Toyota 52 deaths, Gardasil 49. Toyota recalled.

By Barbara Hollingsworth of the Washington Examiner, reposted at VacTruth.com, March 31:

toyota recall.jpg

Cervical cancer accounts for less than 1% of all cancer deaths, so it was somewhat surprising when the US Food and Drug Administration fast-tracked approval of Gardasil, a Merck vaccine targeting the human papilloma virus that causes the disease, in 2006.

As of Jan. 31, 2010, 49 unexplained deaths following Gardasil injections have been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. By contrast, 52 deaths are attributed to unintended acceleration in Toyotas, which triggered a $2 billion recall....

No recall for Gardasil, which is required for 6th-grade girls in DC, MD, VA, and many other states. Parents can opt out, but few know the true risks....

Hollingsworth goes on to describe 2 deaths and a stroke of young women following Gardasil injections. She says pro-abort Sen. Barbara Mikulski has requested an investigation into the death of 21-year-old Emily Tarsell, who lived in Mikulski's home state of MD.

gardasil vaccination child.jpgMy own congressperson, Debbie Halvorson, pushed mandatory Gardasil vaccinations of pre-adolescent girls in 2007 as an IL state senator, prompting me to write the "Debbie does..." series (I and II)

Here is a glaring example of the rush by pro-abort feminists to try to stave off the consequences of illicit sex, in this case a vaccination against the HPV STD, to the detriment of the health and safety of girls and women.

Meanwhile they disparage the obvious, full proof, free, guaranteed to be safe and healthy answer, which is abstinence and monogamy.


Comments:

Jill,

We wouldn't need this vaccine if the truth about condoms-the truth according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-were told. Here:

http://gerardnadal.com/2010/02/09/planned-parenthood-in-new-initiative-targets-10-year-old-children-with-condoms-that-dont-work/

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at April 6, 2010 1:42 PM


Gardasil has flaws, but it helps prevent cancer. I don't think that this particular type of cancer is caused by promiscuity- you could be faithful to one person your entire life and that person could be faithful to you and you might still get it. And even if I'm wrong, I don't want to see anyone get cancer. Cancer isn't a punishment for promiscuity. That's not fair.

Posted by: Vannah at April 6, 2010 1:52 PM


Vannah,

We now believe that all cases of cervical cancer are caused by HPV. I never use the word 'punishment' either medically or pastorally. It misses the mark by a mile.

People have a 60% probability of contracting HPV from an infected partner on a SINGLE exposure. Promiscuity amplifies that likelihood. Since condoms don't cover the entire penis, let alone the scrotum or perianal area where vaginal secretions are sure to end up, condoms are useless where this is concerned. This accounts for CDC's estimate that 75% of the adult population will contract HPV in their lifetimes.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at April 6, 2010 2:02 PM


I didn't read your post, Dr. Nadal, but as I said, it doesn't matter if all cancer is caused by sexual activity, why would you honestly want to take away a vaccine so people do as Christianity commands? This isn't like abortion where someone else's rights are removed- and taking this vaccine only punishes girls. No one should have cancer because they didn't wait until marriage- not everyone even wants to get married. That's not fair.

I understand what you're saying, but having sex is only evil in certain Christian beliefs. If you don't agree with that, then make sure that you're safe.

I agree- this needs more testing as a drug. If it's unsafe, then pull it off of the market. But what was with the, "Pro-aborts try to stave off unsafe sex" comment? I know that you didn't say it, but the issue of sex outside of marriage isn't related to Gardasil- the issue should be exclusively focused on, "Let's make sure that this is safe before we give it out in mass numbers."

Posted by: Vannah at April 6, 2010 2:27 PM


Unfortunately, it's just a matter of what sells newspapers. People dying from defective cars of the same brand that YOU might own? Scary! Sensational! I'll buy a copy! Deaths from vaccines? Eh.

I got the vaccine myself, although I didn't know the risks at the time. My stance is that it shouldn't be mandatory, but I disagree that we should oppose it as a "pro-abort feminist attempt to try to stave off the consequences of illict sex." I've written about this before, so here ya go: http://secularprolife.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=272

Posted by: Kelsey at April 6, 2010 2:35 PM


As a prochoice American, I'm very much against forcing people to vaccinate themselves with Gardasil. It's a new drug which hasn't been out on the market yet long enough to test the true side effects and consequences.

I also would never suggest that people can have unprotected sex, or worry less about their sexual encounters just because they are vaccinated against certain strands of HPV. Everyone should be educated about the risks of sexual activity of all types, so that they can either avoid activities or best protect themselves.

Posted by: KushielsMoon at April 6, 2010 2:46 PM


Vannah,

Please read the link. I'm not arguing from a moral perspective, but from a medical/behavioral one.

This was a fast-tracked vaccine. That means the girls receiving it are part of a gigantic uncontrolled test study. I call that reprehensible.

Protection from cancer is a good thing. The problem we have with these 49 deaths is that the lack of control for other variables leaves criticism such as Jill's (with which I concur) open to question. That in turn leaves more young women vulnerable to sudden death, if the vaccine is actually the cause of these deaths (which I tend to accept).

Then there is the difficulty of managing behavior. Young people view prophylactics in an all-or-none perspective when it comes to protection. They do not grasp the limits and gradations in protection and increase their sexual activity.

Let's say that I get my daughters immunized and hand them condoms. 35% of the sexually active adult population has Herpes, 70% of whom may shed the virus without ever having had an outbreak, and are therefore unaware of their positive status. How long do you suppose it is before one of my girls contracts Herpes, which will stay with her for life? What does this do to her chances of finding a spouse who is willing to marry her?

What of hepatitis, HIV or other STD's? The reason why extramarital sex is immoral is precisely because of the destruction it causes, physical, psychological, spiritual. Through an analysis of medical microbiology and epidemiology, it isn't hard to see why premarital sex is proscribed in almost every civilization.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at April 6, 2010 2:48 PM


HPV is one stingy virus. One study I saw suggests that the virus is small enough to go through a condom. And over half the adult population is HPV positive. As far as we know, it doesn't cause health problems for men, but for women, it exponentially increases the odds of them developing cervical cancer.

So even if someone does all the right, mature things - waits to have sex until after falling in love, not falling in love until after age 18, being monogamous, using a condom every time, ultimately marrying one's partner - that person can still end-up with HPV even if his or her partner only had 1 or 2 previous sexual relationships.

We've made tremendous progress in the last 30 years. We have effective vaccines against Hepatitis A and B, and now HPV, a virus proven to cause cervical cancer (the only cancer to my knowledge that can be prevented by a vaccine).

The benefits vastly outweigh the risks. I understand the irrational objection to the vaccine on the ground that it sends the message that sexual activity under age 18 is acceptable. But it misses the point that we're trying to immunize girls before they become sexually active. So it leaves public health professionals with no other recommendation but to advise immunization before girls become teenagers. We need to stop trying to examine the timing as some promiscuity 'conspiracy' and understand the scientific logic. This vaccine helps eradicate cervical cancer, and it is proven safe and effective by current regulatory guidelines. Keep in mind that it was George W. Bush's FDA that approved the vaccine. So again, find the conspiracy to turn our children into sex addicts.

HPV is incredibly difficult to get rid of once one tests positive. Someone I know tests positive every 6 months, and she has had two rounds of the vaccine in a long-shot attempt to get rid of it. She is completely healthy otherwise. But she makes her husband wear a condom every time, and won't ever consider unprotected sex until a test comes back negative. The odds are not in her favor.

Posted by: Dhalgren at April 6, 2010 2:53 PM


Dhalgren,

The vaccine was fast-tracked. That's CDC-speak for "we cut corners and never really established safety and efficacy because we panicked."

Any young woman receiving this vaccine is part of a giant, uncontrolled clinical study. Sure, many will benefit, but we're not concerned about them from a safety standpoint. We're concerned with the needless deaths because people want their sex without consequences and demanded short-cuts.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at April 6, 2010 3:01 PM


My doctor told me years ago that cervical cancer is caused by HPV. HPV is an STD.

Posted by: Heather at April 6, 2010 3:11 PM


Promiscuity and unprotected sex. I absolutely know that is the reason I had HPV which led to cervical cancer, which is now completely cured.

Abstinence is 100% effective!! So thankful that I get to teach my children there is a better way. My 9 year old daughter will NOT be getting that vaccine. I have read it only stops 3 of the strains of HPV anyway!

