How is this for a radio commentary?
Youâve heard about Toyotaâs debacle with their product. About fifty deaths have been attributed to unexpected acceleration in the cars. As a result, it triggered billions of dollars in recalled vehicles. Compare that with Gardasil, the vaccine to prevent human papilloma virus, a sexually transmitted disease causing cervical cancer. So far about the same number of deaths has been linked to this vaccine. But thereâs been no wide scale publicity or a recall. As a matter of fact, itâs still required for sixth-grade girls in several states, although parents can opt out. For no medical reason, Gardasil was fast-track approved by the FDA. Now it appears young girls are paying with their lives. If youâre thinking of giving Gardasil to your daughter, make sure you get all the facts first.
Not only does this have a negative effect on girls, but it has been approved for use in boys as well. What does the CDC say?
To date, VAERS has not received any adverse event reports occurring in the U.S. following Cervarix [a drug to perform the same task].
As of January 31, 2010, there were 15,829 VAERS reports of adverse events following Gardasil vaccination in the United States. Of these reports, 92% were reports of events considered to be non-serious, and 8% were reports of events considered serious.
The VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) is an early warning system that the CDC employs. They do write what some of those “non-serious events” are:
Falls after fainting may sometimes cause serious injuries, such as head injuries, which can be prevented by closely observing the vaccinated person for 15 minutes after vaccination.
Yep, that sounds like someone who has a fear of needles. On the serious side:
There have been some reports of blood clots after receiving Gardasil. These clots have occurred in the heart, lungs, and legs. Most of these people had a risk of getting blood clots, such as taking oral contraceptives (the birth control pill), smoking, obesity, and other risk factors.
Pardon me if I am wrong but wasn’t Gardasil made mandatory because we can’t control our teenager’s sexuality? Why are we combining this drug with something else that is known to cause blood clots? It’s a risk-comparitive analysis but the obvious answer should be abstinance.
Please choose wisely.
Comments
Submitted by netwiz on
I got into an extended vaccination debate on FB that probably relates to your opening comment here, but let me re-factor it.
Vaccination and vehicle safety are two different things. The safer thing with a vehicle is to not use it, once you use it there are risks of accidents so the “goal” is to minimize the occurrence of them. Vaccines have a very different scenario: they are introduced when there are already “accidents” (e.g. deaths or serious impacts from a disease are occurring) and they are “successful” when the overall result is improved from not using them. So if 10 in 1,000 people are adversely affected by a disease, and vaccinating the people causes it to be 1 in 1,000 then the vaccination is a success even if people can easily show that the 1 in 1,000 is because of the vaccine. Epidemiology is about the overall effect not an individual case. Does that make sense? The weird thing is that they have to ignore that potentially the 1 in 1,000 injured by the vaccine wouldn’t have been any of the 10 in 1,000 that would have been hurt by the disease—they just have to focus on the overall impact on the population.
As long as I have the option to not vaccinate my children against a disease that’s very significantly behavior based then I’ll opt out. However if it becomes mandated I won’t complain either. On the FB debate I engaged in I did have to conclude that I would accept revoking all mandated vaccination and allow my child to die from a preventable disease in order that someone else could have the freedom not to be vaccinated, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg on that discussion.
Submitted by Chris on
Yes, the vaccine debate is a fun one. I have read nursing books on the subject (and posted excerpts in the second-to-last comment here).
A friend deals with a gluten intolerance and gluten is covered by the company’s ability to conceal trade secrets. There are discussion groups that know certain medications contain gluten because everyone with a gluten intolerance reacts when they take these medicines.
Modern medicine is very good, but it does not have the answer for everything. Politics still play a role—as you would know.
I’ve seen attempts by other people to document how effective (or ineffective) vaccines have been. I lack the ability right now (or, perhaps more accurately, time) to verify their timelines. What I have seen is that the Swine Flu infections were projected to peak before the vaccine became generally available. I watched projections and news reports a lot last fall. The projections dragged out, both for the peak and the availability but the vaccine was not ultimately responsible for the end. This was true even after they decided that they could vaccinate in a single dose.
Your other post about “survival of the fittest” is mildly amusing because it applies here as well. Most of the deaths from “flu” are not the flu, they are complications from the flu. The immune system was already weak. The annual flu shots only protect from two strains that generally (combined) add up to far less than half of the flu infections each year.
Did you know that tetanus shots are not a major issue? Doctors can deal easily with the disease after it is contracted.
Unfortunately most shots that are viewed as “necessary” have very similar stories. I know my view of some diseases is different from a lot of people in our culture. I’m ready to see heaven. If others aren’t, let them take their chances with the shot. Most people are not aware of the risks.
I know someone who told their doctor that they did not want Gardasil administered to their daughter. The doctor jabbed the needle into the girl anyway, just a couple minutes later. It was clearly intentional and the daughter was in agreement with her mother. The landscape is rather ugly.
Submitted by netwiz on
As long as things are “recommended” I have a personal preference to get them because I hate being sick (again, if it’s become so established that it’s “recommended” then I’m assuming the benefit outweighs the risk). While in general I resist treating illness once I get it (suddenly then I care about putting artificial things in the picture), which I’ve learned to moderate in the context of marriage and family, I have to honestly say I like the avoidance of pain vaccines offer.
The easiest thing to get a rise out of me on this debate is when people take their or a direct experience and go “see, the government or vaccine makers lie to us”. Um, I just want to grab them by the neck and force them to admit they don’t understand the concept of a double-blind study. We don’t begin to understand how our brain has so much control over our health…but it does, and we all need to start and end with that factor.
Submitted by Chris on
I have tried to resolve not to admit anything under torture.
The avoidance of pain is fine. I’m not saying that you can’t have it.