Posted on 02/06/2007 8:58:03 PM PST by Marie
~snip~
since the CDC's July 2006 universal use recommendation for all young girls, NVIC found reports of loss of consciousness, seizures, joint pain and Guillain-Barre Syndrome. In a separate evaluation of costs for young girls being vaccinated in private pediatrician offices, NVIC discovered that parents living in the Washington, D.C. area will be paying between $500 and $900 to have their daughters receive three doses of GARDASIL.
"GARDASIL safety appears to have been studied in fewer than 2,000 girls aged 9 to 15 years pre-licensure clinical trials and it is unclear how long they were followed up. VAERS is now receiving reports of loss of consciousness, seizures, arthritis and other neurological problems in young girls who have received the shot," said NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher. "At the same time, parents who take their daughters to private pediatricians are going to be shocked to find that they will be paying two to three times the widely publicized $360 cost for the three-dose series. The cost is going to break the pocketbooks of parents and break the banks of both insurance companies and taxpayers, when the reality is that almost all cases of HPV- associated cervical cancer can be prevented with annual pap screening of girls who are sexually active."
~end snip~ (click the link above for the full story)
Of course most cervical cancers were caused by HPV forty years ago -- we did not know it, the tests were not available, etc. That's like saying that, until the early '90's, none of the cases of non-A, non-B hepatitis were Hepatitis C.
I've given a few radio interviews on the vaccine the last 2 days. Each show - and one of the threads here on FR - has received a personal story of a woman who contracted the virus within marriage and/or one who was the victim of rape. I've seen 5 or 6 women - girls, really, all under 25 - in my practice with high grade lesions who then disclose that they were victims of rape when they were in their early teens.
Here's a great review article on HPV:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1581465&rendertype=abstract
Unfortunately, we're finding that some strains can cause the carcinoma in situ and even the cancer more rapidly than we thought.
"" . . . Winer et al followed women
after initial HPV infection for the development of CIN 2/3.
As shown in Figure 3, approximately 27% of women with an
initial HPV 16 or 18 infection progressed to CIN 2/3 within
36 months. A second study of a large health maintenance
cohort found that approximately 20% of women 30 years of
age or older who were initially infected with HPV
16 developed CIN 3 or cervical cancer within 120 months.
Women who had an initial HPV 18 infection had approximately
a 15% risk of developing CIN 3 or cervical cancer at
120 months.""
The issue is the government saying, "We know your little girls are going to be promiscuous", NOT the cost and NOT the safety profile.
The Polio Vaccine Linked to a Cancer-Causing Monkey Virus
UT Southwestern researchers link human lymphomas to polio vaccine tainted with monkey virus
Every blood draw, every procedure, and even observation of someone else having a procedure is liable to cause a vaso-vagal reaction, some don't just faint - they pass out and appear to have a seizure.
It IS a guesstimate. Used as a scare tactic. I never said it couldn't be detected by a test. What I'm saying is if someone doesn't know they have it, then the CDC doesnt know either. That makes their "statistics" as accurate as sample polls during elections..
I think you've got the numbers wrong, here.
And you might want to look up the recent facts on Vioxx. Naprosyn (Aleeve) is associated with a similar incidence of heart attacks and strokes.
I remember (when I was in grade school and my dad was med school) the first flu shot I had I was violently ill within minutes. Bright yellow emesis, thought all my life to be allergy to eggs. Turns out the injection techinque was wrong.
Thanks for the ping.
"You do understand that the HPV AIDS virus does not check to see if a valid marriage certificate is in the possession of an individual before it infects them? That a girl who is raped by an HPV HIV positive individual, or a girl who marries an asymptomatic guy who contracted the virus AIDS earlier in life and either didn't know or lied about his status is as at risk as the "slut"?"
I suppose that means Rick Perry should sign another Executive Order mandating condom distribution and education to 6th graders since they're all at risk for AIDS.
