Merck Researcher Admits: Gardasil Guards Against Almost Nothing

[Ballygrl]

A friend of mine has a niece who got this shot, the girl was athletic and never had any health problems, she got this shot and has had muscle aches since. There's just been too many cases of young girls getting sick and dying because of this shot. Thank God the talk of mandating it has stopped, but parents need to inform themselves before they get this for their daughters.

The article is very long so I just included an excerpt:

http://catholicexchange.com/2009/10/21/122823/

Merck Researcher Admits: Gardasil Guards Against Almost Nothing

October 21st, 2009 by Steven W. Mosher

[with Joan Robinson, Assistant Editor at the Population Research Institute]

On the morning of 2 October 2009, one of us (Joan) joined an audience of mostly health professionals and listened as Dr. Diane Harper, the leading international developer of the HPV vaccines, gave a sales pitch for Gardasil. Gardasil, as you may know, is the new vaccine that is supposed to confer protection against four strains of the sexually transmitted Human Papillomavirus (HPV).

Dr. Harper came to the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination to prove to us the real benefits of Gardasil. Sadly, her own presentation left me (Joan) and others filled with doubts. By her own admission, Gardasil has the doctors surrounding me glaring at a poor promise of efficacy as a vaccine married to a high risk of life-threatening side effects.

Gardasil, Dr. Harper explained, is promoted by Merck, the pharmaceutical manufacturer, as a “safe and effective” prevention measure against cervical cancer. The theory behind the vaccine is that, as HPV may cause cervical cancer, conferring a greater immunity of some strains of HPV might reduce the incidence of this form of cancer. In pursuit of this goal, tens of millions of American girls have been vaccinated to date.

As I sat scribbling down Merck’s claims, I wondered why such mass vaccination campaigns were necessary. After all, as Dr. Harper explained, 70% of HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment in one year. After two years, this rate climbs to 90%. Of the remaining 10% of HPV infections, only half coincide with the development of cervical cancer.

Dr. Harper further undercut the case for mass vaccination campaigns in the U.S. when she pointed out that “4 out of 5 women with cervical cancer are in developing countries.” (Harper serves as a consultant to the World Health Organization (WHO) for HPV vaccination in the developing world.) Indeed, she surprised her audience by stating that the incidence of cervical cancer in the U.S. is so low that “if we get the vaccine and continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in the US.”

If this is the case, I thought, then why vaccinate at all? From the murmurs of the doctors in the audience, it was apparent that the same thought had occurred to them.

In the U.S. the cervical cancer rate is 8 per 100,000 women.1 Moreover, it is one of the most treatable forms of cancer. The current death rate from cervical cancer is between 1.6 to 3.7 deaths per 100,000 cases of the disease.2 The American Cancer Society (ACS) notes that “between 1955 and 1992, the cervical cancer death rate declined by 74%” and adds that “the death rate from cervical cancer continues to decline by nearly 4% each year.”3

At this point, I began to wriggle around in my seat, uncomfortably wondering, is the vaccine really effective? Using data from trials funded by Merck, Dr. Harper cheerfully continued to demolish the case for the vaccine that she was ostensibly there to promote. She informed us that “with the use of Gardasil, there will be no decrease in cervical cancer until at least 70% of the population is vaccinated, and in that case, the decrease will be very minimal. The highest amount of minimal decrease will appear in 60 years.”

It is hard to imagine a less compelling case for Gardasil. First of all, it is highly unlikely that 70% or more of the female population will continue to get routine Gardasil shots and boosters, along with annual PAP smears. And even if it did, according to Dr. Harper, “after 60 years, the vaccination will [only] have prevented 70% of incidences” of cervical cancer.

But rates of death from cervical cancer are already declining. Let’s do the math. If the 4% annual decline in cervical cancer death continues, in 60 years there will have been a 91.4% decline in cervical cancer death just from current cancer monitoring and treatment. Comparing this rate of decline to Gardasil’s projected “very minimal” reduction in the rate of cervical cancer of only 70 % of incidences in 60 years, it is hard to resist the conclusion that Gardasil does almost nothing for the health of American women.

Despite these dismal projections, Gardasil continues to be widely and aggressively promoted among pre-teen girls. The CDC reports that, by 1 June 2009, over 26 million doses of Gardasil have been distributed in the U.S.4 With hopes of soon tapping the adolescent male demographic, Merck, the pharmaceutical manufacturer of the vaccine, and certain Merck-funded U.S. medical organizations are targeting girls between the ages of 9 and 13.5 As CBS news reports, “Gardasil, launched in 2006 for girls and young women, quickly became one of Merck’s top-selling vaccines, thanks to aggressive marketing and attempts to get states to require girls to get the vaccine as a requirement for school attendance.”6

Just as I began, in my own mind, to question ethics of mass vaccinations of prepubescent girls, Dr. Harper dropped another bombshell. “There have been no efficacy trials in girls under 15 years,” she told us.

Merck did study a small group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated, but did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of effective HPV antibodies.

If I wasn’t skeptical enough already, I really started scratching my head when Dr. Harper explained, “if you vaccinate a child, she won’t keep immunity in puberty and you do nothing to prevent cervical cancer.” But it turned out that she wasn’t arguing for postponing Gardasil vaccination until later puberty, as I first thought. Rather, Dr. Harper only emphasized to the doctors in the audience the need for Gardasil booster shots, because it is still unknown how long the vaccine immunity lasts. More booster shots mean more money for Merck, obviously.

I left Dr. Harper’s lecture convinced that Gardasil did little to stop cervical cancer, and determined to answer another question that she had largely ducked: Is this vaccine safe?

Here’s what my research turned up. To date, 15,037 girls have officially reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). These adverse effects include Guilliane Barre, lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many others. The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported deaths.7

Article continued at the link

[Vic Daring]

The source of this is hardly unbiased.

The Population Research Institute is a non-profit pro-life group that denies overpopulation is a problem.

And just so I'm not accused of attacking the messenger without addressing the messenger:


As I sat scribbling down Merck’s claims, I wondered why such mass vaccination campaigns were necessary. After all, as Dr. Harper explained, 70% of HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment in one year. After two years, this rate climbs to 90%. Of the remaining 10% of HPV infections, only half coincide with the development of cervical cancer.

Okay, not everyone gets cancer. Got that.


Dr. Harper further undercut the case for mass vaccination campaigns in the U.S. when she pointed out that “4 out of 5 women with cervical cancer are in developing countries.” (Harper serves as a consultant to the World Health Organization (WHO) for HPV vaccination in the developing world.) Indeed, she surprised her audience by stating that the incidence of cervical cancer in the U.S. is so low that “if we get the vaccine and continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in the US.”

If this is the case, I thought, then why vaccinate at all? From the murmurs of the doctors in the audience, it was apparent that the same thought had occurred to them.

Same reason we vaccinate against smallpox? We're not reducing the rate. I think the author was reading something into an audience reaction.

In the U.S. the cervical cancer rate is 8 per 100,000 women.1 Moreover, it is one of the most treatable forms of cancer. The current death rate from cervical cancer is between 1.6 to 3.7 deaths per 100,000 cases of the disease.2 The American Cancer Society (ACS) notes that “between 1955 and 1992, the cervical cancer death rate declined by 74%” and adds that “the death rate from cervical cancer continues to decline by nearly 4% each year.”3

At this point, I began to wriggle around in my seat, uncomfortably wondering, is the vaccine really effective? Using data from trials funded by Merck, Dr. Harper cheerfully continued to demolish the case for the vaccine that she was ostensibly there to promote. She informed us that “with the use of Gardasil, there will be no decrease in cervical cancer until at least 70% of the population is vaccinated, and in that case, the decrease will be very minimal. The highest amount of minimal decrease will appear in 60 years.”

See above.


