Despite Deaths, 9,749 Other Adverse Reactions, Feds Say Gardasil is Safe

Despite Deaths, Other Reactions, Feds Say Gardasil is Safe
Date Published: Wednesday, July 23rd, 2008


Federal health regulators are insisting that Gardasil is safe, despite thousand of reports of adverse events related to the controversial cervical cancer vaccine. Officials at the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) said they have reviewed the adverse event reports, and said that they cannot find a connection between Gardasil and the reported problems

Gardasil was approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2006. At the time of its approval, Merck & Co. said that clinical trials had proven the vaccine to be between 90-100% effective in preventing the transmission of some strains of HPV that cause cervical cancer. The approval of Gardasil was much hyped, with Merck claiming that it had the potential to eventually eliminate most cervical cancers.

Just weeks after its approval, the CDC recommended that all young girls between the ages of 11 and 12 receive the Gardasil vaccine. Merck was more than happy to echo the CDC recommendations, and actually began an intensive lobbying effort to convince state health authorities to make Gardasil vaccinations mandatory for young girls.

As of June 30, 2008, there have been 9,749 Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports of adverse events following Gardasil vaccination. Of these, 6 percent were deemed serious. The adverse event reports included 20 deaths, as well as reports of a rare neurological condition called Guillain-Barré Syndrome.

Despite these disturbing reports, the FDA and CDC are standing by Gardasil. “There was not a common pattern to the deaths that would suggest they were caused by the vaccine,” the FDA and CDC said in a statement.

more...

http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/3493

From lobby through a federal agency.

There have been less than 10,000 reactions and of those, only 6% were serious? That's less than 600. I'm not arguing one side or the other, but I think you could find 600 serious reactions to aspirin or chocolate or peanuts out of a million.

that real statistics, facts, and reasoning have NO PLACE on a thread about vaccines. :sarcasm:

Sometimes I like to go steppin' into shit. :evilgrin:

So that 600 figure is likely much larger. Also aspirin is not a mandated health procedure being given to people who are not in need of aspirin. Reactions to aspirin are not denied as being caused by aspirin. And one who has a reaction to aspirin is told not to take it again.

Further the reactions to Gardasil that are tracked via VAERS are short term. The long term consequence for many, remains unknown.

I don't have the data on peanuts and aspirin, but I am glad that peanuts are not mandated for school given their potential to cause an alergic reaction. ;)

DRUG FAILURE PBS November 17, 2004

"Two separate federal investigations are under way into whether Merck violated criminal laws by covering up information about Vioxx's dangers and whether it misled company shareholders about the safety of the drug."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec04/vioxx_11-17.html

Instead of taking Vioxx for my back now I take Hydrocodone. Vioxx worked great without side effects in my case.

David

Selfish Bastard! :patriot:

Cheers!

David

you dodged a bullet so far.

Hope that takes care of your questions.

David

You'll be thrown in with the rest of us shills. :D

Evidently not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x39534

I went searching for more on this drug after seeing a story this a.m. about some very sick teens who got sick after taking the vaccine. Who would benefit from discounting the potential danger of this vaccine?
Just some food for thought.

Some more food for thought.

protesting too much. What if there is a relationship? IIRC, there wasn't a lot of trial testing done on this drug. Who knows? Certainly not you or me.
Remember how 'safe' Vioxx was? Does thalidomide ring any bells?

Just because I understand the facts here, I'm somehow a paid Merck operative? Nice.

I didn't say you were a paid Merck operative, but if you had a financial stake in this, of course you'd defend the company. They have a crappy record. I believe they pushed Vioxx on an unsuspecting public as well, despite knowing the grave risks?

Well to endulge your little red herring, NO, I do not own any Merck stock. I don't get paid by them, I don't receive any compensation whatsoever. And I feel insulted by your little insinuation otherwise, not that you care, I'm sure.

I am merely defending facts for the sake of truth as opposed to feeding fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

I do apologize. But given Merck's track record, please allow me my skepticism.
My original intent was to throw this out there for discussion. After seeing those sick young girls, I do believe someone needs to be examining this. I know nothing will be accomplished here, but this is a discussion board, so allow us the opportunity. Thanks.

But I think DU should be a responsible discussion board. We should not be treating info on the level of chain e-mails as serious data. Your source for this "article" doesn't even include an author, cite, or anything. It's inflammatory and irresponsible.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/mzmolly/34

You may find it of interest?

Thank you for sharing this information B. Don't let the "don't ever discuss vaccine reactions" crowd discourage you. :hi:

I seem to recall you having similar hostile reactions over discussions on the mercury in vaccines contributing to autism.

What a ridiculous question.

I just don't want people making medical decisions based on false information, fear, or doubt. And when it comes down to it, that's what 99% of the anti-vax movement is about. People who don't full understand the data making unwarranted leaps and conclusions, and then scaring others and making them doubt the efficacy and safety of vaccines. So rather than attack me or my motives, why not stick to the facts?

Because she is entering college in the fall. However, we along with her doctor decided against the Guardisil in her case.

It's not a "pro vax/anti vax" thing, it's a bit more individual than that isn't it?

That's ALWAYS your thing though, anybody who decides against any vaccine for any reason needs to get yelled at....please. I repeat my question, is there ANY vaccine people can turn down without you belittling them?

And yes, I do always have the feeling you're some kind of drug company "spokesperson" of some sort.

I don't need to waste any more time trying to prove that I'm *not* beholden to any drug company. That's your ad hom, and it's pretty sad to have to resort to it.

I also don't agree with your mischaracterization of my position. I care greatly for public health, but I think it's fine to decline vaccination for legitimate medical reasons - problem is, very rarely does someone in here have a legitimate reason. Far more often than not, it's based on misunderstanding or fearmongering. But when I (or others) point that out, we're immediately dismissed as being big pharma operatives.

Now let's turn this around, since you felt fine jumping right in to hound me: can I continue to advocate for vaccination without *you* belittling me?

condescending attitude that anybody who questions any of it is a superstitious ninny -- "rarely does someone in here have a legitimate reason?" That would seem to be up to them and their doctor, not you!

In any case -- the ignore list was just meant for such a purpose IMO, so we don't have to continue this conversation.

Glad to give you this opportunity to pretend to take the high road! Of course nowhere did I say anyone was a "superstitious ninny", but who let accuracy get in the way of a good ad hom?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Why attack me instead of relying on facts?

I think it's in your chi.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I hate that asshat.

Is that the so-called placebo group was aluminum adjuvant, which itself has not undergone FDA testing. There was recently a study done in mice, which showed that aluminum adjuvant given in the dose levels given to Gulf War veterans before the first Gulf War could be a big problem.

Also, there were only about 1,000 adolescent girls in their testing.

months? years? ago when this vaccine first came out. That sure doesn't seem like a lot of people tested to then administer the vaccine to millions.

You will find yourself stalked and harassed by the Gardasil enthusiasts, people at DU
who seldom post an original thought, but can always be counted upon to attack
anyone who dares post news articles or reports on Gardasil.

They don't want you posting your OP here.

The goal is to run you off.

They will do everything possible to create a flame war in order to distract from the criticism of the beloved gardasil.

I guess that tells us all we need to know about your critical thinking skills.

I posted an article I thought would be of interest to DUers after I saw a story this a.m. You insulting me has nothing to do with this story, but says a lot more about you.

Then you damage your own reputation.

Citing VAERS statistics is like citing the National Enquirer.

If you don't wish to be criticized, take more care in what you post.

agree with them, precisely because I don't have a medical background and don't know enough about this. That doesn't mean my interest should be questioned. Maybe you need to pay better attention.

And when you post bogus BS it is not your fault and you should be above criticism.

I see now. Thanks for clearing that up.

I don't know how much experience you have with this forum, but every now and then there are posts here that imply that all vaccines, or even all 'Western medicines', are suspect, and that anyone who supports them is a paid shill for Pharma companies. This is why people sometimes react strongly. There are some of us who feel strongly that people should have a *right* to take advantage of vaccines without being treated as immoral (it can get a bit like the Religious Right's attitude to stem cell research), and that of course includes the many in developing countries who don't have *access* to vaccines.

As regards 'any vaccine you don't love': I myself choose not to take the flu vaccine, even though I'm in a risk group (people on low dose steroids) that could get it free in Britain, because I've had unpleasant short-term side effects each time I've had it. I would probably advise someone else to act differently from me! And I would certainly get it if there were a projected pandemic, or a predicted particularly nasty strain, or if a vaccine were developed that would work for several years instead of just one year at a time. At any rate, I can certainly understand people choosing to avoid certain vaccines or medicines, rightly or wrongly - but that is different from treating all vaccines as evil.

I am *not* a shill for anyone. I am a researcher on developmental psychology and developmental disorders, so I have a professional interest in autism and its causes; and I myself have a disorder (Crohns disease) that some have tried to link to the MMR vaccine (though we didn't have that vaccine when I was a child, and I already had the disorder *before* having the single measles vaccine). Some of my motivation is concern that attributing autism and bowel disorders to vaccines, even in the face of research that has already shown these to be unlikely causes, gets in the way of finding the real causes for these disorders. Some of my motivation is that I, and some of my family members, have benefitted enormously from 'Western medicine' (as patients, not stock owners!!!) and I resent sneers at something that has been so important to is - just as people with Parkinsons and similar neurological conditions resent Religious Righties who condemn stem cell research. And some of my motivation comes from the fact that one of my big political issues is the denial of access to medicines and vaccines to many in developing countries. To a large extent it's 'Western medicine' simply because Westerners are more likely to be able to afford it. And that is the real unfairness IMO.

So this topic touches a nerve with some of us. It isn't a personal attack on you.

:rofl:

The information collected into the VAERS database comes from a wide array of sources, including patients and parents, state health agencies, pharmacies, health care providers, and the makers of the vaccines. Although complete information greatly enhances the analysis of vaccine safety, in order to capture as many reports as possible, reports with less complete information will be included in the database.

The primary purpose for maintaining the database is to serve as an early warning or signaling system for adverse events not detected during pre-market testing. In addition, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA) requires health care providers and vaccine manufacturers to report to the DHHS specific adverse events following the administration of those vaccines outlined in the Act.

A balance must be struck in reducing the burden on voluntary reporters while providing enough data to produce necessary "signal flags" to trigger analysis of potential significant events and trends.

http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaers/data.htm

vaers is a medical reporting system.


"Welcome to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) Web site.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System is a cooperative program for vaccine safety of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). VAERS is a post-marketing safety surveillance program, collecting information about adverse events (possible side effects) that occur after the administration of US licensed vaccines.

This Web site provides a nationwide mechanism by which adverse events following immunization (AEFI) may be reported, analyzed and made available to the public. The VAERS Web site also provides a vehicle for disseminating vaccine safety-related information to parents/guardians, healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, state vaccine programs, and other constituencies."

That is their plan. They've just banned estirol cream, for example, simply because it "isn't proven", where the drug alternative HAS been shown to cause side effects. Couple this with Monsanto's push to allow Genetically Modified Food and cloned food onto the markets and to work on banning heirloom seeds and organic food--profit and greed are more important than health.

My mother had just had her flu shot right before she got Guillain-Barre' Syndrome and died from it. I'm sorry, but these "vaccinations" are more dangerous than the diseases they're supposed to protect us from.

I'm sorry about your mom but your assertion is ridiculous.

David

Are you freakin' serious?

Last year I attended a family reunion and we collected a lot of family tree information. What was striking was that almost all the families back about four generations lost children to childhood diseases. One family had 8 children and only three lived to adulthood. The rest were killed by measles, whooping cough, or some other disease that today pose little risk due to vaccines. Since we have no memory of those times when many thousands of children died every year from diseases, we focus on the handful who die from the vaccines. The same thing is true with Gardasil - there is no way to ever know how many women will be saved from cervical cancer because they had the vaccine, but we can count how many died after taking the vaccine. All I know is that as soon as it became available, my teenage daughter was first in line to receive it. And, no I don't own any Big Pharma stocks.

etc. I had the chicken pox and pneumonia - lived to tell.

My Great Grandmother and all of her siblings lived long lives, in spite of not being vaccinated. I don't get the mentality that it's ok to die from a vaccine, but not a disease.

Yes vaccines have made a contribution to society, but that does not mean we are not to question and/or seek to improve them today. If Gardasil is a danger to the ten year olds we're jabbing (to possibly prevent a sexually transmitted disease) we better find out why, and do something about it.

that is the point.

Many people did not survive whooping cough and measles, or were damaged by them - far more than have been damaged by the vaccines. I know someone who had whooping cough when she was a baby. She survived, but had oxygen deprivation to the motor areas of her brain, and has never been able to walk.

And *many* people died of pneumonia in the past, especially before antibiotics, but sometimes even afterwards. I had it as a child. I obviously didn't die, but I was in poor condition for several months. My grandfather had pneumonia as an adult, and he survived, but it permanently weakened him and ultimately shortened his life.

