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 previous 1-5051-100101-150151-163 next last
To: BenKenobi
You are not exposed to HPV unless you make a conscious decision to have sex with someone who is already infected.

Many people out there are unaware that they are infected and therefore carriers of the virus who can transmit it to someone else. Some who know or think they have such a disease will dismiss it as trivial "as long as it's non-fatal" i.e. as long as it isn't HIV/AIDS, it's nothing to worry about, be tested for, or disclose to another person.

101 posted on 12/22/2011 5:11:16 PM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: so_real

Or whether you believe multiple researchers in multiple studies in many different parts of the world - along with the scientific method. http://www.hu.ufsc.br/projeto_hpv/A%20summary%20of%20the%20post-licensure%20surveillance%20initiatives%20for%20GARDASILSILGARD.pdf (If not, what are you going to do if you get appendicitis? Or diabetes and need the insulin that’s made the same way as Gardasil?)

Anecdotes are not facts. It’s a tragedy when anyone dies, but there is not always someone or some thing to blame.

I’ve been following the HPV vaccines since the early days of the trials. I’ve published rebuttals over and over here on FR and on my blog http://wingright.org/tag/gardasil/


102 posted on 12/22/2011 5:12:08 PM PST by hocndoc (WingRight.org: Have mustard seed, not afraid to use it. Cut spending, now,now,now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

What about all the blood clots? It’s not a bunch of random symptoms.

As for ‘serious complications’, they are several orders of magnitudes more common than those who have died after having a gardasil shot.

If it were any other treatment, it would have already been shut down and investigated. Instead, we have people defending treatment which is demonstrating problems.

If the health of healthy patients is the primary concern, then gardasil needs to be pulled, investigated and properly tested. Prior to having 12 million people injected with.

We also don’t know the long term complications associated either.


103 posted on 12/22/2011 5:14:17 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: thecodont

“Many people out there are unaware that they are infected and therefore carriers of the virus who can transmit it to someone else.”

Which is different from all the other 6 diseases I mentioned. Which is the point. It’s not a communicable disease, because it’s very easy to protect yourself from contracting it.

That you can’t infect someone by incidental contact tells us that there is a big functional difference in the virus from other diseases. It also makes it a poor candidate for vaccinations.


104 posted on 12/22/2011 5:18:55 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc

Good post. Parents have their heads stuck in the sand...take a look at this thread;

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2824047/posts?page=4


105 posted on 12/22/2011 5:24:53 PM PST by potlatch (*snip*~ Having the right to be angry does not give one the right to be cruel. ~*snip*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
I have to say this thread is an embarrassment of misinformation and ignorance.

Better it had never begun. Error far outweighs information.

Anyone seeking to make a decision or form an opinion, please disregard the preceeding 150 posts. Taken as a whole they are so bad they cannot be fixed.

That is all.

106 posted on 12/22/2011 5:50:28 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

The CDC mentions them specifically, and claims that those who suffered from blood clots were already in risk groups for blood clots. I presume that means that injecting them with a needle would be a higher risk for generating a clot. I don’t think that would be a Gardasil thing, but just a needle thing.


107 posted on 12/22/2011 6:13:43 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Mears

bfl


108 posted on 12/22/2011 6:17:09 PM PST by Mears (Alcohol. Tobacco. Firearms. What's not to like?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

You seriously do not understand what you are copying and pasting.

You might read up on “biological plausibility.” http://www.debunkosaurus.com/debunkosaurus/index.php/Biological_plausibility

First, I believe that you mean that HPV as an STD is not communicable by “casual contact.” It is, however, a contagious group of viruses and spread by contact. Therefore, communicable.

Further, it is not spread by “a small number.” Over 20 million in the US are infected, 6.2 million new cases each year.
http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/monitoring-rpt.htm

There was not a “lack of research.” (For one thing, there’s 20 years information on insulin manufactured the same way.) A “Four year follow up” had been published in 2006 http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c3493.full , we now have over 10 years’ follow up.

All pap smears are done to look for changes due to HPV. By corollary, virtually all abnormal pap smears are due to HPV. Imagine a cut in abnormal paps and repeat paps, with the worry and risk from ablation. Australia is already seeing this, after only 3 years of routine vaccination:

Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Nov 24. [Epub ahead of print]
Cervical cancer in the human papillomavirus vaccination era.
Tay SK.
Source

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Republic of Singapore.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW:

To evaluate the potential changes in the epidemiology of cervical cancer based on recently emerged information from mass vaccination programs beyond clinical trials.
RECENT FINDINGS:

Limited sensitivity and unequal access to screening have resulted in an imbalance in distribution of the burden of cervical cancer between developed and developing countries, between metropolitan and rural areas in developed countries, and among women from different ethnic groups. In screened populations, there is a relative increase in incidence of cervical cancer in young and elderly women, and an increased proportion of adenocarcinoma. A high coverage of the target population has been achieved in human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programs in many countries. After 3 years of mass vaccination of adolescent girls, surveillance data in Australia confirmed a significant reduction in high-grade abnormalities for girls aged 18 years and below.


109 posted on 12/22/2011 6:48:37 PM PST by hocndoc (WingRight.org: Have mustard seed, not afraid to use it. Cut spending, now,now,now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

26 have not died due to the shot. 26 have died after having the vaccine, but there’s no plausible reason to believe that the vaccine is the cause of the deaths.