Just as I began, in my own mind, to question ethics of mass vaccinations of prepubescent girls, Dr. Harper dropped another bombshell. “There have been no efficacy trials in girls under 15 years,” she told us.

Merck did study a small group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated, but did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of effective HPV antibodies.

If I wasn’t skeptical enough already, I really started scratching my head when Dr. Harper explained, “if you vaccinate a child, she won’t keep immunity in puberty and you do nothing to prevent cervical cancer.” But it turned out that she wasn’t arguing for postponing Gardasil vaccination until later puberty, as I first thought. Rather, Dr. Harper only emphasized to the doctors in the audience the need for Gardasil booster shots, because it is still unknown how long the vaccine immunity lasts. More booster shots mean more money for Merck, obviously.

I left Dr. Harper’s lecture convinced that Gardasil did little to stop cervical cancer, and determined to answer another question that she had largely ducked: Is this vaccine safe?

Here’s what my research turned up. To date, 15,037 girls have officially reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). These adverse effects include Guilliane Barre, lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many others. The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported deaths.7

Same thing I tell anti-vax lefties: No medical procedure is 100-percent safe. There is always a risk of side-effects. With vaccinations, including this one, the public health benefit and the individual benefits, far outweigh the relatively minimal risk.

No I don't work for Merck.

No, I don't have any stake in "Big Pharma."

[traditional_woman]

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1687611

Maybe a mod could conjoin the 2?

[MrShotShot]

I too would be interested in seeing something on this from a less-biased source.

[Greyclouds]

Vic Daring is spot on.

This article has an agenda; why else would a relatively low incidence of serious side-effects (3.4/100,000 inoculations) and deaths (~1 / 4,000,000 inoculations) be considered so serious as to discontinue vaccination?

Sadly, vaccines DO have incidents of death. The Vaccinia virus (cowpox) caused many deaths in the fight to eliminate smallpox. Smallpox, itself, caused FAR more deaths than the inoculation campaign!

What this article should tout is our ability to perform allergen tests and our need to develop better assays for allergic reactions to vaccines. It SHOULDN'T attack Gardasil because such attacks could easily seep through to be used against all other low-incident vaccines currently used by medical science (read: just about all of them).


I think this article has an agenda, AND THIS WAS CONFIRMED by reading the rest of the article (the portions of which were clipped from the OP).

From the article:

...
After all, the proponents of sexual liberation are determined not to let mere disease—or even death—stand in the way of their pleasures...

PLEASE! This is a Merck seminar that we're discussing here! Unless the Catholic Exchange has decided that Merck is a new proponent of sexual liberation... In which case, I'd posit that the Catholic Exchange has gone off its rocker.

[MrShotShot]

Good point Grey and we've had the "sexual liberation" debate before.

I really don't understand why some out there view Gardisil as some kind of "bang your brains out drug" given that HPV infection, while more likely among those who are sexually promiscuous, is certainly not limited to those who sleep around. A woman can be in a multi-year monogomous relationship with her future husband and still contract HPV.

Not to mention, how many parents are telling their daughters that the reason they are vaccinating them is so they can sleep around. Talk to your daughters and educate them on HPV and the links to cervical cancer and why you think a Gardisil injection is a good decision. If you don't think it is, fine, that's your choice, but don't wrap it in some kind of moral fabric.

[Greyclouds]

Good point Grey and we've had the "sexual liberation" debate before.

I really don't understand why some out there view Gardisil as some kind of "bang your brains out drug" given that HPV infection, while more likely among those who are sexually promiscuous, is certainly not limited to those who sleep around. A woman can be in a multi-year monogomous relationship with her future husband and still contract HPV.

Not to mention, how many parents are telling their daughters that the reason they are vaccinating them is so they can sleep around. Talk to your daughters and educate them on HPV and the links to cervical cancer and why you think a Gardisil injection is a good decision. If you don't think it is, fine, that's your choice, but don't wrap it in some kind of moral fabric.

Exactly. Taking precautionary steps to attempt to immunize our population from a sexually transmitted disease does not necessarily increase sexual promiscuity.

