Skip to comments.
FDA: 28 Miscarriages No Reason to Reexamine Gardasil
CNSNews ^
| 12/6/2007
| Fred Lucas
Posted on 12/06/2007 11:02:05 AM PST by Pyro7480
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-116 next last
Whiskey Tango Hotel.
1
posted on
12/06/2007 11:02:07 AM PST
by
Pyro7480
To: Coleus; wagglebee; NYer
2
posted on
12/06/2007 11:02:38 AM PST
by
Pyro7480
("Jesu, Jesu, Jesu, esto mihi Jesus" -St. Ralph Sherwin's last words at Tyburn)
To: Pyro7480
3
posted on
12/06/2007 11:05:34 AM PST
by
agere_contra
(Do not confuse the wealth of nations with the wealth of government - FDT)
To: Pyro7480
I will absolutely refuse to have this administered to my daughter.
4
posted on
12/06/2007 11:06:12 AM PST
by
TheWriterTX
(Proud Retrosexual Wife of 14 Years)
To: Pyro7480
Ahhh c’mon, what’s 28 miscarriages? Merck & Co is only down 22 cents a share today to $59.18!
BUY! (hey, the FDA has already been bought, why not?)
5
posted on
12/06/2007 11:06:53 AM PST
by
mkjessup
(Hunter-Bolton '08 !! Patriots who will settle for nothing less than *Victory* in the War on Terror!)
To: Pyro7480
Perhaps the problem is that the 16 year old girls in the article are getting pregnant.
6
posted on
12/06/2007 11:07:05 AM PST
by
trumandogz
(Hunter Thompson 2008)
To: Pyro7480
What percentage of the using community does 28 cases of miscarriage cover?
7
posted on
12/06/2007 11:07:51 AM PST
by
arderkrag
(Libertarian Nutcase (Political Compass Coordinates: 9.00, -2.62 - www.politicalcompass.org))
To: Pyro7480; 230FMJ; 49th; 50mm; 69ConvertibleFirebird; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; ...
8
posted on
12/06/2007 11:08:41 AM PST
by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: mkjessup
"Ahhh cmon, whats 28 miscarriages? "28 miscarriages is the statistically the same occurrence that appeared in the group given a placebo.
9
posted on
12/06/2007 11:09:49 AM PST
by
spunkets
("Freedom is about authority", Rudy Giuliani, gun grabber)
To: Pyro7480
Whiskey Tango Hotel. It's a question of statistical significance. The statistic in question is the number of miscarriages within 30 days of taking the vaccine, as compared to the rate of miscarriages at the same stage(s) of pregnancy without having taken the vaccine.
There are probably hundreds of thousands of miscarriages every year. Is 28 miscarriages statistically significant?
The trial results say no.
10
posted on
12/06/2007 11:11:07 AM PST
by
r9etb
To: trumandogz
Perhaps the problem is that the 16 year old girls in the article are getting pregnant. They weren't all 16. I see at least 2 24 yr olds listed.
11
posted on
12/06/2007 11:13:03 AM PST
by
DJ MacWoW
(Jesus loves you, Allah wants you dead)
To: Pyro7480
which indicated that miscarriages among pregnant women given Gardasil were statistically consistent with miscarriages among women given placebos and in the general population What in the world is this doing in the second paragraph. You can't have a good scare article unless you hide this on page B32. Some editor may lose his job over that type of mistake.
12
posted on
12/06/2007 11:13:33 AM PST
by
KarlInOhio
(Government is the hired help - not the boss. When politicians forget that they must be fired.)
To: arderkrag
Extremely good question. Obviously, you’re using logic, not emotion. :)
13
posted on
12/06/2007 11:13:39 AM PST
by
Constitution Day
(Everything was fine until membership lost its privileges)
To: spunkets; mkjessup
28 miscarriages is the statistically the same occurrence that appeared in the group given a placebo. Go back an read the article again, it does not say this at all.
14
posted on
12/06/2007 11:13:56 AM PST
by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: TheWriterTX
Vaccines reactions have a lower FDA standard. Also note the mis-attribution of causes.
15
posted on
12/06/2007 11:13:56 AM PST
by
fooman
(Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
To: Pyro7480
Geez—these people were already pregnant and getting a vaccine during pregnancy? I’m surprised that it was only 28 given the numbers of vaccinations given. Who in their right mind would get something like that in an early stage of pregnancy?
16
posted on
12/06/2007 11:15:30 AM PST
by
MHT
To: Pyro7480
"If you're pregnant, then it means you've been sexually active," Riley said. "So it would be somewhat dubious to get a vaccine you're supposed to have before you're sexually active." The commercials call this a "cancer vaccine" in order to scare women into getting it. That it's given before being sexually active isn't mentioned.
17
posted on
12/06/2007 11:16:00 AM PST
by
DJ MacWoW
(Jesus loves you, Allah wants you dead)
To: MHT
Read the article. At least one of the women didn’t know she was pregnant at the time, since it was a very early stage.
18
posted on
12/06/2007 11:17:10 AM PST
by
Pyro7480
("Jesu, Jesu, Jesu, esto mihi Jesus" -St. Ralph Sherwin's last words at Tyburn)
To: wagglebee
Re: 28 miscarriages is the statistically the same occurrence that appeared in the group given a placebo.
" Go back an read the article again, it does not say this at all.
From the article: "...based on the clinical trials done prior to approval of the drug - which indicated that miscarriages among pregnant women given Gardasil were statistically consistent with miscarriages among women given placebos and in the general population."
19
posted on
12/06/2007 11:18:23 AM PST
by
spunkets
("Freedom is about authority", Rudy Giuliani, gun grabber)
To: Pyro7480
The FDA under Bush has been much better than it was on life issues, but I imagine they are still stuffed full of pro-aborts everywhere below the top level. That was the case even before clinton got ahold of them.
The package insert for Gardasil states there is "no evidence" . . .
"If you're pregnant, then it means you've been sexually active," Riley said. "So it would be somewhat dubious to get a vaccine you're supposed to have before you're sexually active."
In other words, "You can't prove that the vaccine caused your miscarriage, and even if it did, it's your fault for taking it."
20
posted on
12/06/2007 11:20:34 AM PST
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-116 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson