Bachman Perry overdrive.
Search for the money trail.
Thank you for posting, Mark! Politics aside, many parents need to be informed about this vaccine and the risk it poses. If you have a daughter, granddaughter, niece, goddaughter.... you need to know about this vaccine sooner than later. Many pediatricians will start pushing this vaccine as young as 12. Our DO NOT and there is no way on G*d’s green earth that I would let my girls get it.
*****************************
I wonder if this will change any minds in Texas?
Now they won't get cervical cancer!
Winning!
Before everyone jumps on the hate Perry train I’d like to know how the adverse reaction numbers compare to other vaccines.
Gardasil does not use aborted baby cells, but here is a list of those that do: http://www.cogforlife.org/vaccineListOrigFormat.pdf
They drank water containing fluoride all their lives. It finally caught up with the.
From the VAERS website:
Are all adverse events reported to VAERS caused by vaccines?
No. VAERS receives reports of many adverse events that occur after vaccination. Some occur coincidentally following vaccination, while others may be caused by vaccination. Studies help determine if a vaccine really caused an adverse event. Just because an adverse event happened after a person received a vaccine does not mean the vaccine caused the adverse event. Other factors, such as the person's medical history and other medicines the person took near the time of the vaccination, may have caused the adverse event. It is important to remember that many adverse events reported to VAERS may not be caused by vaccines. Although VAERS can rarely provide definitive evidence of causal associations between vaccines and particular risks, its unique role as a national spontaneous reporting system enables the early detection of signals that can then be more rigorously investigated.
Seriously, at this point, some of the incidents being publicized sound more like the anecdotal fear-mongering we saw after the introduction of Equal (which, according to all studies, is safe).
While the article is dismissive of the danger of cervical cancer, keep in mind that because of the PAP test, over 99% of pre-cancers caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) are caught and treated before they ever progress to cancer. And pre-cancers might not be fatal, but they can destroy a woman's fertility--so if it's your daughter you don't want vaccinated, it's your grandchildren that may never exist. Men also get HPV diseases; the virus doesn't care about gender.
My main concern about the vaccine is not its supposed safety issues. It's that the vaccine only protects against 4 of the over 100 HPV strains out there, and people receiving it might get a false sense of security because of that. The vaccine reduces risk; it doesn't eliminate it. Vaccinated women still need PAP tests.
These are only immediate concerns. I can’t imagine what the long terms concerns cold be.
Anything sold by Big Pharma needs to be scrutinized very carefully. Actually, it’s like an update to your OS or browser. Wait and watch a while before you download and install.
I’m over the hill now, but not on any prescription medication (yet). You can bet I’ll be checking anything a doctor recommends twice. If I have to have my liver function checked before I can take it, I’m not taking it.
So, approximately, best case is that the 4 (I think) strains that are protected against will die out, and the ones left over will fill the gap. The inoculation, ultimately, will accomplish nothing.
IMHO, 26 deaths (assuming that the article is correct) is an awful lot, for a "cure" to a disease that's wholly preventable.
VAERS reports are a totality of bad things that are reported in proximity to taking a vaccine. Let's say you have a heart attack. If you happen to have a vaccine two days ago, it goes in VAERs. If you didn't have a vaccine, it doesn't go in VAERS. There is no checking to see if there is any causality when items are put in VAERS.
VAERS reports are public, and are on the web. The Gardasil VAERS report summary information is here: VAERS Gardasil Report, October 2011. The reports are updated regularly. You don't need a FOIA to get the information, it's not a secret.
Healthy people get sick and die ALL THE TIME. Last time this came up, I did some research on the number of deaths of people in the age group of the girl mentioned here. I then did a percentage of deaths number, and compared it to the percentage of vaccinated people of that age who were reported to have died. The numbers matched. In other words, the number of people who die 2 days after taking the vaccine is equal to the number of people who you would expect to die within two days of any random chosen date.
"Side effects" reports in VAERs are even less useful. Not only do people have minor health issues ALL THE TIME, but people are watching for minor health issues after getting a vaccine, especially if the vaccine is controversal. A person might have 20 headaches a year; but they'll only think about it after a vaccine, and they make an "adverse reaction" report.
Human nature is to find MORE causality when there are reports of causality. See for example the Audi "unexpected acceleration", or the Toyota "unable to stop the car" events. In both cases public reports suggested there was a problem, and suddenly there was a huge increase in reports. Gardasil suffers from this because of news articles like this one -- each article that claims the VAERs data shows a huge problem causes the VAERs data to grow exponentially.
People simply don't expect healthy individuals to die, even though it happens all the time. They want an explanation, and the search for some "reason" often leads to faulty beliefs, because most people are not trained to understand that "Correlation does not imply casuality".