I mean, if the Catholic Exchange's equation of Gardasil inoculation with sexual promiscuity actually had merit, then ANY discussion of sexual activities and risks would be suspect! We'd have to eliminate ALL sexual references in our society and culture in order to avoid the risk of increased promiscuity in our citizenry. Not to mention that if sexual misconduct did occur... well... we'd have to not talk about it to avoid encouraging our youth.

I don't see how such a philosophy jives with reality or history for that matter. Sex happened quite often during the Victorian period, which was perhaps the most superficially anti-sexual culture in human history.


Also, cancer is not the only complication from HPV infection. 6.2 million Americans are estimated to get new incidence of HPV every year. Isn't that enough of a reason for us to vaccinate? To remove a disease that can cause several types of cancer and that plagues a good percent of the population?

Would the Catholic Exchange also decry a Herpes vaccine?

[StoneScratcher]

I'm not going to pull all the links, but they're all on a thread somewhere...

Bottom line, in layman's terms...

If you inhibit the top strains of the HPV you are doing only that. So what does that mean to the strains of HPV which are weaker? Those weaker and still active strains of HPV are now the top dog HPV. And what does that mean? A virus is a living organism. Now those weaker strains are left to an open field because the stronger HPV have been annihilated (supposedly) by the vaccine.

Top dogs grow, breed, and can do what the other HPV strains could do--with no competition.

That's only part of why this entire vaccination is ridiculous.

You want to take it? Sure, go ahead, you're free to.

But the government should keep their needles with their "remedies" to themselves.

[Greyclouds]

I'm not going to pull all the links, but they're all on a thread somewhere...

Bottom line, in layman's terms...

If you inhibit the top strains of the HPV you are doing only that. So what does that mean to the strains of HPV which are weaker? Those weaker and still active strains of HPV are now the top dog HPV. And what does that mean? A virus is a living organism. Now those weaker strains are left to an open field because the stronger HPV have been annihilated (supposedly) by the vaccine.

Top dogs grow, breed, and can do what the other HPV strains could do--with no competition.

That's only part of why this entire vaccination is ridiculous.

You want to take it? Sure, go ahead, you're free to.

But the government should keep their needles with their "remedies" to themselves.

You are semi-correct, but your terminology and conclusions are unfounded.

The current HPV vaccine Gardasil provides innate immunity to about 33% of all currently detected HPV strains. http://www.imwr.com/issues/articles/2007-11_24.asp

33% might sound like a small number, but the incidence of the top third strains is staggeringly higher than the other 66%. Strains 6 and 11 are responsible for 90% of all cases of genital warts in the United States.

Some factual inaccuracies in your post:

1. Viruses aren't really "alive" from a molecular standpoint. Pampilloma viruses are arguably less so than other types of viruses. Why? Because a Pampilloma virus is non-enveloped, contains one circular dsDNA genome and only ONE protein (L2) which is involved only in virus entry into the cell and packaging of genomic material into the virus capsid.

2. In order for the population density of the non-vaccinated strains to proliferate beyond the incidence of the current "top-dog strains," there must be herd immunity to the other strains of HPV. Sadly, due to moral objections, there is currently no herd immunity to the more prevalent strains of HPV (which, consequently are targeted by Gardasil). You must have a vaccination rate of ~95% of the target host population in order to achieve herd immunity.

3. Vaccines to the less prevalent HPV strains can be developed as well.


So, yes, other strains of HPV might increase in incidence in the future, but they are unlikely to outstrip the incidence of the top 33% strains if current trends continue.

Vaccines against L2 activity might increase the protection ratio to closer to 100% protection of HPV strains. We are still working on such vaccines.

[StoneScratcher]

You are semi-correct, but your terminology and conclusions are unfounded.

The current HPV vaccine Gardasil provides innate immunity to about 33% of all currently detected HPV strains. http://www.imwr.com/issues/articles/2007-11_24.asp

33% might sound like a small number, but the incidence of the top third strains is staggeringly higher than the other 66%. Strains 6 and 11 are responsible for 90% of all cases of genital warts in the United States.