Keep it up, Gerard!! You are saving lives!!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at April 6, 2010 3:18 PM


Vannah,
My cervical cancer was not a punishment. It was a consequence of my behavior.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at April 6, 2010 3:21 PM


It's still not gonna kill the AIDS virus! What about that? I knew a few girls who got the HPV. It's the most common. They use a treatment called colposcopy

Posted by: Heather at April 6, 2010 3:22 PM


Thanks Carla. So are you, Great teamwork here at Casa de Stanek.

You're absolutely correct that the vaccine only covers a few of the major strains of the virus.

Allow me a moment to address my fellow males who may think that they don't have a dog in this fight.

HPV has been implicated in cancer of the penis (albeit at a much lower prevalence than cervical cancer). Radiation and chemo don't always work, so the final alternative is......hold your breath.....amputation. Sorry guys, I'm just the messenger.

That said, love of women and not of our parts ought to be the greater motivation. If it isn't, then we have work yet to do on ourselves.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at April 6, 2010 3:28 PM


My niece got cervical cancer at 17. She wasn't promiscuous, but her boyfriend was.

Posted by: Pamela at April 6, 2010 3:42 PM


It kind of reminds me of the objection to the hepatitis B vaccine. Generally people get the vaccine even though it is pretty hard to contract hepatitis B. It is spread through blood and intimate contact. So kids are very unlikely to get it. IV drug users, of course, are at risk.

Anyway, those most likely to object to the vaccine are the ones least likely to contract the virus.

With HPV, those least likely to object are the ones most likely to get it.


Posted by: hippie at April 6, 2010 3:52 PM


doesn't this vaccine require another shot like 5 years later?

Its better to teach young women AND young men to respect themselves and the opposite sex and to have SELF CONTROL!


Plus, as someone pointed out, it only "protects" against three strains of the STD.

Abstinence is best.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at April 6, 2010 4:06 PM


Whether you're allowed to opt out or not, I have a HUGE issue with states requiring eleven-year-old girls to get immunized against a cancer that, as far as anyone can tell, results from an STD. If parents decide they want their daughter to get it, okay, fine. They can make a decision about what they want for their own child. Requiring sixth-grade girls to get the vaccine is basically saying, "We're going to assume that your eleven-year-old daughter - who, by the way, might not have her period or need to wear a bra yet - will have sex sometime in the very near future."

Some diseases can be caught by just being around another person, or touching something that they've touched. When that's the case, it makes sense that schools would want students to be vaccinated. HPV only gets spread through sexual contact. When it comes to the dangers of Gardasil, I think the comparison to Toyota really illustrates the risk. If I had a daughter, I sure as hell wouldn't want her to have this vaccine, especially not at an age when she'd still be under constant adult supervision.

Posted by: Marauder at April 6, 2010 4:18 PM


I didn't know that you had cancer, Carla. :O

I'm so glad that you're healthy, though. Everything is good, then? *health hugs*

Posted by: Vannah at April 6, 2010 4:28 PM


There are over 100 types of HPV. Some cause plantar warts or palmar warts. Some prefer cutaneous skin, some prefer mucosal skin. (All types of HPV infect the skin, no other organs.) Some prefer the mucosal skin of genitalia, some prefer mucosal skin of the mouth.

Also, while cervical cancer rarely exists without HPV, rarely is not the same as never.

Posted by: Elisabeth at April 6, 2010 4:44 PM


I had cryosurgery. I was Stage 3. I got the all clear after that. :)

I hate to say I am a textbook case but I think I am. When it comes to looking for love, not finding it, promiscuous for years, HPV, cancer, abusive relationships, pregnancy and an abortion. I have much to say and much to share and hope that someone benefits from my experience.

You are such a sweet girl Vannah and I am so glad that you are here!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at April 6, 2010 4:45 PM


When you put chemicals into your body why are we shocked when something like this happens.
I feel sorry for the people who lost their lives to this chemical, but how many more have to die before they take it away.
What happens when people with cancer have to go through chemotherapy or radiation. They have a huge reaction to their bodies.

Posted by: Pati Adams at April 6, 2010 5:08 PM


Texas Governor Rick Perry signed an Executive Order requiring
Gardasil for all girls older than 6th grade!

http://www.edrugsearch.com/edsblog/mandatory-gardasil-in-texas-perrys-motives-are-a-bit-merck-y/

Posted by: Leslie Hanks at April 6, 2010 5:27 PM


Any of you who believe that your children absolutely will choose abstinence until marriage with a partner who has done the same is kidding themselves.

Posted by: Jennifer at April 6, 2010 5:44 PM


"Any of you who believe that your children absolutely will choose abstinence until marriage with a partner who has done the same is kidding themselves."

I haven't seen anyone say that on this thread. We're talking about giving risky vaccines for STDs to girls who girls who might have a couple of baby teeth left to lose.

Posted by: Marauder at April 6, 2010 6:15 PM


No type of cancer or disease should be thought of as a punishment. The most that should be considered is that some of these diseases are *consequences* of our actions. Some have longer lasting effects as well as being deadly.

However, the types of HPV that Guardasil prevents account for a minority of cervical cancer causing types of HPV. The *only* way to get genital HPV is by sexual contact as far as I know. Therefore, if we tell our girls and boys to keep their genitals to themselves until marriage, HPV can be prevented for them all!

However, no money is to be made from promoting abstinence as opposed to 'protected' sex and/or the vaccine. Just as no money can be made (by the government &/or lawyers) if they let Toyota handle their problems on their own. So obviously, these *can't* be the answer to our problems...

Posted by: erika at April 6, 2010 6:22 PM


That's the problem though. By giving out this vaccine, it's like saying "have sex" "at least you won't get cervical cancer." That's just like saying that we don't care. We have 9,10, and 11 year olds getting pregnant. I played with dolls at that age. Sex was unheard of at that age in our home, and my parents didn't exactly discuss it. Fortunatly God hadn't been kicked out of our schools at that time. We also went to church on Sunday. We really ought to be outraged that this is being offered to babies!! I don't know who parented these young girls and gave their stamp of approval for the vaccine. Probably rabid pro-abort mothers.

Posted by: Heather at April 6, 2010 7:10 PM


I really feel that we are failing our children. If some of these women don't lose this pro-abortion mentality, we will have generations of doomed children. look at us now. Women my age were spoon fed the poison by nutty radical feminists. Pick your poison. The pill, diaphram, shots, NorPlant, an IUD. Get your tubes tied. et me ask you this, and this is not man bashing. Why do I turn on my TV and see an add for YAZ or Murina or Plan B? Where are these so called EQUAl RIGHTS? It's 100% up to the female to use protection. Do you see any advertisments for vasectomies? Nah. What for? You can always stop in at the abortion clinic!

Posted by: Heather at April 6, 2010 7:21 PM


The very women who chanted "equal rights" should have shown us just how we are so darned equal to men when we consent to a bloody, painful, womb scraping surgery!

Posted by: Heather at April 6, 2010 7:28 PM


Jennifer:

"Any of you who believe that your children absolutely will choose abstinence until marriage with a partner who has done the same is kidding themselves."

Here is what my children are going to see in three years:

http://gerardnadal.com/2010/02/09/planned-parenthood-in-new-initiative-targets-10-year-old-children-with-condoms-that-dont-work/

Children don't see a good enough reason to remain abstinent. The reason that they don't is because the truth in that post is being kept from them.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at April 6, 2010 7:32 PM


One can develop HPV without having sex. Men can also be carriers, so even if a woman is monogamous, they can still contract it. Sure, some people may use it to try and be promiscuous, but there are plenty of people who benefit from this.

Also, drug development is very difficult, imprecise, and expensive. Any death is a tragedy, but this is necessary to move forward and be able to develop even greater treatments. If you don't want deaths, say goodbye to all drugs.

Posted by: abazaba at April 6, 2010 7:34 PM


"One can develop HPV without having sex."

But not without some type of sexual contact, I believe.

"Any death is a tragedy, but this is necessary to move forward and be able to develop even greater treatments."

Yeah, who cares if some girls and women die because the drug was released before it should have been? It's all for the greater good.

No one's arguing that no one should take drugs in case they die. They're arguing that this one appears unsafe and it's morally questionable to require that little girls be injected with it.

"We have 9,10, and 11 year olds getting pregnant. I played with dolls at that age. Sex was unheard of at that age in our home, and my parents didn't exactly discuss it."

I knew about sex when I was that age, but I also understood that it was something I was not going to be having for a long, long time. Sex is for adults, period.

"Children don't see a good enough reason to remain abstinent. The reason that they don't is because the truth in that post is being kept from them."

When I was in tenth grade (I think), we had an assembly at school where a doctor came and talked to us about STDs. He brought slides of genitals with various diseases and I swear, it was enough to make you never want to get within ten feet of a naked person.

When it comes to good reasons to remain abstinent, I think all teenage girls should read the books "Forbidden Grief" and "The Girls Who Went Away". The first one is about the aftermath of abortion and the second one is about girls in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s who went to maternity homes and gave up their babies for adoption. Not that I would want a girl who was already pregnant to not consider adoption, but if you're not pregnant, those two books together are a terrific reason why you shouldn't get pregnant until you can raise a baby.

Posted by: Marauder at April 6, 2010 7:58 PM


Heather: all I see (for men) is ads for Cialis and Viagra. EWWWWWWWWWWWW!

And I get sick of the ads for Seasonale and Yaz.


Jennifer: Are you saying that Carla's or Bethany's or Sydney's child(ren) are not capable of self control when they become adults?


Virgin isn't a dirty word!

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at April 6, 2010 8:01 PM


I think that a lot of you are really uneducated about the vaccine. HPV is sexually transmitted... first of all. The vaccine CAN help prevent it. I know people that have died of cervical cancer. HPV IS genital warts basically.. who wants that? Second of all, it should NOT be a requirement for anyone. People can opt out of other vaccines for their children, and it is no gain, no foul. We still have diseases that kill many more people than HPV, which include Measles, Mumps, and Rubella.. not to mention that as a nurse I have seen many cases of Whooping Cough, which WAS irradicated pretty much. Do we blame those who do not vaccinate their children because they are afraid of it? No one should have to accept any NEW vaccine, including the H1N1. Scare tacticts help NO ONE!! It is up to the person who is getting it, or their legal guardian. I had not even heard of anyone dying from Gardasil until this article. It is an example of how you have to weigh the risks and the benefits, just like any other vaccine. Would I vaccinate my children against Chicken Pox, which is now a requirement? NO. I exposed them to the pox and dealt with it. They are healthy adults now. My daughter is NOT getting the HPV, although the US government REQUIRED my daughter in law, a Canadian Citizen, to GET them to be allowed a green card... sickening.

Posted by: Me at April 6, 2010 8:06 PM


"Any of you who believe that your children absolutely will choose abstinence until marriage with a partner who has done the same is kidding themselves."

Posted by: Jennifer at April 6, 2010 5:44 PM


Can you set the bar a bit lower for our kids? Oh that's right we already did when we legalized abortion.

Posted by: Praxedes at April 6, 2010 8:09 PM


Any of you who believe that your children absolutely will choose abstinence until marriage with a partner who has done the same is kidding themselves.
Posted by: Jennifer at April 6, 2010 5:44 PM
_________________________________________________
As a matter of fact, Jennifer,I was a virgin until I married at the age of 40..and so was my husband...he was 42. Our daughter has our example to follow. It CAN be done (waiting until marriage to have sex).

Posted by: Pamela at April 6, 2010 8:10 PM


liz, I know. That's where the femiNAZIS went wrong!....They are the very intolerant women who chant "It's a woman's world!" Um, no it is not as you've all seen to that one. If abortion is the key to this world being "a woman's world" they can keep it AND stick it!!.....And don't forget. Most abortionists are in fact men, so they get richer by the day [4000 abortions a day] making big bucks on women's wombs!! How twisted!!

Posted by: Heather at April 6, 2010 8:38 PM


That's why I have a reminder before I log off. Girls need to steer clear from the likes of men like Dhalgren, Robert Berger, and Hal. These cowards love abortion, and they only side with women who will abort. No child support to pay. No nothing. Presto..all that responsibility is gone. Real men are pro-life and pro-woman! Stop siding with the snakes!

Posted by: Heather at April 6, 2010 8:46 PM


Most abortionists are in fact men

Most providers today are women. Every year, a class of Family Planning fellows becoming attendings is well over 90% female. We will soon see most male providers retire, replaced by women.

The typical provider in the USA right now is a woman in her 40s. I should know, because that's pretty much all I see at NAF, ACOG, Planned Parenthood, and PRCH events. In fact, go to a recent PRCH photo gallery and see for yourself.

Posted by: Dhalgren at April 6, 2010 8:48 PM


Dear Jennifer,
I would like my children to AVOID so many of the things I was drawn to at too young of an age. It just might save their lives. No kidding around at all.

Oh, and you are not allowed near my children.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at April 6, 2010 9:26 PM


Also, drug development is very difficult, imprecise, and expensive. Any death is a tragedy, but this is necessary to move forward and be able to develop even greater treatments. If you don't want deaths, say goodbye to all drugs.
Posted by: abazaba at April 6, 2010 7:34 PM

But these individuals weren't enrolling in a drug clinical trial with the knowledge that the vaccine they were receiving may have side effects or may cause death, but they were lead to believe that it's been tested and proven safe enough to be placed on the market, however in my opinion, clinical trials and approval process were rushed and there wasn't really enough time given to study all the risks and side effects of this vaccine before it was placed on the market, the same with the H1N1 vaccine. Also, keep in mind that there's no reason to keep drugs which have more proven risk than benefit on the market, unsafe drugs are pulled by the FDA all the time, take for example Vioxx being pulled because of increased risk of heart attack and stroke and the black box warning label applied to many medications.

Posted by: Rachael C. at April 6, 2010 9:27 PM


*Also, keep in mind that there's no reason to keep drugs which have more proven risk than benefit on the market, unsafe drugs are pulled by the FDA all the time, take for example Vioxx being pulled because of increased risk of heart attack and stroke and there's no reason to keep people in the dark about the risks of a particular medication or vaccine, take for example the black box warning label applied to many medications.

Posted by: Rachael C. at April 6, 2010 9:33 PM


I feel that I have to add to this discussion as I do to others when people are talking about cervical cancer and HPV. I was diagnosed with non-invasive cervical cancer (in situ) in 1996 and had a portion of my cervix removed by LEEP when I was only 19 years old. I grew up with high moral values and was NOT sexually active nor promiscuous. No, I was not a geek or a dork. In fact I was the captain of the cheerleading team, on student council, and highly involved in the best football and beach bonfire parties!! (Just had to add that because people always assume that if you're not having sex as a teenager you must've been an out cast)I did NOT test positive for HPV, nor have I ever to this day.
I am currently a midwifery student and I find it horrible for cervical cancer to be labeled as always caused by an STD. There are plenty of women out there who can attest to the fact that they are not infected with HPV! It is one way for a woman to develop cervical cancer, and unfortunately it is becoming more and more common to see HPV positive women due to our promiscuous society. We have a duty to protect our children and we can begin protecting them by teaching and promoting abstinence beginning in the home! We weren't handed condoms in school, we were taught abstinence. Our view of sex in society as a whole has gone off the deep end!
Vannah, you are incorrect when you say that sex is
"evil in certain Christian beliefs". Sex is not considered evil at all, in any Christian denomination. In fact scripture states that it is a beautiful gift from God, to be shared between a husband and wife. If you've never picked up a bible I encourage you to read The Song of Solomon. It is very seductive and is one of the best examples in the bible of how we are to enjoy the gift of our sexuality within marriage. I have 4 children myself, 3 of them girls with the oldest being 10, and I have taught them from the time they were preschoolers about God's design for sex in ways that they can understand and that we can expand upon as they grow up. It all starts in the home and parents need to step up and do their job! It shouldn't be left to teachers, doctors, and vaccines!

Posted by: Nikki at April 6, 2010 9:52 PM


About 4000 women die of cervical cancer in the US a year at present. So if we are saving 3960 I'd say we are doing pretty good. Toyotas prevented no diseases last I checked, and like all cars mixed with teenagers may actually hasten the spread of STDs (just generally).

But seriously: You all can help guide your daughters but you cannot choose their morality, or the morality of their rapist. One in six women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. It won't be of their choosing. Do you really want your daughter to get cancer because you didn't want to protect them and they got raped. Get over your morality and protect your daughters people.

Posted by: K. at April 6, 2010 11:28 PM


I had/have HPV and had to have surgery to remove pre-cancerous cells about 15 yrs ago. That was a very scary time in my life! I wouldn't call myself promiscuous as a young adult, but I wasn't careful, either.
I have had mixed feelings about having my 12 yr old daughter vaccinated. So far, we haven't done it. On the one hand, I won't be able to protect her every minute of her life, and on the other hand, I've read about the dangers of the vaccine.
Another thing I've wondered about is why not a vaccine for males as well? Sounds like a double standard to me, and they're the carriers.

Posted by: Lauri at April 7, 2010 7:38 AM


Hi, sorry if I repeat anything, I didn't have time to read all of the comments.

Yes this vaccine was fast-tracked, but it was based off the other vaccine Cervarex and some other studies. It was NOT made overnight and did some rigorous testing.

Also, not only is it being recommended for girls at 10-11 because it might prevent them from future contact with HPV, but! and most importantly, ages 10-11 are actually when the body responds best to the vaccine and creates the highest viral load responses. This means that even if it wasn't linked to sexual relations they would still be recommending ages 10-11.

I work in public health and deal a lot with cervical cancer. What's scary about HPV is that you do not need to be having intercourse to contract this disease as it is skin-to-skin. Therefore, if your abstaining children are just making out with their significant others in short shorts or bathing suits, or even just sitting on someone's lap, this could be passed.

There are over 100 strains of HPV. Most do not cause cancer or even warts. However, they are now finding HPV linked to penile, anal, throat, and mouth cancers (in men and women). This vaccine protects against AT LEAST 3 strains that cause HPV and 2 strains that cause warts. Most excitingly, it may result in added resistance of some of the other cancer-causing types, and there is currently research being done on this.

The best part is, they recently approved the shot for boys (in November) and for women up to age 40!

We are not just talking about cervical cancer, cancer treatments, and cancer deaths. We are also talking about potentially losing fertility in the most productive years of your life.

Will there occasionally be reactions to vaccines in all populations? Yes. That IS a risk. However, the risk is extremely low. Is your risk of contacting HPV even if you remain abstinent high? YES.

Regardless of your moral concerns about sex, this vaccine is not about sex. This vaccine is about saving your children's lives from cancer.

Posted by: Kara at April 7, 2010 9:00 AM


my daughters got the vaccine. No qualms about it here.

Posted by: Hal at April 7, 2010 9:13 AM


My question is...are more girls going to die from the vaccine than would die from the few strains of cervical cancer that Gardisil protects against? We know how many people die from cervical cancer. Do we know how many die from the strains that can be protected against with the Gardisil vaccine? I would be interested in knowing.

Posted by: Gina at April 7, 2010 9:29 AM


The problem is, it is proven that a healthy organic lifestyle will help prevent cancer.

However, vaccines have not been clinically proven to prevent a disease and yet they develop certain learning disabilities in children or other brain issues such as autism. Vaccines only work in theory.

Do you risk your childs future, or even their life on a theory that the vaccine will work?

It has also never been clinically proven that HPV will cause cervical cancer...they don't know what HPV does at all. This is just another theory they are going on.

Do you choose to go along with their theories and take a chance at a disabled future or death? Or do you live your life healthy and free of theoretical medical intervention which has been proven to kill you.

One question...how have we survived for millions of years without vaccines? You may argue that we live longer, but that is mainly due to living conditions where we don't throw our excriments out a window onto the street.

Posted by: Marcel at April 7, 2010 9:47 AM


Hi Gina: Guardasil protects against the 3 HPV strains (16 and 18) that cause 75% of cervical cancer (in the US). So while there aren't specific statistics on the strains and death from cervical cancer, there is information on the strains that CAUSE cervical cancer.

Once diagnosed with cervical cancer (depending on the stage, treatment, and your personal health) the risk of dying from cervical cancer does not change depending on different strains.

We can assume then, about 3/4 of cervical cancer deaths are caused by strains 16 and 18, meaning about 3,000 dead women a year.

All of this information is from the American Cancer Society, links included:

The American Cancer Society's most recent estimates for cervical cancer in the United States are for 2009:

* about 11,270 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed.
* about 4,070 women will die from cervical cancer.


http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1X_What_are_the_key_statistics_for_cervical_cancer_8.asp?rnav=cri

Cervical cancer risk factors include:

Human papilloma virus infection

The most important risk factor for cervical cancer is infection by the human papilloma virus (HPV). HPV is a group of more than 100 related viruses that can infect cells on the surface of the skin, genitals, anus, mouth and throat... HPV is passed from one person to another during skin-to-skin contact. HPV can be spread during sex - including vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse, and even during oral sex. Still, intercourse doesn't have to take place for HPV to spread from one person to another. All that is needed is for there to be skin-to-skin contact with an area of the body infected with HPV.

Doctors believe that women must be infected by HPV before they develop cervical cancer. Certain types of HPV are called high-risk types because they are often the cause of cancer of the cervix. These types include HPV 16, HPV 18, HPV 31, HPV 33, and HPV 45, as well as some others. About two-thirds of all cervical cancers are caused by HPV 16 and 18 (my note: these are the types Guardasil protects against). The high-risk types are also associated with other anogenital cancers such as vulvar and vaginal cancer in women, penile cancer in men, and anal cancer in both men and women.

Although it is necessary to have HPV for cervical cancer to develop, most women with this virus do not develop cancer.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_What_are_the_risk_factors_for_cervical_cancer_8.asp?rnav=cri

Posted by: Kara at April 7, 2010 9:54 AM


To Marcel:

You are right, healthy diets DO help prevent cancer. Not everyone who gets HPV ends up with cancer, most bodies fight the virus themselves.

However, you are wrong when you say there is no clinical connection between HPV and cervical cancer. This has been proven over and over.

You are also wrong when you claim that vaccines cause autism. While I am not going to claim (nor do I think researchers will) that vaccines don't have side effects in SMALL numbers of people - the ONE study that showed autism was caused by vaccines was ill-designed and the researcher LOST his medical license.

Why would you believe ONE false research study and then be opposed to thousands of SUPPORTING research towards the fact HPV causes cervical cancer?

You can have your opinions, but picking and choosing which research is "right" based on your opinions is ill advised.

And to this comment: "One question...how have we survived for millions of years without vaccines? You may argue that we live longer, but that is mainly due to living conditions where we don't throw our excriments out a window onto the street."

People in the US had pretty good living conditions in the 1900-1940s and we lost thousands of children to now-preventable diseases like smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella.

Additionally, in the majority of the past, humans lived in such small bands that if a disease spread and wiped out a clan, it was unlikely to reach other clans.

Yes our environments have added to the spread of infectious disease, but not purely because of unsanitary conditions. More like close contact.

In fact, all over the world children are dying from preventable infectious disease, while people in the US, Canada, and Western Europe get complacent and stop vaccinating - we are now seeing resurgences of diseases formally eradicated from our countries as well as resistant diseases! Do the rest of us a favor and protect OUR children by getting YOURs vaccinated. PLEASE.

Posted by: Kara at April 7, 2010 10:09 AM


Kara,

If YOUR children are vaccinated, then they already are protected, right?

Oh, wait, as an RN, I know that isn't true. Regardless, I do not have an obligation to risk my child's life for what you perceive as your child's safety.

I am the mother of a vaccine injured 13 year old son. You can bet your sweet bippie that none of my daughters will be having this injected into them.

Are you aware that all of the studies looking to disprove a link between autism and vaccinations ask the wrong question? They ask "Do vaccines cause autism?" That is the wrong question because there are multiple causes of autism and the role vaccination plays in any one individual varies. Therefore if the question is a strict "yes or no", then the answer will always be "no"... it cannot be proven as a "yes" because the problem is too complex for such a simplistic approach.

The correct question would be: "To what degree do vaccines contribute to toxic overload in susceptible individuals?" Unfortunately, that is a question that the main stream medical community is loathe to investigate.

The human immune response is designed to deal with pathogens that enter the system via mucous membranes or a break in the body's defenses (the largest being the skin.) It is designed to deal with one invader at a time and works best when not overloaded with toxins.

Compare this to standard vaccination... multiple pathogens combined in one injection... bypasses the systems in place to protect the body that would mediate the body's response to it... combined with toxins such as aluminum (linked to Alzheimer's), formaldehyde (linked to cancers), and in some cases foreign dna from other species of animals such as chickens or monkeys. The varicella vaccine was originally "perfected" using the cells of aborted babies. Add to this the fact that often multiple vaccines are given at once, each of which may contain multiple pathogens and you have the nonsense that is today's vaccination program.

Posted by: Elisabeth at April 7, 2010 10:31 AM


Elisabeth,

I am very sorry to hear that your son had a complication.

I DO agree with you that the way we administer vaccines is problematic. I think we need to reconsider the spacing of them.

