculation, ultimately, will accomplish nothing.

IMHO, 26 deaths (assuming that the article is correct) is an awful lot, for a "cure" to a disease that's wholly preventable.

Actually, none of the other 100+ strains progress to cancer as quickly as HPV16 and 18. So, even though the vaccine might not prevent other HPV infections, since they take longer to progress, that means there is a higher chance they will be caught early enough that the treatment won't seriously damage a woman's organs and impair her fertility.

I don't know why you think that HPV is 100% preventable. Even if you were a virgin at the time of marriage, and you are completely faithful within marriage, you have no control over your spouse and no real knowledge of what your spouse did before you got married. So, yes, everyone is at risk. Babies can acquire HPV infection from their mothers at the time of birth. Thus, even innocent little babies are at risk.

36 posted on 12/22/2011 7:09:05 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun
Gardasil only “protects” against four strains of HPV, which means that those who receive the shot must still get screened for the disease. Four strains out of how many? There is a much easier, cheaper, and safer way to prevent HPV and it works 100% of the time. Since you referenced Tylenol so will I. The method is called the Tylenol method. If you hold a Tylenol between your knees you won't get HPV.

Infection with cutaneous HPVs is ubiquitous

do you know what 'ubiquitous' means?
it means your 'tylenol' method will also only protect against *some* infections. does that mean your method is also as 'useless' as the vaccine?
how many strains of HPV are there?
how many strains cause cancer?

i am not advocating a vaccine that may not have been adequately and thoroughly tested, but you people have no idea how this works from a basic level.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC112445/?tool=pmcentrez
37 posted on 12/22/2011 7:13:14 AM PST by wafflehouse (RE-ELECT NO ONE !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: webstersII
“One healthy 14-year-old girl suffered more than 150 seizures – during which she stopped breathing for up to 40 seconds - following her third Gardasil shot. Another vaccinated 15-year-old suddenly became paralyzed from the waist down the day after receiving her second dose of Gardasil and had to be hospitalized for two months.”

So you are saying that these specific events are just coincidence? That these type of things happen all along in a small percentage of random people?

Surely you realize that’s ridiculous.

That is absolutely what I am saying. In a large population, adverse events happen at a low frequency all the time. There is no reason to think that these low frequency events are happening any more frequently in Gardasil vaccinated patients than in the general population.

I suggest reading the post #28 by CharlesWayneCT. He did an excellent job of explaining the statistical underpinnings of my position.

38 posted on 12/22/2011 7:14:37 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun

It protects against two strains of HPV that account for 70% of all cancer from HPV, and it protects against two strains of HPV that account for 90% of all genital warts.

So, if you vaccinated the entire population of women (150 million), and if you believe that the unverified VAERS reports accurately reflect REAL side effects specifically caused by the shots, you would expect 382 women to die, another 220,000 to have serious side effects.

Now, HPV causes 70% of all cervical cancer. Gardasil prevents 70% of those, or about 49% of all cervical cancer. 3800 women die in the U.S. from cervical cancer each year, so if we vaccinated every woman, we could expect to save 1,900 lives a year, at a cost of 382 one-time deaths from the vaccine.

HPV-caused Genital Warts infect about 1% of the sexually active population, let’s say 100 million of our 150 million women are sexually active. That would give us 1 million cases of genital warts, of which Gardasil would prevent 900,000, at a cost of 220,000 serious side effects.

As to “100% of the time” protection, yes, if you are a Nun in a monestery, and completely protected from any chance of a man ever raping you, then you are 100% protected. If you are married, your husband might cheat on you, get infected, and infect you. That might be a low risk. If you aren’t married yet, your future husband might get infected, although I guess you could get your husband tested before deciding to marry.

So yes, if you don’t want to risk the vaccine, you can refrain from sex, or be very careful about it. That is a choice for a woman to make, and it’s good that there is a vaccine to give them that choice. You aren’t arguing that this is a reason to take the vaccine off the market, are you?


39 posted on 12/22/2011 7:18:33 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
Not only that, but it doesn’t even inoculate. Even if you had 80 percent of the people getting the ‘vaccine’, it won’t bring out herd immunity.

HPV - doesn’t work that way, sadly. It’s not like MMR or DPT, where once you get above a certain percentage, you start seeing the effects of herd immunity.

Actually, herd immunity applies here, too. Herd immunity means that the chain of infection is broken, so that even if a person is exposed to the disease, they cannot transmit it to another person. This graphic illustrates the principle. The means of disease transmission does not affect the process; the pertinent factor is that the disease is passed from person to person. Herd immunity does not work, for example, with tetanus.

40 posted on 12/22/2011 7:22:48 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

What information are you using to determine that HPV “doesn’t work that way”? I searched around for herd immunity information regarding HPV, and can find no indication that herd immunity wouldn’t be a factor with HPV.


41 posted on 12/22/2011 7:25:08 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: agrace

If people choose to give their kid these shots, fine it is their call.

But this vaccine should not be forced on people.


42 posted on 12/22/2011 7:28:21 AM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
I found this article, although I can't vouch for it at all, I have no idea if the author has good information, or if her study sources are reliable, but it's the best I could do quickly.