Some factual inaccuracies in your post:

1. Viruses aren't really "alive" from a molecular standpoint. Pampilloma viruses are arguably less so than other types of viruses. Why? Because a Pampilloma virus is non-enveloped, contains one circular dsDNA genome and only ONE protein (L2) which is involved only in virus entry into the cell and packaging of genomic material into the virus capsid.

2. In order for the population density of the non-vaccinated strains to proliferate beyond the incidence of the current "top-dog strains," there must be herd immunity to the other strains of HPV. Sadly, due to moral objections, there is currently no herd immunity to the more prevalent strains of HPV (which, consequently are targeted by Gardasil). You must have a vaccination rate of ~95% of the target host population in order to achieve herd immunity.

3. Vaccines to the less prevalent HPV strains can be developed as well.


So, yes, other strains of HPV might increase in incidence in the future, but they are unlikely to outstrip the incidence of the top 33% strains if current trends continue.

Vaccines against L2 activity might increase the protection ratio to closer to 100% protection of HPV strains. We are still working on such vaccines.

Why do you say a virus is not "alive" when Obama is out there telling us to sneeze in our sleeve?

If virus is not alive, how does it multiply?

So are you saying that if you eliminate the top-likely harmful HPV the lower-ranked HPV will remain dormant? No evolution happens with virus?

Will the lower-ranked HPV not mutate when left alone without the stronger HPV?

[Ballygrl]

What I find interesting is this, Gardasil only protects against 4 HPV viruses, there are about 100 HPV viruses out there. Gardasil says it protect girls from the most common types, but it can give girls a false sense of security. And on Gardasil's own site they still recommend regular screenings, regular screenings without the vaccine is common in combating cervical cancer.

This vaccine was basically "fast tracked" and it wasn't adequately tested, and so far about 15,000 reactions have occurred and 48 deaths. They recommend that Gardasil be given via 3 separate injections, but when Gardasil was tested was it tested via 1 injection? or the 3 they recommend?

[Greyclouds]

Why do you say a virus is not "alive" when Obama is out there telling us to sneeze in our sleeve?

If virus is not alive, how does it multiply?

A virus is not metabolically active; it does not contain enzymes that catabolize organic molecules nor does it create organic molecules itself. Obligate symbionts, by contrast, can produce enzymes related to general metabolism and DNA replication, but are still reliant on a host for metabolites for them to process.

Instead, the virus is reliant on it's host cell's transcriptional, translational and DNA replication machinery in order to reproduce.

In the case of Pampilloma viruses, they exist in the cell as a dsDNA circular molecule (~8,000 base pairs in size) that encodes genes related to viral capsid formation and disables the cell's p53 function (makes the cell unable to die via apoptosis).




So are you saying that if you eliminate the top-likely harmful HPV the lower-ranked HPV will remain dormant? No evolution happens with virus?

Um, no. You didn't read my post. I'm stating that the less prevalent HPV strains will not increase in incidence above the currently most prevalent strains if current vaccination tendencies hold.

Here's why:

For starters, the other strains of HPV are not as highly prevalent. In terms of population dynamics, the most prevalent HPV strains still have TONS of viable hosts that refuse to get vaccinated. Given their initial incidence (over 90% of genital wart cases in the US) coupled with public skepticism of the vaccine campaign, they are still likely to remain as the dominant strains of HPV for years to come.

Example: you start out with 100 people. 1 person is infected with strain X of a Pampilloma virus and 10 people are infected with strain Y of a Pampilloma virus. Thirty people out of the 100 are vaccinated against strain Y of the virus. After one round of "random" mating, you'd expect that maybe 30% of the people who mated with strain Y did not pass the virus to others (the people who were vaccinated), so you have ~7 new cases of strain Y (total: an estimated 17 total cases). The one person with strain X passed on his variant with 100% likelihood (assuming no other barriers to transmission) bringing the total incidence of strain Y to 2 people total.