Did you hear the recent report from Australia?
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Nov 24. [Epub ahead of print]
Cervical cancer in the human papillomavirus vaccination era.
Tay SK.
Source

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Republic of Singapore.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW:

To evaluate the potential changes in the epidemiology of cervical cancer based on recently emerged information from mass vaccination programs beyond clinical trials.
RECENT FINDINGS:

Limited sensitivity and unequal access to screening have resulted in an imbalance in distribution of the burden of cervical cancer between developed and developing countries, between metropolitan and rural areas in developed countries, and among women from different ethnic groups. In screened populations, there is a relative increase in incidence of cervical cancer in young and elderly women, and an increased proportion of adenocarcinoma. A high coverage of the target population has been achieved in human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programs in many countries. After 3 years of mass vaccination of adolescent girls, surveillance data in Australia confirmed a significant reduction in high-grade abnormalities for girls aged 18 years and below.


110 posted on 12/22/2011 6:55:25 PM PST by hocndoc (WingRight.org: Have mustard seed, not afraid to use it. Cut spending, now,now,now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

So the CDC admits then that there is a consistent pattern of complications associated with the gardasil shots. Thank you. That’s all I needed to know.

There is a problem, and it would be nice if the authorities were to actually investigate rather then sweep it under the rug.


111 posted on 12/22/2011 7:14:06 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc

“You seriously do not understand what you are copying and pasting.”

Quite the opposite. You don’t have a clue what I’m talking about here.

So, I’ll repeat myself.

There is a distinction between diseases which are required vaccinations and between HPV. HPV is not a communicable disease, like fr’nstance measles, because it is not spread in the same fashion.

End stop.

This distinction is why the two diseases are treated differently in public policy. They require different approaches from a public health standpoint in order to prevent their spread. What is effective for one, is not as effective for the other.

This isn’t rocket science.

“It is, however, a contagious group of viruses and spread by contact. Therefore, communicable.”

That’s not the definition. A communicable disease is one that is spread through casual contact. HPV is not, ergo it is not a communicable disease.

“Further, it is not spread by “a small number.” Over 20 million in the US are infected, 6.2 million new cases each year.”

You haven’t understood what I’m saying at all. I’ll rephrase, and hopefully you will get it.

Inoculation works best for diseases that have little variance across the population as a whole. This isn’t true for HPV, as there are very disproportionate rates of both infection and transmission.

This means that any vaccination effort can be undermined by a small minority of those who are not inoculated, and it can be easily reintroduced into the community.

What this means is that if you do get 80 percent participation, that 20 percent is still going to effectively keep HPV going. This is problematic because it makes vaccination useless. The risk of contracting HPV won’t change significantly even with this high of a participation rate.

“There was not a ‘lack of research.’ “

Again, I did not say there was a lack of research. I said there was a lack of testing. Gardasil has not been properly tested before being used, because it cannot be used on lab rats. Rather then test, it has simply been released into the population, when the side effects were unknown. In essence the drug is being tested now and problems are arising.

“insulin manufactured the same way.”

For sure, but this is not insulin. Different drugs have different interactions, and they need to be properly tested before being injected into people. This due diligence with Gardasil was not done.

“we now have over 10 years’ follow up.”

At the cost and risk to the life and health of 12 million women and girls. This is incredibly scandalous.

“Imagine a cut in abnormal paps and repeat paps”

Imagine your little girl dying of a blood clot that could have been prevented had she not gotten a gardasil shot.

3 years testing is grossly inadequate.


112 posted on 12/22/2011 7:30:50 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc

“26 have not died due to the shot. 26 have died after having the vaccine, but there’s no plausible reason to believe that the vaccine is the cause of the deaths.”

Try 38. The count keeps rising.

Gardasil was not properly tested beforehand, you have absolutely no basis to make the claim.

The facts as they stand is that a statistically significant number of young women are suffering from fatal blood clots after getting the gardasil shot.

Until these are properly investigated, we can’t be so flippant as to dismiss them as you have done here.


113 posted on 12/22/2011 7:35:10 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc

Anecdotes are not facts. It’s a tragedy when anyone dies, but there is not always someone or some thing to blame.

Anecdotal evidence ... amazing stuff. We didn't use to say things like "overwhelming anecdotal evidence". We used to say "where there's smoke, there's fire". Pick any Gardasil related news article on the Internet at random (doing so I came across this one Vaccine Watch: Gardasil Side-Effects?). After reading the article, open the comments that follow it and discover what genuine first hand experience with the drug has brought upon folks just like us. Horror stories. Pick another article at random and repeat. I understand that you trust the studies. That's reasonable. I trust first hand experience more. In the end, may we both avoid the fire successfully.


114 posted on 12/22/2011 8:15:17 PM 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 102 | View Replies]

To: indylindy
I totally agree with you. This particular vaccine is available if an adult who has all the information about potential side effects on hand and decide they want the vaccine, to get the vaccine.

One little problem with that, is that the vaccine needs to be given to virgins to be effective. Otherwise, the recipient may already be infected. That's why the vaccine is recommended for preteens.

115 posted on 12/22/2011 8:34:40 PM 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 69 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
Not what I’m saying at all. All I am saying is that it should not be a required vaccination, and certainly not for children. And even more certainly not for young boys.

If an adult woman wants to go in and get vaccinated for it and pay for it herself, then by all means. Otherwise, it’s a bad deal.

The whole point of giving the HPV vaccine to young preteens is to give them an immunity before they are ever exposed. Waiting until after exposure has already occurred makes the vaccine useless!

It’s the policy that has been followed wrt vaccinations. If it’s non-communicable, then it is voluntary and reserved for adults.

