Posted on 12/06/2007 11:02:05 AM PST by Pyro7480
I don’t. Plus, when you have a child with brain damage, you can easily opt out of most vaccines.
So far, the benefits of the vaccine usually outweigh the risks, but I don’t think on this one they do.
For example, my daughter just got her flu vaccine. Well, she had her first grand mal seizure on October 1 when she had a mild cold. The doctors said that getting sick will lower her seizure threshold, and we don’t want her to have another grand mal seizure. On top of that, she also has a heart arrhythmia and asthma. She doesn’t need to get the flu. The flu vaccine typically doesn’t cause seizures either, like the gardisil vaccine does.
see #45
US: 14 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, 4 infant deaths per 1000 live births. That's 414 deaths for every 100,000 pregnancies. Almost 3 million births per year that's 12,420 pregnancy related deaths per year.
Only 3,700 cervical cancer deaths per year in the US.
Sources - WHO and American Cancer Society.
Uh...............ok. Pregnancy isn’t a disease so I have no idea what your point is. But, hey, have fun!
As a side note, the vaccine is effective for 5 years and currently, no booster exists. There is work in development.
Why are you advocating mass necrophilia?
Polio was nearly eradicated, but it's making a comeback in areas of Africa where a widespread rumor was that the vaccine was cover for a plot to sterilize Muslims. Vaccinations resumed after the NGOs started buyng vaccine from Saudi Arabia, but the effort w as set back years, if not decades. Polio is, like smallpox, a good candidate for eradication -- both diseases have no hsts other than humans, so they're not lurking in the forest waiting to resurface.
Most forms of hepatitis are not spread through casual contact. In addition, research is well underway for vaccines for gonorrhea, syphilis, genital herpes and HIV. None have yet proven safe and effective, but to say that no one has suggested such a thing is absurd.
Interesting that Thalidomide has come up twice in this thread. Interesting because Thalidomide is by and large a success story for the FDA. While the drug was in widespread use around the world, in the "mother's little helper" era when sedatives like Valium and Haldol were being tossed around like candy, with Big Pharma lobbying like crazy and pregnant women clamoring for it, one stubborn and skeptical FDA investigator kept demanding more studies before granting approval.
Frances Kelsey was troubled that the drug hadn't been tested on pregnant females in the animal trials. In fact, in clinical trials at the time, it was fairly common to conduct clinical trials on men, cavalierly assuming that the side effects on women and children would be the same. Thalidomide blew the doors off that assumption.
Thalidomide was never approved for use in the United States, though it was prescribed to thousands of patients as an "investigational" medication, legal at that time. In the end, something around 12,000 thalidomide babies were born worldwide, 17 of them in the US.
Numbers from Wikipedia, so take them with a grain of salt, but the article appears to be solidly sourced.
Given that this ‘vaccine’ doesn’t prevent ALL types of cervical cancers, yearly pap smears are still required for detection of cancer.
So what does this ‘vaccine’ buy us?
My daughter didn’t get it either.
Of course. That's true of any STD, or for that matter any communicable disease -- the more vectors, the greater the risk. The more times you throw the dice, the greater the chance they'll come up snake-eyes.
This is just anecdotal, but the folks I know with small children get a lot more colds in the average season than single folks or young couples without children. Kids are susceptible, they're in large groups in close contact, and they aren't always rigorous about covering their moths when they sneeze or cough or washing their hands. A classroom is a near-perfect incubator.
Then there's the 1918-19 flu epidemic, no doubt aided in its spread by World War I -- take a bunch of men from all over the world, carrying God knows what, gathered together in barracks, ships and trenches in close quarters, and a virus jumps from host to host like a frog hopping from one lily pad to another.
Of course, now we have folks from all over the world packed into shiny airliners with limited ventilation all day every day, so there are more disease vectors on an average unremarkable day than there were in the Great War.
Also I believe Gardasil is aimed more at the genital wart outbreak. It has become a problem but the cancer scare sounds more dramatic.
There would probably be an effort to produce a vaccine even if it were just about genital warts, which are problematic but not life-threatening. There are vaccines under development for gonorrhea, chlamydia and syphilis, which can usually be cured with antibiotics if detected; for genital herpes, which is permanent but not life-threatening; and for HIV, which is of course terminal.
The cancer angle makes the HPV vaccine more compelling that the others. The death numbers for uterine cancer are relatively low, but they are not the whole story -- add in the screenings, the follow-up screenings, hysterectomies, radiation, chemo and the lurking fear that the cancer will come back, and there is a whole lot of expense and suffering that could be avoided.
True but we're talking about a dice roll that need NOT be taken. Catching a cold at work isn't quite the same as taking a chance on contracting an STD for a few moments pleasure. Sex isn't a recreational sport. Unless you ask a liberal.
The death numbers for uterine cancer are relatively low, but they are not the whole story -- add in the screenings, the follow-up screenings, hysterectomies, radiation, chemo and the lurking fear that the cancer will come back, and there is a whole lot of expense and suffering that could be avoided.
I worked it out and it's 0.08208% of the population that contracts cervical cancer. That's not an epidemic worthy of mandating the vaccine for prepubescent kids. If a parent WANTS their child to have it, fine. Polio, whooping cough, measles..........they were epidemics. This is not.
Btw, I also read on a Gardasil thread a while ago that most women who die from cervical cancer usually don't get Pap smears. It was some study that was cited. If they don't get regular Paps, why would they bother with a vaccine?
I would really rather postpone this until we have more data.
No, it does not say 28. It does say that the number of AEs related to pregnancy (without specificity) occured in both placebo and active groups of the Phase III trials with Gardasil. Translation: There is no statistically significant difference in the rate of Adverse Events related to pregnancy in those who have received a Gardasil vaccination and those who have not.
Miscarriage is a pregnancy complication.
Unless they compare it with how many miscarriages would be expected without Gardisil this is not meaningful.
Judicial Watch usually does their homework. So I wonder why they would omit the data would have made this meaningful?
This reminds me of the people who talk about the number of non-combat deaths in Iraq but don’t compare it with the number of deaths that occur normally among 150,000 men and women.
I’m so sorry. WHY do these idiots think they know our kids better than we do? The press hammers away at “They ALL do it” and then a study comes out that shows the lie. Hang in there. No one knows your baby like you do.
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.