Gardasil Vaccination:

As HPV is infectious, there is potential for protection of unvaccinated individuals and herd immunity is a prospect with HPV. Various papers have been published modelling the impact that HPV vaccination could have at a population level.(3-8) Newall et al critiqued papers published on the impact of HPV vaccination and emphasised the importance of measuring the effect of herd immunity.(6) The impact of herd immunity was modelled by demonstrating the effects of vaccinating different percentages of females only or females and males.(5,7) Taira et al demonstrated that the effects of herd immunity could considerably influence lifetime cervical cancer incidence.(8) These results are explained by Garnett, who states that herd immunity, and hence vaccine effectiveness, can be influenced by whether both males and females are vaccinated; the percentage of individuals vaccinated; at what point in one’s sexual life they are vaccinated; the availability of screening for cervical cancer in the population; and distributions of infection.(3) While the model of herd immunity for HPV is a complicated one, it does exist.

3. Garnett GP. Role of herd immunity in determining the effect of vaccines against sexually transmitted disease. J Infect Dis 2005; 191 Suppl 1:S97-106.
4. Hughes JP, Garnett GP, Koutsky L. The theoretical population-level impact of a prophylactic human papilloma virus vaccine. Epidemiology 2002; 13:631-9.
5. Kulasingam S, Connelly L, Conway E, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of adding a human papillomavirus vaccine to the Australian National Cervical Cancer Screening Program. Sex Health 2007; 4:165-75.
6. Newall AT, Beutels P, Wood JG, Edmunds WJ, MacIntyre CR. Cost-effectiveness analyses of human papillomavirus vaccination. Lancet Infect Dis 2007; 7:289-96.
7. Regan DG, Philp DJ, Hocking JS, Law MG. Modelling the population-level impact of vaccination on the transmission of human
papillomavirus type 16 in Australia. Sex Health 2007; 4:147-63.
8. Taira AV, Neukermans CP, Sanders GD. Evaluating human papillomavirus vaccination programs. Emerg Infect Dis 2004; 10:1915-23.

As I said, I can't find any medical reports that say HPV won't be effected by "herd immunity".
43 posted on 12/22/2011 7:29:33 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

It’s not a communicable disease for one, Charles.

And, unlike tetanus, a small segment of the population is responsible for the vast majority of the infections. Herd immunity relies on certain assumptions, one of which that there exist no significant variances in disease vectors.


44 posted on 12/22/2011 7:29:59 AM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

I didn’t say that. What I did say is that if you were to inoculate 80 percent of the population, you will not get the same effect of herd immunity as you do with DPT or MMR. Which your study confirms.

Inoculations have a threshold. This is why it’s these six, Diptheria, Pertussis, Tetanus, Measles, Mumps and Rubella all exhibit this characteristic. HPV does not reach the same threshold as the others. So even under ideal conditions, the shot isn’t an effective vaccine.


45 posted on 12/22/2011 7:33:18 AM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Hmm. You sound like either you are a statistician, or you are experienced with clinical research.

Anyway, I appreciate your statistical insights into the discussion. I must approach the discussion from the point of view of a basic researcher; I’m more familiar with the biology of the subject and actually helped with an HPV study. Since my statistical background mainly comes from having shared an office with a statistician, I’m familiar with the terminology but not necessarily the methodology.


46 posted on 12/22/2011 7:35:52 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

That’s because Tetanus isn’t a communicable disease. Neither is HPV. The difference between the two is that there are substantial variances in disease vectors that are dependent on human behaviour. This is why even if you inoculated 80 percent of people, the disease would still be endemic.


47 posted on 12/22/2011 7:36:14 AM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: wbill

What’s not reported is that Gardasil doesn’t even prevent *all* strains of HPV.

<><><><

That is simply not the case at all. It has been widely reported that it does not protect against all strains, but that those that are protected account for about 70 percent of the cases of cervical cancer.


48 posted on 12/22/2011 7:39:53 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
It’s not a communicable disease for one, Charles.

Um... HPV is certainly communicable. You can't get it by stepping on a rusty nail or eating tainted food; you get it from another person.

49 posted on 12/22/2011 7:39:52 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

“So, if you vaccinated the entire population of women (150 million), and if you believe that the unverified VAERS reports accurately reflect REAL side effects specifically caused by the shots, you would expect 382 women to die, another 220,000 to have serious side effects.”

Which is why it’s a good thing that Gardasil is untested on people. We are only just now catching the side effects of Gardasil.

“Now, HPV causes 70% of all cervical cancer. Gardasil prevents 70% of those, or about 49% of all cervical cancer. 3800 women die in the U.S. from cervical cancer each year, so if we vaccinated every woman, we could expect to save 1,900 lives a year, at a cost of 382 one-time deaths from the vaccine.”

If you vaccinated 80 percent of the population you’d see no appreciable decline in cervical cancer rates. So you’d see 350 women die and zero saved.

You’re not going to get 100 percent, Charles, not without making it mandatory. And you’re not going to be able to make the vaccine mandatory, when it’s not a communicable disease.

“As to “100% of the time” protection, yes, if you are a Nun in a monestery, and completely protected from any chance of a man ever raping you, then you are 100% protected.”

Which is why we need to make people have the shot, just so people can be sure that they are protected without having to care about whom they are having sex with.

“So yes, if you don’t want to risk the vaccine, you can refrain from sex, or be very careful about it. That is a choice for a woman to make,”

So the men don’t have any role in trasmission? Why then are we seeing the push to vaccinate men? If it’s not a man’s decision, then we should not be vaccinating them, especially given the negative side effects.


50 posted on 12/22/2011 7:42:50 AM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-163 next last

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