However, I do not think vaccines in and of themselves are harmful in most cases, in fact I think they save thousands of lives from morbidity and death. In most healthy children there will be no long-term side effects. The chance of contracting a life-threatening illness is much higher.

But I also understand that if a child's health (such as allergies or poor immune systems) is the issue, doctors often recommend AGAINST vaccines and I agree with that recommendation. Unfortunately, we sometimes do not realize there is an underlying problem until after the vaccine. In these cases, these underlying complications could have been complicated by the vaccine OR the disease itself, leaving the child susceptible in either case.

But if you look at the infectious disease morbidity and death rates in the US prior to vaccine programs and then you look at the morbidity and death rates in this country now you cannot disagree with the efficacy of vaccines for the large majority of the population.

Posted by: Kara at April 7, 2010 10:41 AM


There is much to dispute there, actually, and I completely disagree. Rates of these diseases were on the way down prior to the vaccination programs being instituted.

I also disagree that vaccines are "not harmful in most cases". Just because the reaction isn't always as spectacularly obvious as my son's seizures and subsequent brain damage does not mean they are not harmful. We have hugely increasing numbers of all sorts of autoimmune diseases in children. Juvenile diabetes, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, allergies, learning disabliities of all types just to name a few....

We are close to wiping out natural immunity to chicken pox through this disastrous policy of vaccination. Natural immunity is lifelong and can be handed down from mother to child. Artificial immunity cannot be handed down and is not lifelong. This pushes so called "childhood diseases" into the adult population where they are far more dangerous.

There is a reason that the Native American peoples were decimated by illnesses that did not injure the incoming Europeans... the Europeans had been exposed to these diseases for generations, while the Native Americans had not ever been exposed to them.

We have traded acute diseases for lifelong, chronic diseases. We have not eradicated disease.

Posted by: Elisabeth at April 7, 2010 11:00 AM


"Any of you who believe that your children absolutely will choose abstinence until marriage with a partner who has done the same is kidding themselves."

Jennifer - Four adult children, Four who chose abstinence until marriage. Expectation set, expectation met.

RE: vaccinations, autism, etc.

Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, founder of Home First medical group, has a book called (I think) "Don't Vaccinate Before you Educate". In it he tells about his medical practice where vaccinations are not given. Out of a very large number of unvaccinated children he cares for as family physician, there are no cases of autism. NONE. Very conincidental at the minimum, eh? I wish I could quote the exact number, but it is considerable.....

Posted by: knowsscience at April 7, 2010 11:52 AM


Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, founder of Home First medical group, has a book called (I think) "Don't Vaccinate Before you Educate". In it he tells about his medical practice where vaccinations are not given. Out of a very large number of unvaccinated children he cares for as family physician, there are no cases of autism. NONE. Very conincidental at the minimum, eh? I wish I could quote the exact number, but it is considerable.....
Posted by: knowsscience at April 7, 2010 11:52 AM

I will check that out! Thank you!

Posted by: Elisabeth at April 7, 2010 12:23 PM


Dhalgren, no. Most abortionists are men.

Posted by: heather at April 7, 2010 3:28 PM


People don't know that this IS causing the deaths. Previous articles have 'proved' that those girls had underlying problems that they didn't tell the doctor or didn't know about until they were given the vaccine. I've gotten all the shots required for this series of vaccines and I'm doing quite fine, just like all the other thousands of girls who received them. I'm sad that those girls passed away, but it's not all the vaccine's fault.

Posted by: Hali at April 7, 2010 4:51 PM


This is exactly the kind of beliefs that the Big Pharmaceutical Companies try to use as a smoke screen to the truth. I am a Gardasil mom. I HATE this title! Where I once worried if my daughter would get a cavity, I now worry that she will die! her story, as well as many others from all over the globe is on truthaboutgardasil.org and you can also gain access to the webinar powerpoint presentation that 6 intelligent a determined moms brought to the FDA on March 12, 2010. If you really want to know the truth, read the proven facts. And please don't let your child have this vaccine until you have researched it! There isn't a day that goes by that I don't hate myself for not doing just that.

Posted by: laurie at April 7, 2010 5:36 PM


And Hali,God blessed you with missing that bullet. Just so you know, I specifically TOLD that doctor that my daughter is allergic to everything! She LIED that it wouldn't matter, that this vaccine was the safest thing on the market! They get a cut. And when my daughter was sick within 20 minutes from that shot she still swore that it "wasn't the vaccine's fault". She was then furious with me for cancelling the other two shots. Learn a thing or two before you speak like you know something, honey. It's just plain rude to rub your health in the faces of those who weren't as lucky as you.

Posted by: laurie at April 7, 2010 5:42 PM


Previous articles have 'proved' that those girls had underlying problems that they didn't tell the doctor or didn't know about until they were given the vaccine.
Posted by: Hali at April 7, 2010 4:51 PM

Didn't know about. Do you see that? Do you understand what that means?

Why do we act like vaccines are the only form of medicine on the planet people can't have bad reactions to? People can be allergic to Tylenol... how much more so a "medication" that contains heavy metals and carcinogens?

Posted by: Elisabeth at April 7, 2010 5:45 PM


Many of these vaccines are dangerous..not just the Gardasil vaccine. You are lead to believe it's in your best interest, when in actuality it's in the pocket book of these pharmaceutical companies. There is more and more coming out about the dangers, which people need to know and should have a choice to take the risk or not. I know 2 people who got this vaccine and both are now paralyzed.
Now this might be forced on boys to get it... don't let your children be another statistic and guinea pig.

Posted by: Freehold Chiropractor at April 7, 2010 6:12 PM


I didn't choose to get the vaccine, my mom agreed with my doctor and I got it. I know some vaccines are not good for anybody, but you do have to understand that some do actually help this place we are in. As for doctors lying, that isn't my fault and the doctor should get in trouble for that (even thought most doctors have malpractice insurance, you can still try). She WON'T die, it happens in rare cases and DO NOT tell me that I need to learn the facts before I speak and rub it in anyone's face. I'm a Nursing major and have studied this in some of my classes. I don't know everything about it because I obviously didn't make it. But this isn't the only "amazingly great" vaccine that has killed people, what about the influenza one? It's killed many, so how about you learn some facts. Kids and adults these days are allergic to just about anything in this world, so why does everyone attack vaccines? 2 people paralyzed from a vaccine is like hundreds paralyzed from car accidents. Who stops people from driving? Not many...don't get me wrong, this vaccine could be fixed some, but that takes money and time that they don't have much of right now. Complain enough and send in a petition or something and tell them to fix it. Don't get mad at me over a computer for saying my opinion.

Posted by: Hali at April 7, 2010 6:48 PM


You may be a "nursing major" but I am, and have been, a practicing RN. You will be given nothing but the standard medical minded pro-vaccination information in nursing school.

No one has stated anything positive about any other vaccine. To state that other vaccines have killed more people is disingenuous at best.

Apparently you do not see that there are other problems besides death? Mortality is not the only issue. Morbidity is great with this particular vaccine.

Did you go to the site mentioned and read the information presented therein? There is information given by one of the researchers involved in developing Gardasil. As you state, you obviously didn't make it. Did you take the time to read what was written by someone involved in doing just that?

Posted by: Elisabeth at April 7, 2010 7:07 PM


I agree that some vaccines are helpful, but you have to understand that Gardasil is NOT. It was rushed through by the FDA in order for Merck to recoup Billions of dollars that they loss in their Vioxx settlements. I intentionally gave you some pertinent information to educate you so that you could make an informed account of what you "know" from what you studied in "some of your classes". You can't say that my daughter won't die, no one can. But when a young girl vomits every day for close to a year now, you have to know, from what you are learning, that the ramification of this can't be good. You say that the vaccine needs to be fixed...in that I agree. But to say that they don't have the money or time is ludicrous. Merck just spent 41 billion dollars to buy out a fertility drug company...ironically, a lot of the Gardasil girls are fertile. It contains polysorbate 80 that IS a sterility drug. I didn't mean to attack you, I really didn't. I apologize if I came off that way. Please understand the frustration that a mother goes through with a once vibrant, intelligent, active and athletic daughter that is now sick every day of her life. She wanted to be a doctor. She had dreams, she had goals and she had the drive to accomplish everything that she set her mind to do. Now she is sick. Please visit the website. Look at the presentation that was done before the FDA. Please educate yourself. In the truth, not what you are taught to believe.