The CDC uses VAERs for several purposes, one of which is to be an early warning system -- but Gardasil's reports are not out of the norm for a drug that has had multiple news stories about it. They have the statistics. The VAERs data is also used as a starting point for two other analyses that are done, one which is more of a regression analysis, and the other is specific clinical study.
In the regression analysis, they do what I did poorly with google -- they compare the reported information to what you would expect with random selection, and see if there is any mathematical indication that more bad things are happening after a vaccine than you would expect. In the case of Gardasil, those regression studies have shown NO increase in the adverse data above what would happen randomly.
In the clinical analysis, they might go back and actually collect medical data from cases of adverse reactions, to see if they can determine what actually caused the problem. They routinely do this for death reports, and sometimes for other severe reactions. Here is the CDC summary for their death report analysis:
As of September 15, 2011, there have been a total 71 VAERS reports of death among those who have received Gardasil®. There were 57 reports among females, 3 were among males, and 11 were reports of unknown gender. Thirty four of the total death reports have been confirmed and 37 remain unconfirmed due to no identifiable patient information in the report such as a name and contact information to confirm the report. A death report is confirmed (verified) after a medical doctor reviews the report and any associated records. In the 34 reports confirmed, there was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine and some reports indicated a cause of death unrelated to vaccination.In that paragraph, we first find that 37 VAERS death reports didn't contain enough information for CDC to find the patient. These are considered unreliable -- there are few protections in the VAERs system for keeping anonymous people from making false reports (I can't remember if it is considered a crime to falsely report something to VAERS).
Of the 34 that were confirmed, in some cases the direct cause of death was found and was unrelated to the vaccine, and in the other cases there was nothing in the reports to suggest unusual death occurances that could be associated with the vaccine.
There have been 40 million Gardasil vaccinations. There are 20,000 VAERS reports -- That is .5 per 1,000 population, or 0.05%. Of those 20,000 reports, 8% are considered non-minor. (something more than a temporay pain, swelling at the injection site, etc. -- things that are temporary and do not require hospitalization).
That leaves 1600 reported serious reactions in 40 million vaccines, or 4 per 100,000 population (0.004%). Remember, these are self-reported, not reactions that have been proven to be related to the vaccine).
FOr comparison, cervical cancer caused by HPV has a rate of 6.7 deaths per 100,000 population for black women, and 2.5 deaths per 100,000 population for white women. So the REPORTED rate of serious side effects for the vaccine are in the same range as the known deaths from the disease for which the vaccine is being used.
The CDC has done regression analysis and other scientific inquiry into the serious side effects being reported, and their online page has a summary of those studies, and found no indication that any of the serious side effects occur more frequently in vaccinated people above the general population.
As an example, they looked at reports of blood clots, and found that most people reporting blood clots after getting vaccinated were people who had other risk factors known to cause blood clots. The GBS rate for vaccinated girls was no higher than the rate in the general population.
It is certainly true that there is significant money involved in this vaccine, and it doesn't hurt to question government action because of this. We pretend we can use government to protect us from bad actors, but government regulation is always driven by the people regulated, because they have a specific monetary interest in making those regulations work for them, while the rest of the population has only a passing interest in being "protected" from any particular thing.
But don't confuse the fact that every regulation costs companies money, and ever government action changes the costs to business, and therefore business has a reason to spend money to get favorable rulings, with actual proof that a company MUST have bribed multiple science officials in the CDC to falsify studies in order to hide an epidemic of adverse reactions to a particular vaccine.
I urge the use of some critical thinking. We know that there is a core of conservative thought that finds the idea of vaccinating young girls for a sexually transmitted disease somehow distasteful, and is therefore looking for an excuse to find fault with the vaccine. That would explain why ordinary illness and death are seen as a sure sign the vaccine is evil.
A dear friend of mine just took her daughter in for a visit with her regular pediatrician—just the routine check-up for an 11-year-old. The doctor pushed the vaccine, and my friend declined. The doctor became upset and started to berate her about her “unfounded” fears, and this was all in front of her daughter. She said that when she politely, yet firmly told him “we have discussed this and have decided this is not a vaccine we will get”, he acted as if this was some sort of personal affront to him. He was extremely defensive and patronizing, when in the past he had been very respectful and attentive.
She told the doctor that it was inappropriate to have this conversation at that time, but he would not stop. She said he grew increasingly hostile until she finally told him that the converstation was OVER, and she walked out. She is switching doctors, and she will NOT be getting that vaccine for ANY of her three daughters.
I just emailed her this article. Thank you.
Protecting gays is more important than fertile young women.
The push is on to give it to young boys too. Its worth BILLIONS to leftwing Merck.
Pure trash. You are irresponsible for passing on this trash.
Just waiting for the lawyers to line up.