I am glad that your great grandmother and her siblings lived long lives. So did my great grandparents and most of their siblings (one lived to be nearly 103). But this doesn't alter the fact that ON AVERAGE people live much longer nowadays than a few generations ago; and that vaccines are *one* reason for this.

I'm not sure we can make a statement like that without factoring in many things.

As for the assertion that vaccines are ONE reason for extended life expectancy, I would actually agree. The CDC has said vaccines have had a "modest" impact on life expectancy. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be thoughtful about who and how we vaccinate and what we vaccinate for. In my opinion, it was wrong to mandate Gardasil for young girls. Turns out this opinion was shared by the scientist who developed the vaccine.

All I ask is that we not give a "blank check" to vaccine makers simply because the word "vaccine" is attached.

I developed measles encephalitis. I lived, but was sick for a very long time. One of my playmates died from it.

A neighbor of mine was disfigured when one of her kids brought chicken pox home. She hadn't had it as a child.

I went to school with kids who were deaf or blind because their mothers had German measles while they were pregnant. I also went to school with kids in braces from polio. I was lucky--all I got stuck with were ugly high topped orthopedic shoes from my polio.

Only people who don't remember how lethal those "usual childhood diseases" were have the luxury of saying that since some relative survived it, everybody did. They didn't. Those diseases caused a great deal of long term illnesses and even death in a lot of kids.

Vaccines are a godsend and anyone who tells you differently is a fool.

I'm waiting for someone to tell you that the adverse effects of polio vaccinations outweigh the benefits of not getting polio.

I cannot believe some of the shit I read in this forum.

childhood ailments. My Great-grandmother lost her oldest daughter to appendicitis. We didn't have access to 911 in those days, and they did not have a way to transport her to the hospital. Emergency Rooms etc. were not abundant at that time. Comparing measles today and measles decades ago, is apples and oranges. Heck, we didn't even have OTC Tylenol.

My husband was vaccinated for measles and contracted it in spite, had a fever of 105. I have been vaccinated against measles and never developed immunity, and/or it did not last, so it was suggested I have a jab while pregnant. Not a good idea, it turns out.

Nearly every American prior to vaccination, had been exposed to chicken pox, few are disfigured. In fact, mass vaccination is spreading pox into older generations where it is far more dangerous. It seems again that we fear the rare consequence of adversity to chicken pox, but we're to be ok with a vaccine reaction to prevent it for an undetermined time? Why?

Vaccines are not from the heavens, they carry risks and benefits, like any other medical intervention we have available today. I don't suggest everyone have their appendix removed to prevent deaths like that of my relative, and I suggest we needn't vaccinate all ten year old girls for HPV because a handful of adult women will contract the disease.

(On edit, I am sorry that you had Polio. I'm not going to mention the major controversy surrounding the polio vaccine, but I suggest googling SV40 for a beginning. We may never know what we tragedy we traded Polio for on a societal level. We will never know if polio would have declined from natural herd immunity without intervention as some suggest.

I also have family that survived this horrible disease. One uses braces to walk, to this day. I also have family that survived childhood cancer. Can't say I'd like to choose between the two.)

full of unsubstantiated fearmongering, and a complete disregard for the facts.

if you want to posit that a vaccine is dangerous, you have to have more than..x number of people got y. because z number of people probably get y over the same time frame, anyway.
then you have to look at the d number of people who die from the disease the vaccine seeks to prevent.


if a discussion of vaccines does not contain that framework, AT LEAST, it is a useless, and probably dishonest exercise in tongue flapping.

love you, bs, but please do not fall for these kind of stories. vaccines have changed the world. there are costs, including human costs. but the costs of not having them must be a part of the equation to have a true answer.

At this point we have no data on whether or not these vaccines actually prevent cervical cancer. There is only some sort of supposition that they will.

as I understand it there haven't been long term trials on this drug. I kept hearing doctos say that it was so safe. You know, how can they say that until the long term trials are complete.

This really reminds of hormone replacement therapy. Millions and millions of women were sold on those things over the years. And then - after 30 years - we find out that they could have devasting long term problms.

I just don't trust the FDA any more. I really don't see why anyone would.

There is a limit as to how long "long-term" trials can go.

Are there ongoing trials now? How far out are they now?

Just curious.

From the VAERS site:

the tracking system isn't reliable. :crazy:

Sad that those who blindly defend vaccination don't demand a more reliable method and more data BEFORE vaccines are mandated for children. In fact, I remember when many of us questioned a vaccine mandate for Gardasil in various states. We questioned the age of the children being vaccinated, the lack of data etc. After we were ridiculed for this, a Scientist who worked to develop the vaccine went on the record with virtually the SAME set of concerns.

