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

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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-116 next last
To: Pyro7480
What are you, a liberal on the social issues?

When I feel that the "Conservative Position" on something like Garadasil is wrong, and full of hysteria not based in fact, then I guess YOU might call me a "Social Liberal". But for CNS to take data that says the percentage of miscarriages among Garadasil users and non-users is consistent, then I have to call a spade a spade and point out the obvious spin involved.
41 posted on 12/06/2007 11:38:45 AM PST by BritExPatInFla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

True. But my married daughter, age 26, was asked by her OB/GYN if she wanted the vaccine when she went for her first pre-natal visit.

She, of course, declined.


42 posted on 12/06/2007 11:39:09 AM PST by trimom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
“couldn’t possible have an agenda when they suggest that EVERY female over the age of eleven be given their drug.”

Thats sort of the point with vaccines. They don’t work once you have the disease. You have to take it when you are healthy. Wide spread vaccinations practically eliminated some diseases, but the people too lazy or too paranoid to get vaccinated have provided hosts for some of these diseases to hang around and in some cases make a comeback. It’s too bad.

43 posted on 12/06/2007 11:40:23 AM PST by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: monday

This is the ONLY time in history that anyone has ever suggested a vaccine for a disease that IS NOT TRANSMITTED THROUGH NORMAL, EVERYDAY CONTACT. This is being touted as some sort of wonder drug and we have no clue what it will do to the developing reproductive systems of young girls. For all we know this is the next thalidomide.


44 posted on 12/06/2007 11:44:22 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
“Are you implying that his daughter is destined to have more than one sexual partner, and thus risk spreading the disease. “

Not at all. I said hopefully she won’t since she won’t be protected. Safest would be no sexual partners for her.

45 posted on 12/06/2007 11:46:09 AM PST by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
"This has NOTHING to do with miscarriages and all this is saying is that the rate of pregnancy complications is the same."

No. Go back and read the posts 9, 14, and 19. The word is miscarriage. They also would have noted other complications in those pretrial studies.

"Moreover, there have been no studies to determine what may happen all of these eleven year old girls are marrying and trying to have children in a decade or so."

The general knowldge and understanding of the immune system and the response to such a vaccine says there would be no effect. The only effect possible would occur if the baby produced and presented the antigen contained in the vaccine. Babies just don't produce the HPV antigen, so the concern is simple illogical nonsense.

46 posted on 12/06/2007 11:47:25 AM PST by spunkets ("Freedom is about authority", Rudy Giuliani, gun grabber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: monday
How about some perspective?

Women and Men in the United States: March 2002

In 2002, the population of women in the US was 144 million.CDC Cervical Cancer Statistics

1,820 women were diagnosed with cervical cancer in 2003

3,919 women died from the disease that same year.

Dividing 11820 cases by 144 million women comes out to 0.0008208 or 0.08208%.

Less than 1% of the female population die from cancer but Merck doesn't tell you that. Nor do they tell you that the American Cancer Society now classes cervical cancer as a rare disease.

47 posted on 12/06/2007 11:51:05 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (Jesus loves you, Allah wants you dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Less than 1% of the female population die from cancer but Merck doesn't tell you that. Nor do they tell you that the American Cancer Society now classes cervical cancer as a rare disease.

A little more perspective. Cervical cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death among women worldwide. It would be the same in the US if not due to mass Pap smear screening. Well over one million American women every year are diagnosed with pre-cancerous changes on Pap smears and require additional treatment or close followup. Gardasil and the other vaccines have the potential to prevent an enormous amount of human suffering, not to mention saving money.

48 posted on 12/06/2007 11:55:57 AM PST by jalisco555 ("The only thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history." Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

And, it’s probably even rarer among those who don’t do multiple, random “hook-ups.”


49 posted on 12/06/2007 12:00:49 PM PST by goodnesswins (Being Challenged Builds Character! Being Coddled Destroys Character!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555

Your keyword is “worldwide”. Less than 1% of American women die. It’s easily detected and treated in the US. If those in foreign countries want their daughters to take it, fine. DON’T push it on ours OR use half truths and scare tactics to make money.


50 posted on 12/06/2007 12:00:57 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (Jesus loves you, Allah wants you dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
“This is the ONLY time in history that anyone has ever suggested a vaccine for a disease that IS NOT TRANSMITTED THROUGH NORMAL, EVERYDAY CONTACT.”

Sex isn’t normal? It happens everyday all the time. Indeed none of us would be here if it wasn’t for sex.