There you go again, talking about HPV as if it weren't communicable. Since it is impossible to be infected by any strain of HPV other than through contact with another person, I have no idea why you think it is non-communicable. FYI, those strains of HPV that are transmitted sexually are also transmitted by non-sexual contact. They just show a preference for a certain method of transmission.

116 posted on 12/22/2011 8:47:44 PM 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 73 | View Replies]

To: so_real
Now, how many children would you find it acceptable to kill or maim to prevent a cancer the American Cancer Society has stated is one of these most treatable and has been in a steady decline of nearly 4% per year since 1992 -- long before the introduction of any vaccinations?

The decrease in incidence of cervical cancer results from better screening methods, and does not reflect any decrease in the number of HPV cases. According to this very informative website, between 250,000 and 1 million cases of cervical dysplasia are diagnosed in the US per year. Dysplasia is a pre-cancerous condition caused by HPV which, left untreated, has a high chance of developing into full-blown cancer.

We aren't just talking about preventing cancer deaths, we're talking about preventing dysplasias which can have serious health consequences. Treatment for dysplasia can be very effective for preventing cancer; unfortunately, it can also be quite effective for preventing future childbirth. Cervical dysplasia may be treated by LEEP, in which part of the cervix is removed. Sometimes, one LEEP procedure doesn't eliminate the virus, and the LEEP must be repeated. Each LEEP procedure damages the cervix, increasing the patient's risk of miscarriage should she get pregnant. Sometimes, the virus penetrates so deeply into the tissue that the only effective treatment is a hysterectomy, leaving the woman sterile. A gynecologist I worked with told me of having to do a hysterectomy on a 19 year old girl who had become infected at age 16, and remained infected after several LEEP treatments.

If just 50% of HPV infections can be prevented with the vaccine, that represents a HUGE savings in terms of treatment costs and overall health benefits.

117 posted on 12/22/2011 9:22:24 PM 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 77 | View Replies]

To: webstersII
You and the other poster need to sell some of that stuff you are smoking if you think there is no cause and effect from healthy young women taking a vaccination and having those type of side effects.

Correlation is not causation.

If there is a 1% chance of a particular medical event occurring each week, and 1000 patients receive a vaccine this week, 10 of them will go on to experience that medical event during this same week. This does not mean that the event was caused by the vaccine. In this example, ten patients experienced the event last week, before they received the vaccine. This does not mean that the event was precipitated through anticipation of receiving the vaccine.

118 posted on 12/22/2011 9:46:59 PM 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 84 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

Actually, the ADDRESS the alleged pattern, and dismiss it. That’s not the same as “admitting a consistant pattern”, but if you want to believe that anyway, go right ahead.


119 posted on 12/22/2011 9:49:24 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: so_real
Proving a drug is dangerous is not profitable, so studies are few...

Oh, goodness. Then what do you suppose explains the billions of dollars that go into drug development, if not the safety and efficacy studies?

120 posted on 12/22/2011 9:54:42 PM 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 88 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
It’s not a communicable disease, because it’s very easy to protect yourself from contracting it.

Do you honestly think that it's easy to avoid contracting this highly communicable disease? I don't. It is simply unrealistic to expect every person to remain a virgin and to never touch another person--which is pretty much what would have to happen to prevent HPV transmission. I'm not sure that, even if the entire population could be convinced to remain virgins, there would be much of a long term benefit to humanity. We kind of need kids to survive...

121 posted on 12/22/2011 10:13:54 PM 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 104 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; BenKenobi
It is simply unrealistic to expect every person to remain a virgin and to never touch another person--which is pretty much what would have to happen to prevent HPV transmission.

No, all you'd need is to have virgins marrying other virgins. That way each marriage remains a closed system with no disease transmission but with reproduction and the furthering of the species.

122 posted on 12/22/2011 10:16:45 PM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Saying that “yes there is a pattern”, is acknowledging the existence of the pattern.


123 posted on 12/22/2011 10:53:49 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

“Do you honestly think that it’s easy to avoid contracting this highly communicable disease?”

Personally? Yes. I think it’s far easier to avoid a HPV infection than say the flu.

“I don’t.”

Well, then we differ on it.

“It is simply unrealistic to expect every person to remain a virgin and to never touch another person—which is pretty much what would have to happen to prevent HPV transmission.”

Again, you can’t contract HPV just from holding hands, etc.

Having sex with someone who tests clean is difficult? I can’t see why.

“I’m not sure that, even if the entire population could be convinced to remain virgins, there would be much of a long term benefit to humanity. We kind of need kids to survive.”

Complete nonsense. They can test and confirm HPV. Do so before you have sex. Problem solved.


124 posted on 12/22/2011 10:57:25 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Depending on politically motivated kickbacks, there’s plenty of explanations as to where that money goes, none of which has the slightest to do wtih testing.


125 posted on 12/22/2011 10:59:19 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Which is why the connection needs to be investigated, not dismissed. You eliminate Gardasil as the cause simply because you wish it to be so.


126 posted on 12/22/2011 11:00:54 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

“The whole point of giving the HPV vaccine to young preteens is to give them an immunity before they are ever exposed. Waiting until after exposure has already occurred makes the vaccine useless!”

You’re sadly misinformed. The vaccine does work just fine on those who have contracted HPV prior and received treatment.

“There you go again, talking about HPV as if it weren’t communicable.”

It’s not. That’s a fact.

“Since it is impossible to be infected by any strain of HPV other than through contact with another person, I have no idea why you think it is non-communicable.”