"Dr. Harper, who has dedicated two decades of her career to research on HPV, told Florida TV station WFOR-TV that the rush to recommend and mandate the vaccination of very young girls “went too fast without any breaks.” Dr. Harper says that there has not been enough post-marketing surveillance of Gardasil to insure that it is free of side effects that could prove particularly dangerous to young girls. “We don’t know yet what’s going to happen when millions of doses of the vaccine have been given and to put in place a process that says you must have this vaccine, it means you must be part of a big public experiment. So we can’t do that until we have more data.” Dr. Harper said."

http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/3046

... they would gives some indication of the reliability of the individual reports in the system, rather than just declaring that the reports are not reliable.

they have in place to uhm, "protect" us.

could critique questions later by saying VAERS isn't reliable. Funny how that works, huh?

I'm going to share a secret with you. Anything "bad" that happens after a vaccine, is a "coincidence" can't be "proven" and/or is "worth it" for society as a whole. You are not to question anything containing the word "vaccine."

The Anthrax vaccine is perfectly safe too by the way. :sarcasm:

K and R

The thin air up there on your high horse seems to have really started to effect you.

Anything "bad" that happens after a vaccine is a potential side effect to that vaccine, potential being the key word. VAERS information has its place, but is so misused and misunderstood by the media, as well as a number of regular posters on this forum, that its value is completely overblown.

To suggest that any information found in VAERS in its raw state can show causation or is actionable for public health policy is absurd.

And to suggest that people who insist that information presented on this forum be at least somewhat correct are part of some conspiracy, as you are so want to do MZ, is just straight up insulting.

:eyes:

What information was "incorrect" in the OP?

It isn't safe.

My daughter won't be jumping on the gardasil bandwagon.

The VAERS database has no records of adverse effects to Hasslehoff.

Hulk loses out to Hoff every time!

and there's nopossibility of making these pro vaccine factions see the logic in our concerns in regards to the pharma companies wanting to use our little girls a guinea pigs. It is a fact that there are approximately 20 types of HPV that are know to cause cancer. Gardisil claims to protect against only 2 of the types out of the twenty. That means there are 18 other types of HPVs that still cause cancer, yet they insist this vaccine will prevent, not cause thousands of deaths. So much is still unknown about the effectiveness of the vaccine and until I see some long term studies on how this affects these little girls futures as women and that answers questions such as; Will the vaccine maintain it's effectiveness over the years and how will it affect the long term reproductive health of these girls when they are grown? My argument has and always be that the risks outweigh the benefits.

Do you understand this math at all?

(And in testing it was discovered the vaccine triggered an immune response to two more strains - strains it wasn't even designed for!)

experiment on your little girl as you see fit, keep mine out of the equation.

and the wearing of ignorance as a badge of honor is sadly not only found on FreeRepublic.

and it won't make you any more right.

Ergo your opinion is anything but "informed."

And, on edit, I did not personally insult you but merely made an observation about DU.

I admitted no such thing. I said "whether or not I can do the math, I stand by my words." Your determination of my math capabilities makes for a poor argument. You don't have data on the long term effects, you don't even have data on how long the vaccine will protect women from the virus, because it doesn't exist. Since you can't argue those points you choose to imply that we are stupid and ill informed. Until those studies are complete, you sir, are ill informed also.

I'm not willing to blindly follow the pharmaceutical companies over a cliff at this point. I don't want to find out in 15 years that my daughter will not be able to bear children, or that the children she does bear come out deformed or mentally deficient because of a vaccine that was rushed to market in chase of the all mighty dollar.

So whatever your interest is in pushing this vaccine, I suggest you sell it some where else.

Talk about unsupported fear mongering. Thank you for perfectly illustrating what is wrong with the anti-vax movement. You don't understand the math, you don't understand the virus, you don't understand the vaccine, but you are perfectly willing to condemn it because of your Google expertise.

you've provided no credentials or links from the google either.

You showed you don't understand the math, so why bother?

http://www.fda.gov/CBER/safety/gardasil071408.htm

Now you're as guilty as I am of using that implied (by you) unreliable source known as the google. Now google me some information on the length of effectiveness and long term effects. Oh that's right, there isn't any data, guess you're going have to pull that out of a place the sun doesn't shine.