Posted by: laurie at April 7, 2010 7:11 PM


I wasn't taught to believe in anything, I learn about different things to make my own opinion. Nursing school is teaching me what everyone wants to her and what they believe in rather than telling the whole truth, but I don't listen to just them. I did read the information you gave me and I don't believe death is the only thing that happens. I see the paralyzed girls and the 'throwing up every day' girls. I'm not misinformed or biased in anyway. It should be told that it has all these side effects, but no one here wants to hear that their children could die from a vaccine yet lots of people still get them. Don't let her lose her dreams just because something set her back, she can still do many things with her life. I'm not being rude or biased in any of this, but no one is pointing out the good things that DO ACTUALLY HAPPEN. Cervical cancer may only affect 1% of women, but my mom was diagnosed with it awhile back. She wanted me to be protected and this was one thing that was to somewhat help with that. Everyone has their own opinion and I'm not saying any of yours are wrong, I'm just saying to look at the other side of it also.

Posted by: Hali at April 7, 2010 7:20 PM


Unfortunately, no one has proven a causation between HPV and cervical cancer, only a correlation. A strong correlation to be sure, but we still do not understand the precise relationship between the two. To receive a vaccine that has not been fully vetted, given to children of an age that it was not tested on, for a disease that may or may not cause cervical cancer and then to call it a "cervical cancer vaccine" is dishonest at best.

Posted by: Elisabeth at April 7, 2010 7:51 PM


Elisabeth research on HPV and cervical cancer has been going on for over a decade. I KNOW people who have been doing this research for over a decade.

And the vaccine is recommended for 10-11 because, yes, its likely before contact, but more importantly because 10-11 YEAR OLDS HAVE THE BEST VIRAL LOAD RESPONSE to the vaccine! It's actually most effective in this age.

As for the correlation part... It is considered the "necessary" cause of invasive cervical cancer... not a correlation, but cause. Here are just a few after a quick search. Whether it is 100% of the time a cause is up for debate, but it is a cause enough of the times (at least 90%), which means HPV prevention can prevent cervical cancer most of the time.

Most are over a decade old because scientists AREN'T EVEN DEBATING that FACT anymore, now they are MOVING ON to look at different means of detecting/screening, treating, and preventing HPV.

1. Munoz N, International Agency for Research on Cancer. Human papillomavirus and cancer: the epidemiological evidence. J Clin Virol 2000 Oct 1;19(1-2):1-5:

2. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide
Jan M. M. Walboomers 1 *, Marcel V. Jacobs 1, M. Michele Manos 2, F. Xavier Bosch 3, J. Alain Kummer 1, Keerti V. Shah 2, Peter J. F. Snijders 1, Julian Peto 4, Chris J. L. M. Meijer 1, Nubia Muñoz 5 The Journal of Pathology
Volume 189 Issue 1, Pages 12 - 19 Published Online: 6 Dec 1999

3. Molecular and Cellular Pathology
British Journal of Cancer (2003) 89, 101–105. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6601024 www.bjcancer.com
Published online 1 July 2003
Comparison of HPV type distribution in high-grade cervical lesions and cervical cancer: a meta-analysis

G M Clifford1, J S Smith1, T Aguado2 and S Franceschi1

4. OH, you're right, here is one that says correlation...but its from 1989. 21 YEARS AGO. In the late 1990s they deemed it the NECESSARY cause.

New England Journal of Medicine.
Volume 320:1437-1441 June 1, 1989 Number 22

Human papillomavirus infection and cervical cancer in Latin America
WC Reeves, LA Brinton, M Garcia, MM Brenes, R Herrero, E Gaitan, F Tenorio, RC de Britton, and WE Rawl

5. Here's another old one that links 90% of cervical cancers to HPV.
Bull Pan Am Health Organ. 1996 Dec;30(4):362-77.
The causal link between HPV and cervical cancer and its implications for prevention of cervical cancer.
Muñoz N, Bosch FX.
"The authors conclude that over 90% of all cervical cancers can be attributed to certain HPV types-HPV 16 accounting for the largest proportion (roughly 50%) followed by HPV 18 (12%), HPV 45 (8%), and HPV 31 (5%)."

6. This one discusses the different strains in different areas of the world, accepting that it causes cancer.
British Journal of Cancer (2003) 88, 63–73. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6600688 www.bjcancer.com
Published online 28 January 2003
Human papillomavirus types in invasive cervical cancer worldwide: a meta-analysis

G M Clifford1, J S Smith1, M Plummer1, N Muñoz1 and S Franceschi1

7. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 85, No. 12, 958-964, June 16, 1993
© 1993 Oxford University Press
Epidemiologic Evidence Showing That Human Papillomavirus Infection Causes Most Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia

Mark H. Schiffman, Heidi M. Bauer, Robert N. Hoover, Andrew G. Glass, Diane M. Cadell, Brenda B. Rush, David R. Scott, Mark E. Sherman, Robert J. Kurman, Sholom Wacholder, Cynthia K. Stanton, M. Michele Manos

Posted by: Kara at April 7, 2010 8:45 PM


You really should learn what the VAERS database can and can't tell you:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4482

Posted by: Orac at April 7, 2010 9:29 PM


the reason the toyotas were recalled is becaused one: a malfuntioning car can cause more than one death due creation of a pileup and/or careening head on in to pedestrians, etc. and two: the recall was decided to the belief that the source of the problem was uncovered: falty accelerators that due to the factory produced process, could be the result of a problem in the development line. the vaccine, has none of these problems, and is one of the best ways to educate young girls about testing procedures and other such methods that can increase the effectiveness of safer sex materials. any vaccine will involve a few serious cases of severe symptoms and even death, but the mandate is for the use of making the vaccine as effective as possible, because constant exposure will negate even the highest tolerances and immunities. Abstinence and monagamy are not useful methods because one of the greatest problems with sex and sexuality is a lack of knowledge which the two above themes help to propagate, keeping oneself healthy in sexual expierences relies on being aware that sex is always dangerous, and that one must take precautions to the highest degrees possible, not refrain from sex until marriage, and hope that their partner is clean, as lack of expierence in the matter have left naive as to the riskes.

Posted by: matt jones at April 7, 2010 10:31 PM


While I agree that Gardasil was fast-tracked and should not have been approved (I still don't think people should take it) I also don't think it was done simply by the pro-abort lobby so they could go around aborting fetuses. Fact of life: people are going to have sex. Many are going to have sex with different partners. Best to protect them if we can. I don't think Gardasil does this, but I do think that condoms are a good idea.

Oh yeah, and HPV occurs naturally in 70% of the populations' bodies. Any sort of change can alter the balance of the cultures. Ie, you can get an HPV infection without having sex.

Posted by: Kate at April 7, 2010 11:01 PM


Kate, you can get HPV without having sex, but no, it does not occur "naturally" in 70% of the population's bodies. Any online search will show you that HPV is a *sexually transmitted disease* which is spread through skin-to-skin sexual contact. So, no, you don't have to have intercourse to get it, but it IS sexually transmitted.

http://cervicalcancer.about.com/od/riskfactorsandprevention/a/hpv_prevention.htm

Posted by: Kelli Author Profile Page at April 7, 2010 11:32 PM


Here is a good read: Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology.

One chapter talks about birth control and the "sexual" revolution or I call it the sexual de-evolution. Back to cave men and barbarians.

Trails on children is wrong and should be stopped!
Not to mention the studies now days are usually reported in relative stats instead of absolute stats. For example: Group 1) 1000 people take the vaccine, Group 2) 1000 people do not. Group 3) 1000 people take sugar pill.

In group 1 one person dies, in group 2 two people die. Now it is reported that the vaccine or drug in group 1 reduced the death rate by 50%. WOW this is an amazing new drug or vaccine right!

Television, Music, mass media, chemicals in food, poor understanding of "freedom", destruction of the family and the denial of God leads to the sex in young children today and the destruction of a great culture. It OK though, they predict we will fall faster then the Roman Empire.

What are you watching mom and dad?

PS Many people complain about how our culture is changing yet they still pay for cable TV which is the main source behind it. Hummm? Well, I can complain but I can't live without my shows.

Just think if in one major town 10,000 people called in on the same day and canceled their cable service. Even if you had to pay a fee for a contract. It would be worth it!

Posted by: John at April 7, 2010 11:49 PM


I do not agree with requiring children to get the vaccine. I also don't agree with PP trying to force parents of young children into learning about the pleasures of sex.