As I stated earlier, communicable diseases are things like the Flu, that you can contract through casual contact. You don’t seem to like that word ‘casual’ very much and keep omitting it. It’s crucial to the point.

“FYI, those strains of HPV that are transmitted sexually”

Uh, yeah. I think I already said that about 20 posts ago. Can you contract the flu sexually? No. That’s because it’s a communicable disease, and not sexually transmitted.


127 posted on 12/22/2011 11:07:20 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

“One little problem with that, is that the vaccine needs to be given to virgins to be effective.”

Absolute nonsense.

HPV vaccinations have been approved in Canada for any woman under 45. In the US it’s 26, according to the CDC.

There’s absolutely no medical reason why the vaccine must be given to children.


128 posted on 12/22/2011 11:14:35 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc


“Your assumption is wrong about the rate of completion of 3 shots.”

In that case, the number of people who have received the vaccine is substantially above 12 million.

In that case, the number of people with serious adverse reactions is substantially lower than 13 per 100,000.


129 posted on 12/23/2011 1:36:38 AM PST by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: thecodont
No, all you'd need is to have virgins marrying other virgins. That way each marriage remains a closed system with no disease transmission but with reproduction and the furthering of the species.

While it might be nice to imagine an ideal world where absolutely no one ever has sex outside of marriage, and each person only has sex with their spouse during their life, that just doesn't happen in the real world, nor is it likely to happen.

In the real world, the situation is that most people are not virgins when they marry, nor is there any way to know. Sometimes people get raped.

130 posted on 12/23/2011 5:00:01 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 122 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

No it does not need to be given to virgins. The vaccine only has short span it is effective. I don’t think they know for sure yet how long the vaccine will work.

Once it wears out, will the person still need to be a virgin to repeat the immunization?

Anyway, there is no valid reason to force this shot on kids.

MA female member of my family has POTs Syndrome. I would not take the chance that my child could be doomed to suffer this because of an unnecessary vaccine being forced on her.

I have no problem with anyone who decides they want the vaccine.


131 posted on 12/23/2011 5:12:12 AM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

You’re just playing word games, which may or may not work if you are trying to score debate points depending on how doltish the judges are, but make no sense if we are trying to discuss the facts.

The word “pattern” is not truly applicable to what we are discussing. “pattern” suggests a series of items arrayed in a predictable order. IN this case, we have “two” items — a vaccine and a subsequent blood clot. That’s not really a pattern.

Blood clots happens to be one of the things the opponents of Gardasil have often cited as proof that the vaccine was bad. The CDC therefore addressed that charge, to indicate that the people who reported blood clots tended to be people who had a propensity for blood clots and therefore would be expected to have a higher incidence of blood clots in response to getting a needle stuck in them.

From the CDC: “There have been some reports of blood clots in females after receiving Gardasil®. These clots have occurred in the heart, lungs, and legs. Most of these people had a risk of getting blood clots, such as taking oral contraceptives (the birth control pill), smoking, obesity, and other risk factors.”

They clearly acknowledge that people have reported blood clots. They also provide information that discounts a particular worry about blood clots with this particular vaccine. If you wish to read that statement as validating your fear of the vaccine, go right ahead — but it isn’t a “recognition of a pattern”.


132 posted on 12/23/2011 6:02:35 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
Personally? Yes. I think it’s far easier to avoid a HPV infection than say the flu.

Really?

I've never had the flu. I rarely ever even catch a cold. But I've had HPV. Hmm.

FYI, warts are caused by HPV. It seems like *everyone* gets HPV.

“It is simply unrealistic to expect every person to remain a virgin and to never touch another person—which is pretty much what would have to happen to prevent HPV transmission.”

Again, you can’t contract HPV just from holding hands, etc.

Are you so sure of that? There are over 100 strains of HPV, and they use a variety of transmission methods. Even the strains that cause genital warts and cancers can pass through non-sexual contact. They can infect people's mouths and throats; babies can get them from their mothers during birth.

You’re sadly misinformed. The vaccine does work just fine on those who have contracted HPV prior and received treatment.

You're so right, I'm horribly misinformed. Instead of reading sensationalist and factually questionable stories on the internet, I engaged in actual medical research using genuine PAP samples from real HPV infected women, collected by a real gynecologist.

The vaccines work just fine for strains someone hasn't yet been exposed to, whether or not they are a virgin. But once exposure to a specific strain occurs, it's doubtful that the vaccine will do anything about it. That's because the virus lives inside cells, where the immune system does not see it. In more advanced cases, the virus integrates itself into the DNA. For this reason, it is preferable to give the vaccine to virgins, since their likelihood of having already contracted a primarily genital strain is low.

Having sex with someone who tests clean is difficult? I can’t see why.

Um, how are you going to test that person? Until it causes lesions, you can't see HPV. Since the oncogenic kinds can live on any mucous tissue, can you check every single mucous tissue? Is it possible to test every square inch of skin for HPV (you might not see the warts)? What about inside the mouth or esophagus?

Last, stop applying your own personal definition to the word "communicable." By definition, "communicable" means that it is transmissible from person to person. There simply is no way to catch HPV except from another person. Non-communicable diseases are those caught from the environment--like tetanus, legionnaire's disease, or food poisoning--and cannot be spread person to person.

133 posted on 12/23/2011 7:36:14 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 127 | View Replies]

To: trisham

Nope, Perry will probably add boys to list next year since that vaccine has also been approved.


134 posted on 12/23/2011 7:38:11 AM PST by rintense (You do not advance conservatism by becoming more liberal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
“One little problem with that, is that the vaccine needs to be given to virgins to be effective.”