“This is being touted as some sort of wonder drug and we have no clue what it will do to the developing reproductive systems of young girls. For all we know this is the next thalidomide.”

if it can eliminate most cervical cancer, then that pretty much qualifies it as a wonder drug. Since most women seem to be able to have normal children even after being vaccinated while pregnant, it wouldn’t seem to have any adverse actions on reproductive systems. Certainly not as adverse an action as HPV has on female reproductive systems.

If there have been no tests on DEVELOPING reproductive systems, then you may have a point. When hundreds of thousands of girls in the three states where mandatory vaccinations are required, reach child bearing age and can’t reproduce. I imagine the governors and anyone else responsible will have to literally run for their lives. I don’t support mandatory vaccinations BTW.

51 posted on 12/06/2007 12:01:00 PM PST by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
And, it’s probably even rarer among those who don’t do multiple, random “hook-ups.”

You got that right!

CDC Risk factors

A high number of sexual partners.

52 posted on 12/06/2007 12:02:44 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (Jesus loves you, Allah wants you dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
28 Miscarriages No Reason to Reexamine Gardasil

Without knowing additional statistical data, I see no reason to think these miscarriages wouldn't have occurred anyway.

53 posted on 12/06/2007 12:03:53 PM PST by Sloth (Democrats and GOPers are to government what Jeffrey Dahmer and Michael Jackson are to babysitting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

“3,919 women died from the disease that same year.”

Very comforting, unless you or a member of your family is one of those 3,919 women.


54 posted on 12/06/2007 12:07:21 PM PST by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Your keyword is “worldwide”. Less than 1% of American women die. It’s easily detected and treated in the US. If those in foreign countries want their daughters to take it, fine. DON’T push it on ours OR use half truths and scare tactics to make money.

The reason that so few American women die in the US is due to mass Pap smear screening. We perform approx. 60 million Paps per year in this country of which 7-8% are abnormal. That means that around 4.5 million women require additional testing or treatment. This is how we've lowered the death rate so dramatically. This process is expensive, highly intrusive and often causes great distress among women. Vaccination has the potential to both prevent suffering as well as save money right here in the US.

55 posted on 12/06/2007 12:09:33 PM PST by jalisco555 ("The only thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history." Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: monday

For the record, I don’t oppose this vaccine per se, my problem is with the way they are trying to force it on everyone.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of teens and young women who do NEED this vaccine. It is also unfortunate, that many of them won’t realize that this DOES NOT protect them against a deadly array of other STDs. I do believe that it is quite reasonable for a girl to remain a virgin, marry someone who is disease-free and NEVER need to worry about this disease and these girls do not need this vaccine.

My problem with this is the push to mandate it. Diseases like smallpox, chicken pox, measles, mumps, polio, etc. spread through everyday contact between children. Short of a vaccine, there is no certain way to avoid catching them, this is simply not the case with an STD.


56 posted on 12/06/2007 12:13:53 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: monday
Very comforting, unless you or a member of your family is one of those 3,919 women.

Yup. Can't win on facts so let's use emotion! Guilt trip!

Won't work. Merck is scaring women into giving a vaccine to their daughters for a RARE disease. AND making money on it. Less than 1% contract cervical cancer. So who is using a bogeyman to line their pockets?!

Oh and see post 52. One of the risk factors is multiple partners. Educating girls that they could die having a good time is a lot safer than filling them full of drugs.

57 posted on 12/06/2007 12:14:06 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (Jesus loves you, Allah wants you dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
I think that picture is worth a thousand words.

Ban the FDA!

58 posted on 12/06/2007 12:15:10 PM PST by Chili Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555

Is that why they’re still pushing Pap smears? I’ll tell you what I just said to someone else. It ain’t worth it. Pap smears have made this a rare disease. Educating young women that multiple partners can kill them makes a LOT more sense than filling a kid full of drugs for a RARE disease. Does ANYONE tell them that they can CATCH the cancer causing virus from sex? Doubtful. But hey....Now there’s Gardasil and it won’t matter. Unless it’s Aids, chlymidia, syphilis etc. We are telling our kids the wrong thing..........”Don’t do it but here’s this drug in case you do. Side affects? Um.....”


59 posted on 12/06/2007 12:22:01 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (Jesus loves you, Allah wants you dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
“Yup. Can’t win on facts so let’s use emotion! Guilt trip!”

So screw those 3,919 dead women. OK, fine, but what about all the women who contract HPV and don’t die, but can’t have children because of it? Screw them too?

“One of the risk factors is multiple partners. Educating girls that they could die having a good time is a lot safer than filling them full of drugs.”

It would be if it worked, even though “filling them full of drugs” as you put it doesn’t seem to be endangering them either. I guess those who screw up and catch HPV are just Darwin Award winners. Losers in the evolutionary game right?

60 posted on 12/06/2007 12:30:28 PM PST by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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.

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