Didn't think so. But thanks for playing!

in regards to my last question? They don't exist. I'm glad you think it's such a fun little game. You don't address any of my argument, you just laugh, call names and ridicule.

I'd love to, but your "argument" is an appeal to fear and ignorance. That's it.

what ever your motive is; it must be a money maker for you.

Need a refresher course on the rules?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html


3. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.
4. Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements. The moderators and administrators work very hard to enforce some minimal standards regarding what content is appropriate. But please remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum.
5. Copyrights: Do not copy-and-paste entire articles onto this discussion forum. When referencing copyrighted work, post a short excerpt (not exceeding 4 paragraphs) with a link back to the original.

Care to enlighten me on which one I violated?

Your friend also inferred trotksy was a freeper, but that just backfired on him. :rofl:

I implied no where that he was a freeper and I defy you to post that. Because I didn't kowtow to his opinion, and I didn't hush up and go away after his personal attacks on me? Let's see, I'm ill informed, ah what else, I don't bother to read, I was laughed at, ridiculed, and now you are jumping into the fray. But I'm the rule breaker? Do me a favor, alert on this thread.

Try again.

it is up to you to prove I did.

Jesus effin Christ, do I have to spoon feed it to you?

How do you know who my friends are and who aren't? Suddenly I'm responsible for what everyone else posts? You accused me of breaking the rules, I asked you to address the rules that I broke and you just toss in some else's remarks then accuse me of being dense? There was no reason to post that sentence in your post to me.

of this drug.

I don't trust the FDA - they have a horrible track record.

Its not science that I'm afraid of. Its big business and what they are willing to do for huge profits.

they would not cause birth defects in babies whose mothers had the vaccine long before they ever became pregnant.

If a vaccine has dangerous side-effects, this will be manifested more-or-less immediately - not in 15 years' time.

strange bedfellows. They love and defend Merck too.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1788180/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1855174/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1782135/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941987/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1935731/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1855515/posts

And LOOK! They even love the same Erin Brockovich article posted here! Sure, it's causing some contortions but they overall LUV the fact that a famous "lib" has joined "their side" against this LIBERAL vaccine, Gardasil!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2058011/posts

Search even more for yourself if you want:
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/gardasil/index

:rofl:
I can't believe you would make such a claim when the evidence proving you horribly wrong is just a click away.

I think you did.

But the two in the vaccine are prevalant worldwide (70% of cases), and MORE prevalent than that in the US. As I've said in other threads, I could give two fucks about protection from the type most prevalant in Madagascar, it's the ones here I worry about, and they're covered by the vaccine.

My cervical cancer has affected my reproductive health, I'll have to have cervical circlages should I get pregnant again (I'm lucky enough to have been able to keep my uterus).

For my daughter, the benefits FAR outweigh the risks.

I guess that gets more reads / recs.

post some evidence that your beloved Gardasil has saved anyone from cancer.


The fact is that no one knows for sure if Gardasil will "save" anyone.

:rofl:

I don't take anything it says seriously anymore.

I would have given up a long time ago.

:eyes:

"I'm totally ignorant of the process of developing a vaccine and even more ignorant of the way it works so I'm against it! It might have SIDE EFFECTS!"

"I'm not ignorant of the process and I know how it works and I know the difference between expected side effects and adverse events and here they are."

"I am not going to read your obviously bought and paid for stuff from Big Pharma! It's all lies! Here are fifty web sites from other people who don't know how vaccines are developed and how they work and what the difference between a side effect and an adverse event are!"

"Your websites don't impress me because they are from people who are just as medically ignorant as you are!"

"I have more websites than you do! YOU are the ignorant one!"

"No, you are!"

"Am not! YOU are!"

and so it goes.

Please excuse me here, but shouldn't the alt med stuff be posted on the spirituality, astrology and alt. med forum? If there is interesting preliminary research, by all means post it, but shouldn't the "drug companies are out to get you" stuff go somewhere else, where it's welcome?

It's just a suggestion from someone who is sick and tired of reading the juvenile posts these threads always turn into.

As I have said before, it always stuns me how anti-science people are here when it comes to health... science rules for environment, space, physics, etc... but when it comes to health, science is evil.

The FDA approved Vioxx

Shall we assume that everything the FDA approves is safe?

Is that scientific?

Is that logical? Is that sane?

for most users. If Merck had been up front about the risks it would probably still be on the market.

David

And only 600 adverse reactions (out of less than ten thousand total adverse reactions) were classified as severe? Why is this news?

Pardon me if I remain skeptical.