Absolute nonsense.

HPV vaccinations have been approved in Canada for any woman under 45. In the US it’s 26, according to the CDC.

There’s absolutely no medical reason why the vaccine must be given to children.

From the CDC's website:
Will sexually active females benefit from the vaccine?
Ideally females should get the vaccine before they become sexually active and exposed to HPV. Females who are sexually active may also benefit from the vaccine, but they may get less benefit from it. This is because they may have already gotten one or more of HPV types targeted by the vaccines. However, few sexually active young women are infected with all HPV types prevented by the vaccines, so most young women could still get protection by getting vaccinated.

Effectiveness of the HPV Vaccines
The vaccines target the HPV types that most commonly cause cervical cancer. One of the vaccines also protects against the HPV types that cause most genital warts. Both vaccines are highly effective in preventing specific HPV types and the most common health problems from HPV.

The vaccines are less effective in preventing HPV-related disease in young women who have already been exposed to one or more HPV types. That is because the vaccines can only prevent HPV before a person it is exposed to it. HPV vaccines do not treat existing HPV infections or HPV-associated diseases.

The CDC agrees: if you want to protect your daughter, vaccinate her while young. Oh, yeah, I forgot--you want to punish her for not waiting until marriage--or for marrying a man who didn't wait until marriage (even though he swore he was a virgin). It's not about her health at all, is it?

135 posted on 12/23/2011 7:51:57 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 128 | View Replies]

To: indylindy
No it does not need to be given to virgins. The vaccine only has short span it is effective. I don’t think they know for sure yet how long the vaccine will work.

Once it wears out, will the person still need to be a virgin to repeat the immunization?

So far, there is no evidence if or when the vaccine "wears out," so I wouldn't worry about that too much. According to current information on the CDC website:

How long does vaccine protection last?
Research suggests that vaccine protection is long-lasting. Current studies (with up to about six years of follow-up data) indicate that the vaccines are effective, with no evidence of decreasing immunity.

I already explained in other posts, and the CDC website explains, why it is preferable to vaccinate virgins. People who have already been exposed to a strain of HPV don't benefit from being vaccinated against it. The only way to maximize the possibility that they haven't been exposed is to vaccinate them while virgins, and that pretty much means pre-puberty.

136 posted on 12/23/2011 8:02:21 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 131 | View Replies]

Comment #137 Removed by Moderator

To: exDemMom

Oh, goodness. Then what do you suppose explains the billions of dollars that go into drug development, if not the safety and efficacy studies?

Those dollars go toward proving that a drug is safe and effective, obviously. Not too many dollars are spent by drug companies proving the opposite; you must see how that runs contrary to their profit motive. Which is why the FDA is supposed to act as our champion, using expert knowledge from the CDC and first hand experience reporting through VAERS. It's really very simple system but absolutely necessary where money is a corrupting influence. Does that help? Obviously you trust the drug company research and the safety statements made by government. But you disregard the outcry from those recipients with first hand experience of debilitating adverse reactions -- and the outcry of those who have watched a loved one die. Your three-legged stool is missing a leg and tips.


138 posted on 12/23/2011 10:09:36 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 120 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

“As in trials in younger women, a clinical trial of quadrivalent vaccine in women >26 years found the vaccine to be safe. This study also showed that the vaccine was effective in women without evidence of existing or past infection with HPV vaccine types.”

http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv-vaccine-young-women.htm

You are grossly misinformed. The vaccine is effective in women over 26, but is yet to be approved for this use in the US. It has been approved in Canada for use in women up to the age of 45.

“Oh, yeah, I forgot—you want to punish her for not waiting until marriage”

Not at all. You are wrong, and my motivation is to educate, so that you are properly informed.

Gardasil is effective for women up to 45, irrespective as to whether they have already contracted HPV previously.


139 posted on 12/23/2011 10:22:54 AM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

“I already explained in other posts”

And you are misinformed. Please stop spreading false information.


140 posted on 12/23/2011 10:24:32 AM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

“Really?”

Absolutely. I can’t speak for other people, but personally, HPV is a complete non-issue for me.

“I’ve never had the flu. I rarely ever even catch a cold. But I’ve had HPV.”

Perhaps that’s because you engage in activities in which you are likely to contract HPV.

“FYI, warts are caused by HPV. It seems like *everyone* gets HPV.”

You are, again, grossly misinformed. No, ‘everyone’ does not contract HPV. If that were so, then your argument that they have to be ‘virgins’ to be inoculated does not work.

You are assuming that sexual contact is required in order to contract HPV, and yet at the same time you are saying that this is not the case?

So which is it?

“Are you so sure of that?”

Yes.

“There are over 100 strains of HPV, and they use a variety of transmission methods.”

Generally they require sexual intercourse or direct contact with the afflicted area. Neither of which would qualify as casual contact.

“babies can get them from their mothers during birth.”

Again, this isn’t casual contact. Many STDs can be transmitted to the child in the womb.

“You’re so right, I’m horribly misinformed.”

Yes, on this matter, you are misinformed.

“Instead of reading sensationalist and factually questionable stories on the internet”

You find the CDC citations and studies to be ‘factually questionable’ and ‘sensationalist’?

I’m not sure what I’ve cited that’s qualified as either. You might disagree with their assessment, but that’s not sensationalist by any means.

“I engaged in actual medical research using genuine PAP samples from real HPV infected women, collected by a real gynecologist.”

Yet you seem to be willing to ignore information contrary to your beliefs. That doesn’t suggest to me that you are following any empirical basis in your assessment of HPV.

