Posted on 09/13/2011 11:03:51 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Sorry, DO, kids don’t get to opt in or out. Least not where I’m from.
The parents have the opportunity to opt out of certain vaccines in Texas.
Sorry, but your son told you wrong...the only thing that NY and Texas have in common is that they are both members of the United States....it pretty much ends there.
” You’re quite the spinner.
The Gardasil vaccine has been proven to prevent cervical cancer. “
Well, I’m not a doctor, but I can Google. The following article is not unique.
GARDASIL is the vaccine promoted as protection against various types of cervical cancer supposedly caused by the HPV virus, and obviously is intended for other purposes. Even with the number of deaths and injury from the vaccine the ads ran non-stop on TV while state and federal governments tried to find ever newer and more invasive ways of making mandatory vaccination a reality. They got their wish; Obamacare calls for mandatory vaccination and proof of updates to vaccinations in order to get any healthcare.
Neither, Gardasil® nor any of the individual active ingredients have been previously approved for commercial marketing or use under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Public Health Service Act, or the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act, according to their application for patent.
Gardasil! It isn’t just for the girls!
In 2010 Merck was still waiting for the blessings of FDA to make mandatory their Gardasil vaccine for boys. As recently as November 2010, FDA was thinking of changing the terminology for male Gardasil from “Mandatory” to “Recommended”; after all, we’re dealing with the family jewels here and these are far more important than a few dead ovaries. But approval did come after the male version of Gardasil was tested on 602 young men from the ages of 9 to 26. (I can’t help but wonder how many of these young men knew they were being tested with this deadly vaccine).
Please note in this next article that Gardasil has been expanded to include far more than cervical cancer and includes the observation that “HPV is THOUGHT to be the cause”…not, is the cause or, we know it’s the cause, or we can prove conclusively, or there is substantial evidence,…they just think it could be. This is a broad and vague claim and totally without any conclusive supporting evidence.
Med Page Today:
WASHINGTON — An FDA advisory panel has expressed its support for expanding the indication on the quadrivalent human papillomavirus recombinant vaccine Gardasil to prevent anal intraepithelial neoplasia and anal cancer in males and females ages 9 through 26.
Gardasil was approved in 2006 to prevent genital warts and cervical, vulvar, and vaginal cancer in females ages 9 to 26; the vaccine’s indication was expanded in 2009 to include prevention of genital warts in males of that age range.
FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee agreed that the three-dose vaccine should also be used to prevent anal intraepithelial neoplasia and anal cancer caused by HPV strains 6, 11, 16, and 18. HPV is thought to be the cause of 90% of anal cancers.”
____________
In 2008 Merck planned the expansion of Gardasil injections targeting young boys and says the most important new opportunity for the vaccine will be for its use in males. (Merck claims: The vaccine could help prevent males from contracting Human Papilloma virus and spreading it to females through sexual contact.) Merck was on track to seek approval for use in males by the end of 2008 and of course now they have approval. And how many of the deaths and other injuries to young boys and men will go under-reported while MERCK profits?
Gardasil was never tested for cancer causing agents or proof of cancer prevention. It still has not been tested or proven to prevent cervical cancer or any of the other afflictions it claims to prevent. They just “think” it might.
In the interim, Merck’s sales of Gardasil have plummeted beginning back in 2007. Merck claims the reason was that women and girls forgot to go back for the second and third shots.
“We have put in place substantial reminder programs that allow them to improve the ability to remember to go back to the second and third dose. So, we’re doing it by mail, we’re doing it by e-mail, we’re doing it by text messages, and a variety of different technologies to be able to make sure [that] they get to their second, and third doses.”
Only they didn’t come back. Many who received the first shots suffered from partial paralysis, seizures, fevers, muscle spasms and a host of other symptoms. Although every effort was made by Merck and the CDC to squash or minimalize any adverse event reporting, the stories leaked out and the news wasn’t good. The CDC as of 2010 had posted these responses to Gardasil among hundreds of adverse events:
Examples:
“Pt had unwitnessed seizure on 5/21/09. H/O probable seizure activity in the past 6 wks. After seizure, pt has had complaint of headache, dizziness, weakness, balance difficulty. 7/6/09 MR received for DOS 5/21-24/2009 with D/C DX: Seizure. Headache. Pt presented to ER after episode of unresponsiveness with limb flexion, staring, and fall. Disoriented with slurred speech, inappropriate affect, weakness, tiredness and severe H/A after. Recent episodes of involuntary fluttering of R hand. Started on Depakote.
(Depakote is a psychotropic drug used for bi-polar disorder)
Body aches, fatigue, blisters inside mouth, swollen glands, sores on lips and gums, swollen lips were also reported in many cases.”
The VAER report (Vaccine Adverse Event Report) is populated with reports of seizures, fainting, involuntary flailing of limbs, rashes, fevers, paralysis, vomiting, muscle contractions, ringing in the ears, blurred vision, and many other symptoms which appeared immediately after the first injection of Gardasil. It will be years before we know the long term and most likely devastating effects of this killer vaccine.
Gardasil contains extremely high levels of aluminum and polysorbate 80, a known cause of sterility in lab tests on mice, and also known to cause sterility in humans. High levels of other neurotoxic chemicals and the presence of thimerisol, a derivitive of mercury is said to be present although MERCK continues to deny that allegation.
Thanks to the Vaccine Liability Fund, funded in whole by US taxpayers, MERCK will never be held responsible or liable for the deaths and injuries they have caused and instead will simply add up the billions in profits while taxpayers foot the bill for the damages.
Cynthia Janek wrote an article in 2006 for the New American called “FDA and HPV….when did they know?….(follow up). Janek’s research revealed:
“ …the FDA knew back in 2003 that a HPV is not the actual cause of cervical cancer. The actual cause is a ‘persistent HPV infection that may act as a tumor promoter in cancer induction.’”
“What we have here is proof that there is scientific evidence that has been published in the past 15 years that states that HPV infection does not bear a direct relationship to the forming of cervical cancer. It also tells us that HPV, if allowed to will be taken care of by our own body’s natural processes. . .“most infections are short-lived and not associated with cervical cancer.” With this being said, why do we need Gardasil when our own body is more than capable of eradicating HPV?
What we need is a government policy to assist women with the cost of getting follow-up tests when persistent HPV infection is present. This would make more sense and our government would save so much money on these types of programs instead of $360 each for the Gardasil vaccination.” MERCK applied to the FDA for approval of the vaccine to be used on older women.”
____
As MERCK can produce not one independent test trial that proves the link between HPV and cervical cancer, and has even less evidence that Gardasil in fact will prevent any form of cervical cancer, one might think the FDA would have no hesitation in denying access to the market for this lethal vaccine. Oh! We could only dream! The FDA, noted for its funding by the same companies who seek their approval, was dragging its feet, but gave its approval of the extended vaccine in 2010.
As the FDA states with regards to many pharmaceuticals, death is an acceptable side affect. Acceptable to whom? MERCK? Now that the male version of the vaccine is on the market, I believe all males at MERCK and followed by everyone at the FDA should receive the initial doses. We should vaccinate all their children too…….we don’t need successive generations of genocidal monsters.
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/janak/071220
Only to those without the intelligence to comprehend what I am saying - that must include you!
Put a burden on Parents? Man I am so sick od these parents today that think taking care of their children and the issues that come up everyday is just to much to deal with.
Ofcourse when I was raising my 3, you couldn’t (wouldn’t) run to the GOV begging for the village to take care of my children...THAT was MY job.
You do realize that the FDA tests and approves a lot of drugs that later have to be taken of the market because of their harmful side effects. I seriously hope this is not one of them.
Are you aware that the source of your information, at least the first link, is from Alex Jones, the Prison Planet? I could not find the government report to which he referred. Perhaps others can.
Your figures show an adverse effect rate of .0535%. Is that considered high? 68 deaths from 35,000,000 doses seems statistically insignificant.
My criticism has nothing to do with my support of Sarah Palin. I will support whoever wins the nomination because we must get the Obamas out of the White House. That, of course, would include Rick Perry.
I was just tired of one person’s strident tone on every single Rick Perry thread. I’ve explained this more times than Mr. Perry has explained his executive order.
No, but they DO mandate that infants and toddlers be vaccinated against Hepatitis-B, which is transmitted primarily by sex and IV drug use. I don't know too many sexually active 3-year old IV drug users...
New England Journal of Medicine Aug 21, 2008
Human Papillomavirus Vaccination — Reasons for Caution
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe0804638
“Although it was licensed for use in the United States in June 2006, the first phase 3 trials of the HPV vaccine with clinically relevant end points — cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 (CIN 2/3) — were not reported until May 2007, first in the Journal 2 and 1 month later in the Lancet.3,4 The vaccine was highly successful in reducing the incidence of precancerous cervical lesions caused by HPV-16 and HPV-18, but a number of critical questions remained unanswered.5,6 For instance, will the vaccine ultimately prevent not only cervical lesions, but also cervical cancer and death? How long will protection conferred by the vaccine last? Since most HPV infections are easily cleared by the immune system, how will vaccination affect natural immunity against HPV, and with what implications? How will the vaccine affect preadolescent girls, given that the only trials conducted in this cohort have been on the immune response? The studies with clinical end points (i.e., CIN 2/3) involved 16- to 24-year-old women. How will vaccination affect screening practices? Since the vaccines protect against only two of the oncogenic strains of HPV, women must continue to be screened for cervical lesions. Vaccinated women may feel protected from cervical cancer and may be less likely than unvaccinated women to pursue screening. How will the vaccine affect other oncogenic strains of HPV? If HPV-16 and HPV-18 are effectively suppressed, will there be selective pressure on the remaining strains of HPV? Other strains may emerge as significant oncogenic serotypes...
“With so many essential questions still unanswered, there is good reason to be cautious about introducing large-scale vaccination programs. Instead, we should concentrate on finding more solid answers through research rather than base consequential and costly decisions on yet unproven assumptions.”
Another article in the same issue attempts a cost analysis of vaccination. The best conclusion I can reach from it is that the cost analysis (if a valid method of determining whether to use it - I can think of comparing NNT and NNH as more relevant to the individual) depends on the length of protection provided, and the question of whether other, unprotected, forms of HPV are high risk factors in cervical cancer.
Delving more into the questions above relating to HPV infections being something that tend (in 90% of cases according to one source, below) to clear up on their own, and the question of whether it is the virus or lesions caused by the virus which do not clear up due to persistent or repeated infections - read promiscuity - over a period of years, one wonders whether giving children a vaccine with a limited lifespan which may wear off well before they become sexually active, perhaps promiscous, perhaps get an HPV infection, (perhaps from the particular kinds associated with the these vaccines) perhaps get it repeatedly, perhaps develop lesions which perhaps decades later become cancerous... is worth the risk of making this decision through politics rather than solid research.
another link of interest:
http://pop.org/content/merck-researcher-admits-gardasil-guards-against-almost-nothing-985
and a later NEJM article with good questions regarding mandating it:
HPV Vaccination Mandates — Lawmaking amid Political and Scientific Controversy (Aug 19, 2010)
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr1003547
I have not found out yet if they are based on Aborted Fetal Cell Lines, as Polio, MMR, Varicella, Hepatitus A, and Rabies vaccines are.
The only people with guaranteed benefit are the manufacturers.
The rest of us only have hopes of benefit, with a credibly high risk.
Surely, I don’t have to explain this famous Persian proverb to you. Or do I?
I think they have the same attitude that New Yorkers have. The “we are better and smarter than the rest of you”.
I think he’s right.
I’ll tell you what you start a Hepatitis B thread and we’ll discuss whether Gov. Palin had anything to do with that mandate.
“You didn’t listen to the video did you?
The cervical cancer vaccine is to PREVENT cancer.”
To boil down the last post a good bit:
It is not a cervical cancer vaccine, it is an HPV vaccine, which is to prevent *some forms* of HPV, many of which *may* if untreated and in a persistent or recurrent condition lead to lesions which may lead to cancer.
It may last long enough, it may get the right variants, and it may prevent some cancers.
If the video claims it is a Cervical Cancer Vaccine, it is mistating the facts.
As usual, no clear information from either side. Yes. It’s a good, legitimate vaccine. But should every school girl in the State of Texas be singled out, whether they are at risk or not? Do we ignore the statistically improbable event of a side effect? To Dr. Pinho, I might reply (given enough time to think of the snappy comeback), and what do I tell the parents of the one in a million (example ratio) girls who dies due to a violent, severe allergic reaction to the vaccine?
Yes, I do, and I hope as you do that this will not be one of them. I was merely responding to the ridiculous falsehood that this was mandated without being tested. Complain about the mandate - I won't disagree with that, it was poor judgment. But don't overstate the case.
And Climate Change, too, so yes, the government should turn it off and Obama is just the man to do it. After all, he can lower the seas! Plus, his buddies at General Electric can sell gazillions of light bulbs.
The Tea Party Movement needs to get behind this. NO MORE SUN!!
Do you know where the PDR information comes from? It is provided by the manufacturer.
With regard to new medications it can only reference the reactions of a few hundred, perhaps the very low thousands of people it was tested on.
While I still remain a supporter of the PDR being included in the evaluation process, I still don’t think it’s the be-all end-all of decision making when it comes to new medications.
I have forgotten the name of the medication now, but years ago a medication was brought over from Europe by a very large pharmaceutical manufacturer in the United States. In under a year, that medication garnered the company $120 million dollars in profits. And then it was taken off the market.
The pharmaceutical manufacturer was found to have left out information in it’s presentation during the FDA approval process. It was not presented in the PDR either.
There was a known problem that resulted in deaths and real harm to people taking the medication.
I’m just saying that the information in the PDR is not always the full gospel on medications, and people need to do their own due diligence and not rely on it as the final arbiter of what is okay to take or not.
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.