See?




Will the lower-ranked HPV not mutate when left alone without the stronger HPV?

Also, since the virus is a dsDNA molecule (and I believe it uses the host DNA replication machinery), it is less likely to accrue point mutations. Our DNA polymerase (the enzyme that replicates DNA in our cells) is very accurate and can proofread its errors.

With an estimated error rate of 1x10^-8 errors per nucleotide replicated, you'd imagine ONE error for every 8000 viral genomes replicated. That's pretty low compared to other diseases (HIV gets one error approximately every genome replication).

[Greyclouds]

What I find interesting is this, Gardasil only protects against 4 HPV viruses, there are about 100 HPV viruses out there. Gardasil says it protect girls from the most common types, but it can give girls a false sense of security. And on Gardasil's own site they still recommend regular screenings, regular screenings without the vaccine is common in combating cervical cancer.

This vaccine was basically "fast tracked" and it wasn't adequately tested, and so far about 15,000 reactions have occurred and 48 deaths. They recommend that Gardasil be given via 3 separate injections, but when Gardasil was tested was it tested via 1 injection? or the 3 they recommend?

This is incorrect. In my prior posts in this thread I linked to a study that found innate immunity to ~33% of all strains of HPV in vaccinated individuals.

[Ballygrl]

This is incorrect. In my prior posts in this thread I linked to a study that found innate immunity to ~33% of all strains of HPV in vaccinated individuals.

Gardasil's own site states it only protect against 4 types of HPV.

http://www.gardasil.com/

MPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT GARDASIL

GARDASIL is the only cervical cancer vaccine that helps protect against 4 types of human papillomavirus (HPV): 2 types that cause 70% of cervical cancer cases, and 2 more types that cause 90% of genital warts cases. GARDASIL is for girls and young women ages 9 to 26.

GARDASIL may not fully protect everyone, and does not prevent all types of cervical cancer, so it’s important to continue routine cervical cancer screenings. GARDASIL does not treat cervical cancer or genital warts. GARDASIL will not protect against diseases caused by other HPV types or against diseases not caused by HPV. GARDASIL is given as 3 injections over 6 months.

[Ballygrl]

And I take issue with your link also for this reason, it says this:

(Gardasil) is the best protection available today against cervicogenital disease caused by the human papillomavirus

The best protection is abstinence, and if abstinence is not considered then protection and less sexual partners are another option. If that doesn't work then for someone who is promiscuous then a yearly screening should be done.

Your link also says this:

Gardasil has not yet been shown to prevent HPV infection in boys and men

So why are they trying to give Gardasil shots to boys if it hasn't been shown to prevent the infection?

[Greyclouds]

And I take issue with your link also for this reason, it says this:

(Gardasil) is the best protection available today against cervicogenital disease caused by the human papillomavirus

The best protection is abstinence, and if abstinence is not considered then protection and less sexual partners are another option. If that doesn't work then for someone who is promiscuous then a yearly screening should be done.

1. The link was a report from a major medical conference. Yes, abstinence is the best prevention of many forms of STD's (some STD's are still transferred by non-sexual contact; HPV can be spread by non-sexual contact if papillomae form on regions other than the genitalia and contact an abrasion on the other person). No, it was not necessary to mention that at a medical conference because that was assumed.

2. Gardasil provides innate immunity to a wide array of HPV strains including the most prevalent strains (strain 6 and 11).


Your link also says this:

Gardasil has not yet been shown to prevent HPV infection in boys and men

So why are they trying to give Gardasil shots to boys if it hasn't been shown to prevent the infection?

The link was in 2007. A Merck 2008 study found that Gardasil was effective in men.

http://www.merck.com/newsroom/press_releases/research_and_development/2008_1113.html

[MrShotShot]

The best protection is abstinence, and if abstinence is not considered then protection and less sexual partners are another option. If that doesn't work then for someone who is promiscuous then a yearly screening should be done.