“That’s because the virus lives inside cells, where the immune system does not see it.”

And when the flare ups return, the vaccine gives the cells the tools they need to combat them.

“For this reason, it is preferable”

Again, the vaccine has been shownt to be both effective and safe in older women who have already been exposed to HPV. Ergo, I must conclude that it is unnecessary to vaccinate children.

It may be preferable to some, but that is entirely subjective, and should be left up to the individual, and not the health authorities to make this decision.

“Um, how are you going to test that person?”

The same way they test for HIV, etc. They go in, they get checked out, we go from there.

“Last, stop applying your own personal definition to the word ‘communicable.’ “

There’s a difference between communicable diseases and sexually transmitted diseases. They tend to be treated differently when it comes to immunization. They do not mean the same thing. HPV is firmly in the second category, Influenza, Dipthteria, Pertussis, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, are all in the other category.

This is significant in this particular case because we are arguing over how the shots ought to be administered. I see no justification for a mandatory shot, and I believe that it is entirely appropriate to let young women choose, as an adult, to get them done. That way they can make their own decision, properly informed of the risks associated.

I think we owe it to young women to give them that choice.


141 posted on 12/23/2011 10:42:32 AM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Using your logic, Vioxx should never have been taken off the shelf. Using your logic, it's okay that a small segment of the population has a higher incidence of heart attack and stroke as long as another small segment of the population finds arthritis relief. Forgive me, but I find the thought of trading some girls long term health for the short term post-treatment reproductive capabilities of another small group of girls to be positively monstrous. I know you mean well and your heart is in the right place. The lenses through which you view the world show a more Utopian place than mine -- through yours Merck is not profit driven, government is not subject to corrupting influence, and all these parents are just reporting unfortunate and unrelated coincidence. We've already been down this road with Vioxx and it just is not true (click). People die and are debilitated even as drug studies report safety and efficacy and government organizations are derelict in their duties. What makes the Gardasil situation atrocious is visiting this debilitation on unsuspecting, innocent, and trusting children.


142 posted on 12/23/2011 11:22:57 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 117 | View Replies]

To: so_real
Those dollars go toward proving that a drug is safe and effective, obviously. Not too many dollars are spent by drug companies proving the opposite; you must see how that runs contrary to their profit motive. Which is why the FDA is supposed to act as our champion, using expert knowledge from the CDC and first hand experience reporting through VAERS. It's really very simple system but absolutely necessary where money is a corrupting influence. Does that help? Obviously you trust the drug company research and the safety statements made by government. But you disregard the outcry from those recipients with first hand experience of debilitating adverse reactions -- and the outcry of those who have watched a loved one die. Your three-legged stool is missing a leg and tips.

Oy, oy, oy. Your first two sentences make my head spin. How does a company show that a drug is safe? By showing that it is not dangerous. It is impossible to separate the two, since they are opposites.

Your understanding of the scientific method is obviously lacking. Science is based on evidence, established carefully through experiments and statistical analysis. The VAERS is a first alert system: by documenting adverse events that occur after vaccination, researchers are alerted that further analysis is needed, and what that further analysis should be.

Just because an event occurred after a vaccination does not mean that it was caused by the vaccine. If a girl receives a vaccine, and later that day, she is run over by a drunk driver running a red light, was that accident caused by the vaccine?

Correlation is not causation. I don't know why that is so hard to understand.

"Trust" (of the government, drug companies, or whatever) isn't a consideration. Either the scientific method was correctly applied, or it wasn't, and I can tell which is the case by reading the research reports.

143 posted on 12/23/2011 10:37:37 PM 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 138 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
And you are misinformed. Please stop spreading false information.

My information comes from doing research in the field, both in the lab and through reading hundreds of original research articles and reviews on the subject, whereas yours comes from anecdotal stories you find on the internet. As long as people like you insist on spreading anecdotal stories and cherry-picked sentences gleaned from the CDC in support of falsehoods, I will attempt to counter them with the truth.

Absolutely. I can’t speak for other people, but personally, HPV is a complete non-issue for me.

How wonderful that you can be so certain of that. By that, I guess you mean that you are celibate and NEVER have contact of ANY sort with other people. If that's how you want to live, fine, but it's highly unrealistic to expect OTHER people to live that way.

Perhaps that’s because you engage in activities in which you are likely to contract HPV.

Yes, I do, as do most people. Have you ever had warts? Then you've also had HPV.

You are, again, grossly misinformed. No, ‘everyone’ does not contract HPV. If that were so, then your argument that they have to be ‘virgins’ to be inoculated does not work.

You are assuming that sexual contact is required in order to contract HPV, and yet at the same time you are saying that this is not the case?

So which is it?

I will attempt to explain, even though you do not appear to be able to grasp the finer details.

There are over 100 strains of HPV. Some infect epidermal tissue (e.g., exterior skin), causing warts. Some infect mucous membranes (such as the lining of the nose), causing dysplasias. Each HPV strain has a preferred tissue that it infects--but nothing prevents it from infecting similar tissues elsewhere in the body. Since they are all highly communicable, their route of transmission depends on where the infection is. Thus, warts on the fingers are readily spread by handshakes.

