Here's how Pro Life Blogs sums it up:
This is 25 girls or young women dead in 18 months' time, one of which was 11 years old, four of which were 12 years old, and one of which was 15.
As Greg pointed out in the comments, section, "Just so everyone knows, the VAERS database is a record of all reports of adverse events that occurred in patients around the time they received a certain drug, in this case Gardasil. These reports are not necessarily first hand, and information is often incomplete. Just because the deaths happened around the time of vaccination does not mean the vaccination caused the deaths."
There is still evidence, however, linking Gardasil with serious adverse reactions and deaths, and these reports show the lack of information about the risks of this vaccine.
But it's the social conservatives who are monsters because we object to giving potentially fatal vaccines to 11-year-old girls on the off chance that they might decide later to become promiscuous and thus run a high risk of cervical cancer.
That would be a risk that they would be choosing themselves. Later. When they're older. If we were doing our jobs as parents, teachers, pastors, youth leaders, aunts, older sisters, etc., girls would realize that sexual experimentation was risking their health and potentially their lives. They'd not see it as a harmless way to get male attention (as long as they use birth control, of course, and fix any "ooopsies" via abortion).
What right do we as a society have to try to mandate this vaccine? What is it about sanctioning teen sexual activity that makes it worth achieving at the cost of these kids' lives?
What right do we as a society have to try to mandate this vaccine?
ReplyDeleteYou've obviously intended this as a rhetorical question, but I can't help but chime in with an emphatic:
None.
VAERS receives reports of many events that occur after immunization. Some of these events may occur coincidentally following vaccination, while others may truly be caused by vaccination. Studies help determine if there is more than a temporal (time) association between immunization and adverse events. The fact that an adverse event occurred following immunization is not conclusive evidence that the event was caused by a vaccine. Factors such as medical history and other medications given near the time of the vaccination must be examined to determine if they could have caused the adverse event. It is important to remember that many adverse events reported to VAERS may not be caused by vaccines.
ReplyDelete-- http://vaers.hhs.gov/vaers.htm#7
But it's the social conservatives who are monsters because we object to giving potentially fatal vaccines to 11-year-old girls on the off chance that they might decide later to become promiscuous and risk cervical cancer.
You don't have to be promiscuous to get HPV. A girl can abstain until marriage and still wind up getting HPV from her husband. She can also be raped or molested and get HPV. A virus does not care if you've had one partner or 100.
Some studies estimate that the majority of the sexually active population is exposed to at least one or more types of HPV - although most do not develop symptoms. Because HPV is so common and prevalent, a person does not need have to have a lot of sexual partners to come into contact with this virus.
-- http://ohiofriends.org/answers.htm
This is why vaccination is so important. We can't control whether our children have sex, who they marry, or whether or not their partners will be honest and faithful, but with a vaccine we CAN protect them from unnecessary, undeserved illness.
I am a pro-life conservative, but I find this post to be very misleading. What you have posted here is NOT evidence of 25 deaths caused by Gardasil.
ReplyDeleteJust so everyone knows, the VAERS database is a record of all reports of adverse events that occurred in patients around the time they received a certain drug, in this case Gardasil. These reports are not necessarily first hand, and information is often incomplete. Just because the deaths happened around the time of vaccination does not mean the vaccination caused the deaths.
You'll note that one of these patients died of meningitis, one died of complications of severe diabetes, and one died of a seizure after a five year history of seizures. Clearly these patients died of other causes, and the connection to gardasil is just coincidence.
Also, if you read the reports closely, many are duplicates, so there are not actually 25 cases. Finally, several of these are hearsay, you'll notice they are reports of someone who "heard from a friend," or "heard from a nurse," that someone died, and so on. These are not reliable reports.
I state again, what you have posted here is NOT evidence of 25 deaths caused by Gardasil.
Point taken there, Greg. Good job.
ReplyDeleteIf we stopped using the PAP test and switched to a combination of CSA (blood antigen testing similar to the PSA that is more accurate) and home screening tools or "self-preformed in a medical office" (of which there are at least 10 -some of which are being tested in the USA) which are more available and far more acceptable to most women we would have a much, much lower rate of deaths from cervical cancer and even a lower rate of procedures preformed to treat cervical cancer, and even lower rates of the more invasive forms of treatment.
ReplyDeleteIf we improved women's awareness of proper "hygiene" and the effects of douching and soap, and increased the use of probiotics topically and orally we could similarly reduce HPV infection (not to mention HIV infection)
Even the company that makes Gardasil admits that its impact on cervical cancer rate will be almost nil and that the same gains can and are expected to be made by increasing screening and awareness.
Thanks for that information, mystic eye!
ReplyDeleteFix any "oopsies"? I love how you refer to a human embryo as an "oopsy". Also how you consider it part of a girl's responsibility to get an abortion if their birth control fails. Like the people in her life aren't doing their job if she decides to have a baby when she gets pregnant instead of getting an abortion.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a hardcore activist, it just seems kind of close-minded to me that you'd assume getting an abortion is the obvious and responsible way to deal with birth control failure.
I think that the risks of any vaccine need to be iterated to the patient (or patient's parents, as the case may be). When you're prescribed any kind of drug they make sure you know the side-effects and risks, and when to call them if any of these things happens because it could be a sign of something more serious. So, since vaccines also carry risks and side-effects, why aren't we being told about them by the doctor WHILE they're giving us the vaccine, or (hopefully) BEFORE we even decide to get it in the first place!
I talked to my doctor about getting Gardisil, and she recommended against it because I'm still breastfeeding (yes, birth control failure, I considered it my responsibility to have a baby because I took the risk by having sex in the first place KNOWING that there is always a chance of failure) but there was absolutely no mention of side-effects at all, let alone the risks. My baby has been getting his routine vaccinations (since I didn't know they carried risks until I started doing online research) and the ONLY potential side-effect his doctor told me about was soreness at the site of injection. I found online that there are a ton of side effects and risks associated with several of the vaccines he's already been given! And I wasn't told about a single one of them.
I don't think that's okay. She gave me a prescription for baby tylenol and gave me a long list of risks and side-effects, particularly if I get the doseage wrong. Baby tylenol is something you can get OTC. But his vaccines it was just "Okay we're gonna give him some shots now. Okay done. See you next time!"
Totally violates our rights as human beings to be fully aware of the consequences of what we choose to put in our bodies. Sure, we might get sick if we avoid the vaccination, but that should be OUR choice. We should choose which set of consequences we'd rather deal with.
This video has a lot of info on Gardasil in a nutshell http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB2ZvCWXSY0, plus more info in the description.
ReplyDeleteThere have been no long-term studies on Gardasil; as Gardasil researcher Dr. Diane Harper said, the only thing it can promise is fewer abnormal Pap smears for 5 years following the 3-dose vaccine. While 2 of the HPV strains in Gardasil cause 70% of the cases of cervical cancer, there are many other strains of HPV which can also cause cervical cancer, so Pap smears (or other screening) remain necessary. It takes cervical cancer decades to develop from HPV. With such a slight benefit (as an editorial from JAMA said in 2009), one has to question whether any risk is acceptable.
There is no way it should be mandated for use!
Btw, the studies on Gardasil for adverse effects did not primarily test the vaccine against a placebo such as saline injection, but against an aluminum containing injection, which is by itself known to cause problems. [In the studies, there were a few hundred injections using saline, compared to several thousand injections of Gardasil and AAHS. The adverse reactions to both Gardasil & AAHS were similar in type and rate, but were several times worse than reactions against saline injection. But it's considered?]