I really don't understand why you still insist that this is a promiscuity issue or why anyone would consider a Gardisil vaccination a "green light" for promiscuity.

I get the impression that you seem to think that Gardisil will usher in a new "sexual revolution" like the one that occurred when birth control become readily available.

I just don't see it that way or why it shouldn't be considered like every other vaccine out there.

If I get a flu shot, I'm not suddenly going to start walking around my building licking doorknobs simply because I can.

[Ballygrl]

I really don't understand why you still insist that this is a promiscuity issue or why anyone would consider a Gardisil vaccination a "green light" for promiscuity.

I get the impression that you seem to think that Gardisil will usher in a new "sexual revolution" like the one that occurred when birth control become readily available.

I just don't see it that way or why it shouldn't be considered like every other vaccine out there.

If I get a flu shot, I'm not suddenly going to start walking around my building licking doorknobs simply because I can.

I only stated once that it was a behavior issue. Research has shown that the more sexual partners you have the more at risk you are for HPV and other sexual issues. I don't give a hoot what people do in their private lives, but if people are going to be sexual then they need to protect themselves, use condoms, stop going from partner to partner, and if you can't do that then at least go once a year for a pap smear. Common sense is much safer then this vaccine.

Then you have to take into account complacency, how many young girls realize that even though you got this vaccine this doesn't mean you're not susceptible to other forms of HPV? and that you still need to protect yourself from sexually transmitted diseases, and that you still need to see your Gynecologist on a regular basis.

As far as the safety issue goes? how long was this tested before it was put into the market?

[Greyclouds]

I only stated once that it was a behavior issue. Research has shown that the more sexual partners you have the more at risk you are for HPV and other sexual issues. I don't give a hoot what people do in their private lives, but if people are going to be sexual then they need to protect themselves, use condoms, stop going from partner to partner, and if you can't do that then at least go once a year for a pap smear. Common sense is much safer then this vaccine.

If you ask any medical practitioner, it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to get all people to listen to advice of a medical nature! You run into people all the time who fail to take a full regiment of antibiotics and save the rest for a "rainy day" (while most of the later doses of a regiment are actually lower concentration than the initial ones). Advising someone to stop smoking can be like talking to a brick wall due to the addictive nature of nicotine.

The attractive thing about vaccines is that they induce innate immunity often without inducing symptoms. They also are not prone to human behavioral variations in the induction of immunity.

If you are worried about your child coming down with serious side-effects from Gardasil, ask your healthcare provider for an allergy test.


Then you have to take into account complacency, how many young girls realize that even though you got this vaccine this doesn't mean you're not susceptible to other forms of HPV? and that you still need to protect yourself from sexually transmitted diseases, and that you still need to see your Gynecologist on a regular basis.

This is an education problem.

The Catholic Exchange, did nothing to address these points, so it is a problem also with information dissemination.


As far as the safety issue goes? how long was this tested before it was put into the market?

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/BiologicsLicenseApplicationsBLAProcess/ucm133096.htm

Much more comprehensive and far more ethical than Edward Jenner's testing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jenner#Smallpox), don't you think?

[Greyclouds]

I really don't understand why you still insist that this is a promiscuity issue or why anyone would consider a Gardisil vaccination a "green light" for promiscuity.

I get the impression that you seem to think that Gardisil will usher in a new "sexual revolution" like the one that occurred when birth control become readily available.

I just don't see it that way or why it shouldn't be considered like every other vaccine out there.

If I get a flu shot, I'm not suddenly going to start walking around my building licking doorknobs simply because I can.

I was wondering what that slime was on my doorhandle... :lol:

[Old_Mil]

Top dogs grow, breed, and can do what the other HPV strains could do--with no competition.

That's only part of why this entire vaccination is ridiculous.


Medicine seeks to treat real disease, not hypothetical future disease. Do some reading on the history of Polio. It will open your eyes.

(That having been said, I have not taken the H1N1 vaccine because I generally avoid new therapies that have been fast-tracked by the FDA.)