I've seen this "estimate" and others like it ranging from 30-80% posted many times. What I haven't seen yet is a source demonstrating the statistical techniques they used to calculate it. Seeing as cervical cancer's incidence rate is a fraction of a tenth of a percentage of adult women in the United States, that can only mean one of two things:
1. The HPV infection rate in the U.S. is being severely overstated in these estimates, or
2. The tendency of HPV to produce cervical cancer is being severely overstated.
Sorry, AK, no HPV or STD here, just worked for a gynie for 15+ years in the 70s and 80's and don't remember that many infections of HPV back then, these would be the ladies in their 50's now.
Found a SOURCE for that yet? How about the methodology they used to take the population sample? There's another poster on this thread who says 70%, and some guy on the other thread saying 30%.
That tells me the HPV vaccine's proponents can't even decide on what the right infection rate is, and that makes your numbers suspect no matter how many times you repeat them without responding to multiple requests for a source and methodology.
I've already cited this repeatedly. The Source is the CDC.
The 'corollary' I'm drawing is that both groups play the 'rape' card to support their case. It is a fact. Do with it what you wish.
The 'corollary' I'm drawing is that both groups play the 'rape' card to support their case. It is a fact. Do with it what you wish.
Then answer me this:
1. What was the sample size?
2. How did they recruit sample participants?
3. How did they ensure their recruitment of sample participants was truly random?
4. What are the cross tabulation categories they examined?
5. Do those categories indicate higher risk of infection for certain types of people or certain sexual habits?
6. Did they account anywhere in their sampling for biases produced by the tendency of people to lie about their sexual habits?
7. Did they account anywhere in their sampling for biases produced by likely respondents? (Put another way, unless they forcibly pulled people off the street and tested them at random there probably aren't very many 12 year olds who volunteered for this study)
8. Did they pay the participants to take the study, and if so did this in any way bias the sample?
9. What was the timeframe of the survey? Was it done all at once or staggered to produce time series data?
10. Did they bother to provide any error or significance tests on their survey when it was done?
Since you are such an expert on this 80% figure and have posted it dozens upon dozens of times over the last few days, I am certain you will have little difficulty providing a source that answers all these questions.
That's an FAQ site with no sources to any specific study, no basic information about the sampling technique, and no way to scientifically scrutinize or verify its methodology. I'm not looking for a FAQ page though. I want the study itself where this "sample" supposedly came from.
CHAPTER 38. PEDICULOSIS OF MINORS
§ 38.001. PROGRAM ESTABLISHED.
(a) The department shall establish and develop a state program for the control and eradication of pediculosis of minors.
(b) The program may include procedures for detection of pediculosis and instructions for treatment.
Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989.
--------------------------------------------
FYI- ‘pediculosis’ is HEAD LICE. He's trying to use the statue that gives the Health Department (NOT the Governor) the authority to detect and treat head lice to push this unnecessary MEDICAL PROCEDURE on the future women of Texas.
Here’s the rest of the statute. It defines treatment:
§ 38.002. TREATMENT OF MINOR WHO HAS PEDICULOSIS.
For the purpose of treating a minor who has pediculosis, the parent or guardian of the minor shall:
(1) follow the instructions of the department; or
(2) place the minor under the care of a licensed physician.
Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989.
So a child with head lice has to follow the instructions of the Texas Health Department or be referred to a physician.
There is NOTHING about vaccinations there!
The Education Code gives the Health Department the authority to determine vaccinations for Texas school children in CHAPTER 38. HEALTH AND SAFETY.
The Governor of the State of Texas has no legal footing with which to issue this Executive Order.
I hope the Texas Attorney General legally slaps him for it, too!
(and don't get me started on how the CDC's advisory board (ASIP?) issuing a recommendation is NOT the same as the CDC issuing one as he stated in his OH-so-Royal Edict)
-----------
BTW Froufrou, I don't think I thanked you for the important info....Thanks!
I wouldn't use a medicine/ vaccine that hasn't been on the market for less than 10 years. I don't do guinea pig.
MERCK'S GARDASIL VACCINE NOT PROVEN SAFE FOR LITTLE GIRLS
But people buy the CDCs line. *sigh*
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.