I am fully pro choice when it comes to abortion. You make your choice when you get into the bed and have sex, not after the fact when you have to face the consequence of that choice. It is not a punishment it is a consequence.

Our society has deemed anything that doesn't fit their progressive socialistic mentality as wrong, and it really is something that I'm grateful that we have people like Jill & Carla stand up and face the issue instead of falling in line with the it's "real life" not morals

Posted by: Heidi at April 8, 2010 7:45 AM


"pro-abort feminist attempt to try to stave off the consequences of illict sex." Really??? How about an honest attempt to decrease the chances of what can be a miserable cancer diagnosis?? Not to mention the potential health care dollars saved if less treatment is needed for pre-cancerous cervical lesions caused by HPV. It is hard for me to imagine how this vaccine is linked to abortion at all?

Posted by: Doc D at April 8, 2010 8:14 AM


My 16 yr old daughter was also injured by Gardasil. She had 2 of the 3 injections (Jan 9th and March 9th, 2009). Before Gardasil, she was a happy, healthy and vibrant teenager. Since Gardasil she is sick every day of her life. She has dizziness, overall weakness, numbness and tingling in both legs and left arm, back pain, neck pain, pressure headaches, vision problems, breathing problems, chest pains, racing heartbeats, brain fog, stomach problems, nausea, diarhea, weight loss, hair loss, jerking all over spells...the list goes on and on.

She was an A/B student but failed her 10th grade year because she was too sick to retain what she was trying to learn (brain fog). She no longer has the energy to go off with her friends. Most days she lays in bed, in pain.

This just doesnt happen to a healthy teenager!! And it just doesnt happen to THOUSANDS of other girls with no connection except they all had the Gardasil vaccine.

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.

These 'side effects' are NOT rare! They are happening every day to literally hundreds of thousands of young girls after receiving Gardasil. The numbers in VAERS is estimated to only be between 1-10% of the true numbers! Try asking some of us moms who have to deal with these horrible side effects every day if we consider it to be RARE!

Everyone should look at the other side of the fence and research this. There are thousands of girls that are coming down with strange illnesses, paralysis, gran mal seizures, etc. after receiving Gardasil.

We are now getting reports of girls as young as age 9 that are breaking out with genital warts and severe cases of cervical cancer AFTER receiving Gardasil. Some of these girls/women did not initially have any side effects from the vaccine.

There are perfectly healthy girls all of a sudden come down with all of these strange sicknesses, some that I cant even pronounce, after getting jabbed with Gardasil. All within hours/days/weeks?

Just like Merck's 'wonderful' Vioxx...what will it take? How many dead/injured before someone takes notice?

The doctor that literally pushed this vaccine on us at a routine doctor visit told us that there were no side effects except for soreness or redness at injection site.

She also told us that it would protect her from a whole LIST of things! I had seen the commercials but had not researched it.

As a matter of fact, I never really THOUGHT about vaccines until my daughter suddenly started having all of these strange health issues.

She was ALWAYS a healthy child, happy and outgoing, active and just a joy to be around.

Now, she is a totally different child. She is always sick..always in pain..and cries a LOT, so scared that she will die in her sleep from the breathing problems. She describes it as breathing through a blanket or that an elephant is sitting on her chest.

She has SO many of the exact same symptoms as all of the other girls that have been injured.

It is NOT a coincidence! All of these Gardasil girls have the same symptoms, some worse than others, but the bottom line is the one thing they all have in common is Gardasil.

These symptoms are NOT in their heads!

My daughter started having dizziness, overall weakness, pain and numbness in both legs and left arm BEFORE we found out about any of these other girls having the same issues.

When I called her doctor that gave her the vaccine (as soon as she started with these symptoms) she said it was NOT the Gardasil vaccine that is causing it. How could she be so sure? This is such a NEW vaccine...a DANGEROUS and UNNECESSARY vaccine!

Cervical cancers have gone down 70% since the PAP smear came along.

This is NOT an epidemic! Why are they mandating this vaccine for as young as 9 year old girls for a vaccine that doesnt even do what they claim it will do?

Girls are now coming down with cervical lesions and HPV AFTER receiving Gardasil! I'm talking about healthy young girls that did NOT have these things BEFORE getting Gardasil.

This is all about $$$$$ at the expense of our young daughters (and now sons) health and lives!

It is an outrage!!!

Please see my posts at www.injuryboard.com/Teresa-Allen

http://www.truthaboutgardasil.org

There, you can see other girls' stories and their pictures..there is also a memorial document with pictures and stories of young girls that have died after receiving Gardasil.


Educate Before You Vaccinate!!

Posted by: Teresa Allen at April 8, 2010 10:49 AM


For the safety of our children, please do not believe anti-vax propaganda. This article is exactly that, not a pro-life article. It hides behind the pro-life movement (which I am pro-life!), but it not actually a pro-life topic. This is an anti-vax (or anti-vaccination) topic, and anti-vax is very bad and dangerous, killing hundreds of children a year, and harming thousands of people.

http://antiantivax.flurf.net/#Gardasil
This is the truth about Gardasil. This is NOT a pro-life issue, they are promoting death, not life. Only 26, not 49, deaths could be confirmed, and of those, none of them have been found to be directly connected to the vaccination. Even with these reported deaths, the rate was ".1 in every 100,000 doses", that is around .0001%! And the article itself claims they are unexplained.

They claim that 1% of cancer deaths are to cervical cancer, put that in perspective. Over 1.4 million Americans get cancer every year! About 550,000 die every year from cancer. That means that 1% of 5500,000 is 5,500. They claim 49 "unexplained" deaths are due to this vaccination, that is a far cry from the 5,500 that would die without it. And that is just in America. Billions of people are affected by cancer, and millions die every year. Vaccinations are a proven and effective way of killing a virus.
Expecting every teen and adult to follow "abstinence and monogamy" is irresponsible and unrealistic. You can not control people in this way. Sure I think more people should follow these, I did, but there will still be millions who get it. Taking this vaccine is not condoning pre-marital sex, it is not giving girls permission to mess around. It is not like the pill either, and has no effect of birth or contraception. If this is a pro-life issue, they should be talking about diseases like Aids, which kill far more than 49, or even 6,000, every year. But this article is clearly a disguised anti-vax article.
But please, do some research on the "anti-anti-vax" (or pro-vax) movement. There are tons of doctors, scientists, clergy, and parents who fight against the anti-vax movement. Without vaccinations, tens of thousands would still be suffering from polio, small pox, bubonic plague, etc.

Let me say one more time, this is NOT, in any way, a pro-life issue! These are not "pro-abort feminists to try to stave off the consequences of illicit sex". This is a very twisted and false claim. There are thousands of pro-life supporters who are pro-vax as well. Most doctors and health care providers are pro-vax. And this is NOT an excuse or permission to have pre-marital and illicit sex. This is an issue about letting children and adults die from a terrible disease that would kill thousands every year, not pro-life, "pro-abort", or abstinence issue.

Posted by: Dave at April 8, 2010 11:21 AM


I'm not going to claim it is a pro-life issue. However, to claim that anti-vax is dangerous and kills people is hyperbole, and dangerous hyperbole at that.

We need to be taking a longer, harder look at the side effects of vaccinations. We are vaccinating for more and more things at younger and younger ages and dismissing any results... and refusing to investigate others.

Again, we are trading acute illnesses for chronic, debilitating illnesses. To claim otherwise is intellectual fraud. If one wants to discuss the merits of taking a calculated risk that is one thing... but the reason so many people are throwing out the concept of vaccination at all is that they are frustrated with the government and mainstream medicine refusing to admit that there are any side-effects at all to vaccination. Even when they publish the possible side effects, those who actually suffer from them are told "nope, couldn't possibly be connected!"

If those who feel that vaccinations are of use want to be taken seriously and trusted by parents, they need to engage in debate more significant than "NUH-UH!"

Posted by: Elisabeth at April 8, 2010 7:04 PM


Dave,

As you noticed the above person stated that she called her doc and the doc said it was not due to the vaccine. So, when a child leaves after being stuck with a sharp needle of chemicals and gets deathly ill it must have been the car ride to and from the docs office.

You see the parents tried to report it and no one listened or cared!! Just a blanket CYA(Cover Your you know what) Statement. It is just wrong not investigate these shots and injuries.

Don't forget drugs, sex, violence, immorality is being marketed and advertised to you and your family daily through mass media and most of us pay them for it.

10,000 people per big city cancel their cable all at once. That would awesome!

