Posted on 12/22/2011 5:35:47 AM PST by markomalley
It was too late for 21-year-old Christina Tarsell and 17-year-old Jessica Ericzon. Both healthy, athletic young women suddenly dropped dead shortly after receiving their final injection of Gardasil, a vaccine developed by Merck to protect girls and young women from cervical cancer caused by the human papilloma virus (HPV).
But when Christina’s and Jessica’s shocked families tried to get the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to investigate a vaccine it had inexplicably fast-tracked through the approval process even though only one percent of all cancer deaths are due to cervical cancer, they hit a brick wall.
The Tarsells and Ericzons have been vindicated by new documents just released by the FDA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) under a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Judicial Watch.
In just one year - between Sept. 1, 2010 and Sept. 15, 2011 - 26 new deaths and many more severe adverse reactions – including seizures, paralysis, and blindness – were reported in patients receiving Gardasil injections.
The stories are heartbreakingly similar to the Tarsell and Ericzon tragedies: One healthy 14-year-old girl suffered more than 150 seizures – during which she stopped breathing for up to 40 seconds - following her third Gardasil shot. Another vaccinated 15-year-old suddenly became paralyzed from the waist down the day after receiving her second dose of Gardasil and had to be hospitalized for two months.
The grieving parents of Christina and Jessica told The Washington Examiner that the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) both ignored their repeated requests to investigate possible links between Gardasil and their daughters’ unexplained deaths. It never happened. Since then, dozens more people who were vaccinated with Gardasil have also mysteriously died, and many others experienced serious and debilitating reactions.
That alone should have triggered at least some interest in these two federal public health agencies as to whether there was a cause-effect relationship, but it never happened.
CDC still insists that ìthere was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccineî - even though VAERS itself reports 18,727 reports of “adverse events” following Gardasil injections, including 68 deaths.
"These reports raise additional concerns about Gardasil’s questionable safety and provide ample reason to end the push to give it young girls and boys. And the CDC’s continued caginess on reported deaths is disturbing," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
What information are you using to determine that HPV “doesn’t work that way”? I searched around for herd immunity information regarding HPV, and can find no indication that herd immunity wouldn’t be a factor with HPV.
If people choose to give their kid these shots, fine it is their call.
But this vaccine should not be forced on people.
As HPV is infectious, there is potential for protection of unvaccinated individuals and herd immunity is a prospect with HPV. Various papers have been published modelling the impact that HPV vaccination could have at a population level.(3-8) Newall et al critiqued papers published on the impact of HPV vaccination and emphasised the importance of measuring the effect of herd immunity.(6) The impact of herd immunity was modelled by demonstrating the effects of vaccinating different percentages of females only or females and males.(5,7) Taira et al demonstrated that the effects of herd immunity could considerably influence lifetime cervical cancer incidence.(8) These results are explained by Garnett, who states that herd immunity, and hence vaccine effectiveness, can be influenced by whether both males and females are vaccinated; the percentage of individuals vaccinated; at what point in one’s sexual life they are vaccinated; the availability of screening for cervical cancer in the population; and distributions of infection.(3) While the model of herd immunity for HPV is a complicated one, it does exist.As I said, I can't find any medical reports that say HPV won't be effected by "herd immunity".3. Garnett GP. Role of herd immunity in determining the effect of vaccines against sexually transmitted disease. J Infect Dis 2005; 191 Suppl 1:S97-106.
4. Hughes JP, Garnett GP, Koutsky L. The theoretical population-level impact of a prophylactic human papilloma virus vaccine. Epidemiology 2002; 13:631-9.
5. Kulasingam S, Connelly L, Conway E, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of adding a human papillomavirus vaccine to the Australian National Cervical Cancer Screening Program. Sex Health 2007; 4:165-75.
6. Newall AT, Beutels P, Wood JG, Edmunds WJ, MacIntyre CR. Cost-effectiveness analyses of human papillomavirus vaccination. Lancet Infect Dis 2007; 7:289-96.
7. Regan DG, Philp DJ, Hocking JS, Law MG. Modelling the population-level impact of vaccination on the transmission of human
papillomavirus type 16 in Australia. Sex Health 2007; 4:147-63.
8. Taira AV, Neukermans CP, Sanders GD. Evaluating human papillomavirus vaccination programs. Emerg Infect Dis 2004; 10:1915-23.
It’s not a communicable disease for one, Charles.
And, unlike tetanus, a small segment of the population is responsible for the vast majority of the infections. Herd immunity relies on certain assumptions, one of which that there exist no significant variances in disease vectors.
I didn’t say that. What I did say is that if you were to inoculate 80 percent of the population, you will not get the same effect of herd immunity as you do with DPT or MMR. Which your study confirms.
Inoculations have a threshold. This is why it’s these six, Diptheria, Pertussis, Tetanus, Measles, Mumps and Rubella all exhibit this characteristic. HPV does not reach the same threshold as the others. So even under ideal conditions, the shot isn’t an effective vaccine.
Hmm. You sound like either you are a statistician, or you are experienced with clinical research.
Anyway, I appreciate your statistical insights into the discussion. I must approach the discussion from the point of view of a basic researcher; I’m more familiar with the biology of the subject and actually helped with an HPV study. Since my statistical background mainly comes from having shared an office with a statistician, I’m familiar with the terminology but not necessarily the methodology.
That’s because Tetanus isn’t a communicable disease. Neither is HPV. The difference between the two is that there are substantial variances in disease vectors that are dependent on human behaviour. This is why even if you inoculated 80 percent of people, the disease would still be endemic.
What’s not reported is that Gardasil doesn’t even prevent *all* strains of HPV.
<><><><
That is simply not the case at all. It has been widely reported that it does not protect against all strains, but that those that are protected account for about 70 percent of the cases of cervical cancer.
Um... HPV is certainly communicable. You can't get it by stepping on a rusty nail or eating tainted food; you get it from another person.
“So, if you vaccinated the entire population of women (150 million), and if you believe that the unverified VAERS reports accurately reflect REAL side effects specifically caused by the shots, you would expect 382 women to die, another 220,000 to have serious side effects.”
Which is why it’s a good thing that Gardasil is untested on people. We are only just now catching the side effects of Gardasil.
“Now, HPV causes 70% of all cervical cancer. Gardasil prevents 70% of those, or about 49% of all cervical cancer. 3800 women die in the U.S. from cervical cancer each year, so if we vaccinated every woman, we could expect to save 1,900 lives a year, at a cost of 382 one-time deaths from the vaccine.”
If you vaccinated 80 percent of the population you’d see no appreciable decline in cervical cancer rates. So you’d see 350 women die and zero saved.
You’re not going to get 100 percent, Charles, not without making it mandatory. And you’re not going to be able to make the vaccine mandatory, when it’s not a communicable disease.
“As to “100% of the time” protection, yes, if you are a Nun in a monestery, and completely protected from any chance of a man ever raping you, then you are 100% protected.”
Which is why we need to make people have the shot, just so people can be sure that they are protected without having to care about whom they are having sex with.
“So yes, if you don’t want to risk the vaccine, you can refrain from sex, or be very careful about it. That is a choice for a woman to make,”
So the men don’t have any role in trasmission? Why then are we seeing the push to vaccinate men? If it’s not a man’s decision, then we should not be vaccinating them, especially given the negative side effects.
Look up the definition of communicable.
“cost of 382 one-time deaths from the vaccine”
You can die more than once?
Umm, Charles, these aren’t ‘one-time’ deaths. These are deaths that will continue, because you can’t just stop vaccinating people.
Papilloma viruses have disease vectors in animals too. This isn’t like smallpox.
I went to the doctor for a toenail fungus. Sure enough, she sent me for a liver function test for whatever the latest pharmaceutical product was that would, I was told, take months to clear the infection. Didn’t go for the test. I went home and searched the ‘net and found out about tea tree oil— $3/bottle. Problem solved.
My very young podiatrist says that people should use tea tree oil regularly on toenails, infected, or not.
What did you use?
com·mu·ni·ca·ble definition
Pronunciation: /kə-ˈmy{uuml}-ni-kə-bəl/
Function: adj
: capable of being transmitted from person to person, animal to animal, animal to human, or human to animal
Okay. Now, please explain to me how HPV is NOT communicable, because it sure as heck appears to me that it fits the definition.
Furthermore, there is every reason to think that herd immunity dynamics affect HPV.
Protecting gays is more important than fertile young women.
Can you get HPV just from standing across from someone?
Is there a way to ensure 100 percent protection from HPV without a vaccine?
“Furthermore, there is every reason to think that herd immunity dynamics affect HPV.”
Well sure. The problem is that herd immunity in HPV is substantially weaker, than it is for DPT or MMR. Which is why we should not vaccinate against it.
The push is on to give it to young boys too. Its worth BILLIONS to leftwing Merck.
I was afraid of this. I'm not arguing for a mandatory vaccination policy. I'm arguing that the VAERS data does not indicate the vaccine is dangerous. I might think that 100% vaccination would be a good thing, but I also don't believe we should make people get vaccinated just because it would be helpful to others who want to have risky sex.
Let those who want to engage in behavior decide for themselves if they want some protection. I obviously disagree with your contention that an 80% vaccination rate would somehow hit only the population that wasn't going to get HPV anyway, and therefore wouldn't help the death rate. In any case, my hypothetical was assuming a 100% rate of vaccination, because it was a hypothetical to compare the rate of reported side effects vs the expected benefits.
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.