HPV-16 and HPV-18 (the two oncogenic viruses targeted by the vaccines) infect mucous membranes. While they *prefer* the genital tract, they can and do infect other mucous membranes. They have been implicated in oral, nasal, esophageal, bladder, and other cancers of mucous tissues. Their most likely route of transmission is sexual, but they are not limited to that route. Consider this scenario--you go to a family reunion, and your cousins greet you with pecks on the cheek. One of them has oral HPV-16, and when she kissed you, neither of you noticed that a tiny droplet of saliva from her mouth landed on your lips, which you licked shortly after. A year later, you notice a reddish lesion inside your cheek. You go have it checked by a doctor; tests are done, the result comes back that you have oral HPV-16. Your cousin's infection, meanwhile, cleared up without treatment. So, here you are, after patting yourself on the back for all these years for remaining a virgin, suddenly finding out you have HPV-16, and you have no idea how you acquired it and no way to find out.

And when the flare ups return, the vaccine gives the cells the tools they need to combat them.

No, it doesn't. The vaccine only enables the body to recognize and neutralize viral particles. It cannot teach the body to recognize infected cells that may not have viral proteins on their surface at all. As far as the immune system is concerned, those infected cells look like normal, healthy cells all the way up to the time death from cancer occurs.

There’s a difference between communicable diseases and sexually transmitted diseases.

Still trying to use your own personal definition for "communicable," I see. If you are trying to make the point that you don't think it is moral to vaccinate against sexually transmissible diseases, just come out and say it. You don't need to misuse words to make that point.

This is significant in this particular case because we are arguing over how the shots ought to be administered. I see no justification for a mandatory shot, and I believe that it is entirely appropriate to let young women choose, as an adult, to get them done. That way they can make their own decision, properly informed of the risks associated.

Parents make the decision to vaccinate their children without the children's knowledge or consent all the time. Unlike you, I don't have any moral objection to vaccinating a young child against a disease they may not be exposed to until their late teens or twenties, just because they don't understand what the vaccine is about. Chances are, they've been receiving vaccines their whole life that they didn't consent to.

144 posted on 12/24/2011 12:21:59 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 141 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

“My information comes from doing research in the field, both in the lab and through reading hundreds of original research articles and reviews on the subject”

Then why, when I actually checked out your source, I found that it did not say what you said it did. My research demonstrated, quite conclusively, that Gardasil works just fine in women up to 45. Even your own source, the CDC confirmed this, that while it was approved at present up to 27, it had been shown in several studies to be safe for older women too.

It is unnecessary to vaccinate children. You admitted that when you stated that it was personal preference to vaccinate them, but there is a difference between necessity and personal preference.

“whereas yours comes from anecdotal stories you find on the internet.”

My research comes from the only source of data that we possess on adverse reactions to the Gardasil shot. The VEARS database. I’ve compiled it for my own research, and for the benefit of others wishing for a more in-depth look into the problems associated with Gardasil.

It’s probably not a wise decision to assume that you can rely upon arguments from authority to try to steamroll inconvenient data.

“As long as people like you insist on spreading anecdotal stories and cherry-picked sentences gleaned from the CDC in support of falsehoods, I will attempt to counter them with the truth.”

VEARS is not ‘anecdotal stories’ nor is it ‘cherry picked’. It is, quite frankly, the best data that we have. VEARS indicates that there are serious problems with the shot, that were not caught prior to the rollout because the shot was not adequately tested beforehand.

The good thing is that the database is publicly available so that people can make an informed decision based on the actual risks, rather then rely upon ‘experts’ to make that decision for them.

“How wonderful that you can be so certain of that.”

I like my life, what can I say. :)

“By that, I guess you mean that you are celibate and NEVER have contact of ANY sort with other people.”

You might wish to consult a dictionary again as to what celibate means. I presume you mean chaste? No, I am most certainly not celibate, nor have I contracted, or been at risk to contract HPV.

“If that’s how you want to live, fine, but it’s highly unrealistic to expect OTHER people to live that way.”

You asked me why I, personally, was not concerned about contracting HPV. I responded saying, that I was not at risk to contract it because of how I choose to live my life.

I do not expect others to live as I do. However, if people do not wish to contract HPV and they wish to engage in activies that they may contract HPV, there are precautions (such as testing), that they can take beforehand. I believe I even said that this is what people should do. I think they should be free to get the HPV shot when they are old enough to make that decision for themselves. Adults can do that you know.

“Yes, I do, as do most people. Have you ever had warts? Then you’ve also had HPV.”

No, ma’am. I have not.

“Since they are all highly communicable”

I do not believe that word means what you think it means. What is the most likely way to contract HPV, ma’am? You’ve said it yourself. It is most likely to be contracted through sexual conduct, either through fluid exchange or direct contact with the lesions. This can be avoided rather easily.

“Consider this scenario—you go to a family reunion, and your cousins greet you with pecks on the cheek. One of them has oral HPV-16, and when she kissed you, neither of you noticed that a tiny droplet of saliva from her mouth landed on your lips, which you licked shortly after. A year later, you notice a reddish lesion inside your cheek. You go have it checked by a doctor; tests are done, the result comes back that you have oral HPV-16. Your cousin’s infection, meanwhile, cleared up without treatment. So, here you are, after patting yourself on the back for all these years for remaining a virgin, suddenly finding out you have HPV-16, and you have no idea how you acquired it and no way to find out.”

You should write fiction. I’ll call up Agatha Christie.

“It cannot teach the body to recognize infected cells that may not have viral proteins on their surface at all. As far as the immune system is concerned, those infected cells look like normal, healthy cells all the way up to the time death from cancer occurs.”

And what percentage of cells express these characteristics during flare ups? The vaccine, will teach the cells to recognise those that do.

“Still trying to use your own personal definition”

No, ma’am. That is the definition used in immunology. Communicable diseases are those that are transmitted through casual contact. Non-communicable diseases, include sexually transmitted diseases. The reason, is because communicable diseases require isolation for treatment, whereas non-communicable diseases do not.

Surely you can see this difference? Or perhaps you would insist that hospitals treat HPV infections through isolation? I’m not sure. Maybe the hot nurses can be a part of your next murder mystery, “and then there were two”. It’ll be a best seller.

“If you are trying to make the point that you don’t think it is moral to vaccinate against sexually transmissible diseases, just come out and say it. You don’t need to misuse words to make that point.”

Then feel free to quote me where I have said this. I have no problem with immunization for sexually transmitted diseases, provided it is voluntary, and undertaken on adults only, who choose to undergo the injection themselves.

I believe I’ve even stated this several times already. What, is my real position too difficult to argue against, so you have to make up a fantasy?

“Parents make the decision to vaccinate their children without the children’s knowledge or consent all the time.”

For which diseases? DPT and MMR. The only one which isn’t communicable is tetanus. This is the argument I already made a long time ago.

All of these diseases have similar characteristics. They readily demonstrate a high affinity for herd immunity. This is why these 6 were selected for the shots that are done. They are also fatal diseases that have significant mortality if left untreated.

Neither of these are true for HPV.

“Unlike you, I don’t have any moral objection to vaccinating a young child”

Good for you. I do, when there are young girls dying of the shot.


145 posted on 12/24/2011 12:56:06 AM PST by BenKenobi (You know, you really need to break free of that Catholic mindset.- metmom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Oy, oy, oy. Your first two sentences make my head spin.

It's a simple concept -- shame it makes your head spin. Review the circumstance leading up to and surrounding the Vioxx debacle. Perhaps it will clear your head and provide a new perspective for you. Too much time in a lab and not enough real world experience, perhaps. Do you even know what a "seeding study" is? You are fond of the phrase "correlation is not causation". And for that fondness you willfully discredit the available evidence of correlation. VAERs is meaningless to you. Commentary from parents is meaningless to you. Autopsies with cause of death listed as "unknown" is meaningless to you. I get it; I understand you clearly. I'm just not like you; I don't want to be. I prefer my stools have three legs or better. I won't take the Vioxx or Gardasil just because a study says its safe when convincing evidence to the contrary is available anecdotally. You do as you like and brag up your understanding of the scientific method the whole way if it makes you feel better. But your rights end with your veins, and you won't touch mine without a fight.


146 posted on 12/24/2011 1:05:07 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 143 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

http://www.redstate.com/constitutional/2011/12/22/cancer-and-rick-perry/


147 posted on 12/24/2011 1:06:28 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: so_real
Using your logic, Vioxx should never have been taken off the shelf. Using your logic, it's okay that a small segment of the population has a higher incidence of heart attack and stroke as long as another small segment of the population finds arthritis relief. Forgive me, but I find the thought of trading some girls long term health for the short term post-treatment reproductive capabilities of another small group of girls to be positively monstrous. I know you mean well and your heart is in the right place. The lenses through which you view the world show a more Utopian place than mine -- through yours Merck is not profit driven, government is not subject to corrupting influence, and all these parents are just reporting unfortunate and unrelated coincidence. We've already been down this road with Vioxx and it just is not true (click). People die and are debilitated even as drug studies report safety and efficacy and government organizations are derelict in their duties. What makes the Gardasil situation atrocious is visiting this debilitation on unsuspecting, innocent, and trusting children.

With every drug, there is a risk/benefit assessment. In the case of Vioxx, it turned out that there was a small increased risk of a cardiovascular event among those taking the drug, and the decision was made that this risk outweighed the benefits. With other drugs, the same level of risk might be deemed acceptable with regard to the benefit.

In the case of Gardasil, the risk is no higher or different than the risk for any other vaccine. The risk of a sore arm is judged acceptable in view of the benefit of decreased disease and healthcare costs.

I hardly consider 250,000 to 1 million new cases of cervical dysplasia per year a "small group of girls." In terms of health care costs, long-term health risks, and risks to fertility, that's a huge number. Personally, I think it's atrocious that parents would expose their children to painful medical procedures and permanent damage to their reproductive organs because of unfounded rumors and fears.

Since you seem to think that the only driving factor is profit (as if profiting by providing a life-saving service is somehow immoral), keep in mind that it is far more profitable to not vaccinate, and let women develop the disease. A diagnostic colposcopy with biopsy would cost roughly $1000. The treatment method and price depend on the biopsy results, but can range up into several thousand dollars. If the disease progresses to metastatic cancer, then the prices rise even more. In contrast, the Gardasil vaccine series costs $360 plus doctor fees. For less than the cost of a colposcopy, the need for one can be decreased by about 70%. Price isn't the only consideration--the colposcopy and subsequent treatment are incredibly painful.

148 posted on 12/24/2011 1:16:47 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 142 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; thesaleboat; Sick of Lefties; Chainmail; StrongandPround; lilyramone; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.


149 posted on 12/24/2011 1:20:30 AM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: so_real
It's a simple concept -- shame it makes your head spin.

Wrong. Illogic makes my head spin.

Working to save lives, protect health, and educate people is never shameful.

And for that fondness you willfully discredit the available evidence of correlation. VAERs is meaningless to you.

Many, many things are correlated that are not caused by each other. The VAERS website specifically states:

Guide to Interpreting VAERS Case Report Information
When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.

(Underlining mine.)

150 posted on 12/24/2011 1:33:38 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 146 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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