Posted by: John at April 8, 2010 7:37 PM


I don't feel it is an hyperbole, there is nothing exaggerated about it. The facts are that without vaccinations, there would be thousands of more deaths every year. We have successfully wiped many deadly diseases off the planet thanks to vaccinations, and come close on many more. Unfortunately, thanks to anti-vax movements, many that were almost gone, have returned.

If you want some interesting viewing material, take a look here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X16uwwuA8yc

and here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYdmGM4FIeM

You will see doctors and health professionals showing statistics and scientific evidence for vaccinations and against anti-vax movements. They will tell you about Andrew Wakefield, the "doctor" who linked vaccinations to autism, with no evidence, and studies that were proven to be false and misleading. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece

As for side-effects, if you think for an instant that the doctors who administer these vaccinations all are in a conspiracy to ignore evidence of side-effects and chronic illnesses caused by vaccinations, you are more delusional that you realize. These medicines are tested and re-tested and analyzed and studied and any side effects are listed on the packaging the vaccination comes in. In this case, Gardasil can causes loss of consciousness and they recommend all girls and women who are administered the product are watched for a day or two for these signs. There may be others, but beyond the ones they list on the packaging, there are no other recorded side-effects.
We are not trading acute illness with chronic illnesses, we are trading temporary side-effects that go away but save your life with diseases that kill slowly and painfully. We now have a chance to kill diseases that are treatable and preventable, through medicine and vaccinations and not just abstinence and monogamy.
Watch the videos I linked to, they talk about the doctor who was paid to spread clearly false information about vaccinations for his own benefit, which spawned this entire movement.
Imagine you were living in America 50 years ago, there were no vaccinations like there are today. People are not getting sick because we are giving them to children more and more, and at younger ages. They are not getting sick because of this. I lost my sister to cancer, and my aunt to polio. If these vaccinations existed back then, I would have a different story.
The anti-anti-vax movement is nothing like the "Nuh-uh" you seem to think they are about, they are full of doctors and scientists who deliberately come up with proof and evidence to counter the arguments of the anti-vax movement. They are dedicated to saving lives, and changing minds.
I have heard people claim vaccinations are connected to Alzheimer, Autism, Deaths, Strokes, Heart Attacks, and more. None have ever provided evidence to back up these claims, and usually can not site any source.
I do not believe I have ever heard a doctor say they there is no connection without first researching and testing it. You are more likely suffering from something else and blaming it on the vaccination.
If YOU want to be taken seriously, then do your research before you jump to conclusions and accept anything told to you (yes even by me, but especially by people making such allegations). How many other people have given you video and article links written and presented by doctors and scientists for you to look at and learn more?

If you want a vaccine that is 100% safe then keep dreaming. There are no vaccines that are 100% safe. But the dangers are known, they are listed, and they are not going to let deadly and debilitating medicines on the market. There is no medicine that is 100% safe. A friend of mine accidentally overdosed on Tylenol and ended up in the hospital, with a liver transplant! This was only last month, and she was lucky to have survived. There are some risks with vaccinations, but the science shows that the benefits FAR outweigh these risks. While there are 49 claimed deaths, the actual investigations could not link any of them to the vaccine, and could only confirm half the deaths in the first place. Even there, about 6,000 people will die from this cancer, a number that has been dropping thanks in part to vaccinations. Tell the 6,000 moms that their children should have died so yours could avoid a fainting spell, or cause you think 49 others might have died from the vaccination.

Look at the videos, do some research on anti-anti-vax. Save a child's life, and don't believe the anti-vax propaganda. But most importantly, remember that this is NOT a pro-life issue. Vaccinations against STDs are not giving permission or condoning illicit sex, it has nothing to do with abortions. It is a scam, it is dangerous, and it is tricking people into believing things without real proof. It does not belong on a site like this one.

Posted by: Dave at April 8, 2010 8:02 PM


I'm a practicing pediatric RN. I work with doctors day in and day out who refuse to admit that vaccinations have any side effects whatsoever. I have heard them state that no vaccine causes anything other than perhaps swelling or soreness where the vaccine is administered. I also work with physicians who are willing to admit that there is more we don't know than that we do.

I'm discussing far more than just autism. Juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile diabetes, asthma, allergies... all are autoimmune disorders and they are all increasing at rates that are not justified simply by better detection.

Oh, and it's "cite". If you want to be taken seriously about details, you need to pay attention to them.

All I am asking for is a more realistic view of vaccinations, a REAL discussion of the real risks and who may be susceptible to them.

It is ridiculous to think that injecting a toddler with a viral load for up to 7 to 11 different pathogens at one time with various amounts of formaldehyde, aluminum, thimerosol and other adjuvants has no connection to these increases.

If the medical community wants to be trusted when it counts, it needs to have a more open and honest discussion about the risks and benefits of these injections.

As to the comment that they are not going to let deadly or debilitating medications on the market, have you ever heard of a black box warning? I suggest you look up: Fenfluramine, Pemoline, Ticrinafen, Zomepirac, Benoxaprofen, Nomifensine, Suprofen, Seldane, Etretinate, Encainide, Hismanal, Permax, Flosequinan, Temafloxacin, Propulsid, Levomethadyl, Dexfenfluramine, Bromfenac, Grepafloxin, Mibefradil, Cerivastatin, Troglitazone, Rofecoxib, Alosetron, Phenylpropanolamine, Valdecoxib, Natalizumab, Technetium fanolesomab, Hydromorphone, or Tegaserod maleate.

Posted by: Elisabeth at April 8, 2010 10:19 PM


Your general tone seems like you believe that if people get this vaccine, they're just doing it so that they can go out and screw everyone they want unprotected with complete disregard to AIDS and other STDs. Aside from that mindset, and some spelling/grammar errors (such as foolproof and some other words being spelled wrong), this article does touch on some valid concerns. I'm hoping that people have the chance to 100% understand the risks before having this done. Thanks for spreading the word so that information on this is more easily obtained. =)

Posted by: Lorne at April 9, 2010 3:26 AM


It behooves each of us, as parents and individuals, to avoid following blindly, and carefully consider any recommendations given by governments, medical institutions, pharmaceutical companies, the corporate world, school systems, and any institution/organization that claims to have "the greater good" as their publicized intention: a closer look may reveal another, less altruistic agenda. Maybe not in all cases, but for goodness sake, people, THINK FOR YOURSELVES. Our children and our future depend on it.

My own opinion? Skip the vaccines in the interest of your child's short and long-term well-being. The risk is just too darn high.

And, BTW, if you want your eyes opened to the corruption (and toxic effect) of big institutions with regard to our food chain, check out Food, Inc.(http://www.foodincmovie.com/).

We need to get back to basics on all fronts.

Jill, thanks for bringing this controversial, but important topic up for discussion. Love the comparison to Toyota's recall.

Posted by: JG at April 9, 2010 1:45 PM


Jill and Barbara:

I got HPV as an 18 year old virgin. No sexual penetration of any kind or even a penis near my vagina. So, it is just bunk that all HPV is related to sexual activity.

And the very idea that this vaccine was rushed into production by "pro-abort feminists to try to stave off the consequences of illicit sex, in this case a vaccination against the HPV STD, to the detriment of the health and safety of girls and women" is so unbelievably offensive as to make me ill.

This argument does absolutely nothing to further your cause. The idea that any deaths attributed to the vaccine itself might be cause to have it removed from the market is a good one. But to blow it up into an abortion issue just turns a reasonable question into a right wing extremist issue. With this reactionary, extremist point of view, you have isolated yourself from the reputable scientific and medical community and you have done nothing to further this cause at all. Actually, I would go so far as to say that you have harmed your cause a great deal.

Shame on you.

Posted by: Kathy at April 9, 2010 7:35 PM


Comparison to Toyota recall is alarmingly bad.

This vaccine helps to save lives, which is why the FDA 'fast-tracked' its approval. My bet is far more than 500 women will be saved by its use, who would otherwise die of cancer. The fact that there are any deaths related to the vaccine's use is horrible, and it is very hard to ever 'justify' a death of anyone, but the FDA is serving its purpose by permitting this drug and saving 10X more lives than are put at risk (for example). This is the age old argument against virtually any vaccine, so it is no longer interesting.

Toyotas don't save any lives, even when they work perfectly. So, there's not even a remote chance to justify someone's death because of their failures. And, THAT is why they've been recalled.

Let's not be silly.

Posted by: Tagny Daggart at April 12, 2010 12:54 PM



Post a comment:




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Please enter the letter "n" in the field below: