The mainstream media dropped the ball in the past when it came to Gardasil, and they haven’t improved with time. The “Today” Show featured Dr. Nancy Snyderman, NBC’s chief medical editor and a longtime advocate for the vaccine, and Dr. Suzanne Gilberg-Lenz, somewhat of a skeptic. But the report was by no means balanced.
Dr. Snyderman began promoting the vaccine right out of the gate, saying:
“Well It's important because there are 65,000 new cases of cervical cancer every year. We know that Human Papilloma Virus causes cancer of the cervix. We know you that get HPV through sex. So this idea is to give a vaccine to girls before they become sexually active. And it’s an anti-cancer vaccine. It's not a pro-sex vaccine. So my view, as a physician is, if you can prevent an illness with a vaccine, why wouldn't you do it if it's safe and effective? And this is safe and effective.”
This misleading statement left out many things. First, Gardasil is not a cancer vaccine, despite how the media has portrayed it. It is a vaccine to prevent HPV, which can cause cervical cancer, but as Dr. Gilberg-Lenz pointed out, most people who have HPV do not get cancer.
Snyderman claimed it is not a “pro-sex vaccine.” But the only reason to administer the vaccine is the assumption that girls will be sexually active. It is an assumption that they are incapable of abstinence. In fact, nobody in the segment mentioned that abstinence is the only 100 percent effective way to avoid HPV.
And finally, Snyderman declared Gardasil “safe and effective.” Since, as Gilberg-Lenz pointed out, the vaccine only protects against two of the around 10-15 strains of the virus that could cause cancer, Snyderman’s calling it “effective” is a considerable overstatement. And her perception of “safe” is rather skewed.
When Ann Curry asked Dr. Snyderman to explain the “worst side-effects, how common are they?” Snyderman side-stepped the question and instead answered, “Well I think we have to look at the most common side-effects.” She listed things like fainting and redness as the most common. She didn’t mention other side-effects that have been reported, including "Anaphylactic shock," "foaming at mouth," "grand mal convulsion," "coma," "now paralyzed."
Finally she got around to that other side-effect – death. “Now, what concerns people, and what does come up, is there have been 37 or 38 deaths. And the FDA has looked very, very carefully at these. There has been no proof of the vaccine causing a young woman to die. And sometimes deaths are recorded several days later. But it's important to remember, you can have fish for dinner, and get sick three days later and the question is, did the fish cause you to get sick? And what they're saying this time is, no. There's no proof that this vaccine in fact puts women's lives at risk.”
No. But there is no proof that it does not put women’s lives at risk. either. Since when does “safe and effective” include a possible link to death?
Dr. Gilberg-Lenz tried but failed to make this point. Dancing around the issue, she commented, “… you have to understand that the common thread with these 39 deaths has been recent either use or completion of the Gardasil vaccination. I am not saying it caused death. But women are going to have questions about this. And right out the gate when this vaccination came out, I was thrilled. I was excited. And I recommended it. It's not that I don't recommend it. It's that we need to support our patients and their mothers in asking questions.”
When a question was raised about the newness of the vaccine, Snyderman of course defended it, saying three years was plenty of time to see long-term effects. When Gilberg-Lenz attempted to explain that new side-effects can continue to be found years after a medicine is proclaimed safe, Snyderman attacked her.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
What? Gardisil protects
July 31, 2009 - 15:11 ET by bedmondsonWhat? Gardisil protects against the strains of HPV that cause 70% of cervical cancer. Its the 5th leading cause of death from cancer for women. How can anyone argue that it would be uneffective? It is intellectually dishonest to mention that the vaccine only protects against 2 strains when it is the 2 strains that cause most of the cancer.
These death side affects occur when you look at any drug, including advil, because people sometimes die and when they are taking a drug. When they die it is added to the statistic. I bet you millions of people that have gotten the tetanus vaccine have died shortly after getting it also.
I didn't realize that NB dabbled in NWO euthanasia conspiracy.
I truly hope you are trying to be
July 31, 2009 - 17:12 ET by bre1227facetious. If not, you must be a colossal ignoramus! I am a healthcare regulatory compliance attorney who is more than familiar with FDA's approval and regulatory processes (or lack thereof). When under pressure from my daughter's pediatrician, my husband through our family physician, and my older sister (although not so much her as I never listen to a thing she says) I actually did the research.
I read the CDC report that stated HPV is just one of the strains causing the cancer and that most with HPV do not get cancer. I also read the FDA information about the results of 3 years worth of testing and what they were basing approval on. And, I talked with pediatricians who told me that they now administer the vaccine with the young females lying down as they almost all pass out. These pediatricians are NOT administering it to their daughters.
Finally, although the death toll was not quite that high at the time, I knew about the deaths and that these have been calssified as "possibly related." A term used in clinical trials to mean "we can't rule out that the drug was not related."
Are you into "Russian Roulette" with your daughter's life?
I think the relevant points NBs was trying to make are the destruction of the patient-doctor relationship and the absolute trust we put into people with an MD after their name.
Conservatives lose me
July 31, 2009 - 17:11 ET by RpeggioConservatives lose me when they get all religious and preach abstinence-only etc. Young adults have sex, it's just the way it is and always has been and will be. So if they're going to have sex, make safe sex easier for them by making condoms available and sex education in schools etc...no not at super young ages like Obama and far lefters want, but when religious conservatives stick to the hard-line of abstinence and make sex a taboo thing, they really out-date themselves and do the GOP no help.
I don't know if Gardasil is completely safe, but I will say that what it aims to do is a very good thing. HPV is rampant in our society, especially in the 18-30 yr old bracket. And if a drug like Gardasil can prevent young women from getting HPV and later be at very very high risk of cervical cancer as a result, then I say great!
Vaccines are hard to come by and this one seems to be very effective for several strains of HPV. I only have a son, but if I had a daugther, I'd surely have her receive the vaccination before she's sexually active....and no it wouldn't make her a nymphomaniac sex fiend...gimme a break you over-religious-conservatives.
I hear they're developing one for males
July 31, 2009 - 17:15 ET by bre1227Perhaps your son will be the first in line? Regardless of the possible side effects?
Nope
July 31, 2009 - 17:27 ET by RpeggioMy point was not that I think Gardasil is safe and THE HPV prevention vaccine to use....my point was that I think the far right/religious conservatives in the GOP take an ignorant and ideological stance on anything pertaining to sex.
I think most of the resistance to a vaccine like Gardasil is ideological and religious, and the same people that preach abstinence and no condoms/sex ed in schools like it's Leave It To Beaver times in the 50's.
I said in my post I didn't claim to know if Gardasil was safe...if they find the deaths are related or that it hasn't been proven safe enough etc... then no I wouldn't have my daughter take it. But once they do come up with one that is clinically proven safe, you'll still have the the religious conservatives posting junk about it not being safe or leading to promiscuity etc... which is the ridiculous ideological crap I was pointing to.
from a bible thumper..
July 31, 2009 - 18:12 ET by lbcdawnThe problem is
July 31, 2009 - 18:20 ET by bre1227that it takes years of post-marketing surveillance outside of a clinical trial to determine causation. Just look at Thalidomide and all the birth defects it caused. My daughter is on birth control, not because she is sexually active, but due to severe menstrual cramps. We've made a pact to re-evaluate the situation if and when she makes the decision to become sexually active and more data is available.
Scientifically speaking though, abstinence only goes so far. What if the man shes marries carries a latex form of the strain? Also, young girls can contract the HPV virus from oral sex. I prefer to believe that conservatives make wise choices based on the facts and not solely idealistically. Like myself.
Young adults have sex, it's
July 31, 2009 - 21:51 ET by TruthMongerYoung adults have sex, it's just the way it is and always has been and will be.
Young adults are racist, it's just the way it is and always has been and will be.
Young adults smoke, it's just the way it is and always has been and will be.
Young adults are homophobes, it's just the way it is and always has been and will be.
Young adults commit suicide, it's just the way it is and always has been and will be.
Young adults contribute to global warming, it's just the way it is and always has been and will be.
Libs push abstinance too now don't they:)
Palin/Prejean 2012
Ineffective Protection is Worse than No Protection
July 31, 2009 - 17:18 ET by allanfSince it will lead women to presume they are safe. I don't know the facts about gardisal. I do know that I would not let Dr. Nancy Snyderman near anyone I care about.
Count the cost
July 31, 2009 - 17:41 ET by nkviking75If you can't afford to buy your own condoms, you can't afford the price of the possible consequences of an active sex life. That's because condoms occasionally fail and overheated young adults sometimes don't handle them properly. At least abstinence doesn't carry all of those risk, except the risk of ridicule from libs.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Not Good
July 31, 2009 - 18:04 ET by RpeggioYour attitude is not good....and is what keeps many independents from claiming to be Republican these days...and has pushed some folks out of the party.
Your statement has a touch of classism/elitism in it. We give food to the hungry, shelter to the poor, and using your approach, we'll just have more poor folks having unprotected sex, resulting in more poor people needing entitlements and handouts. I'm too fiscally conservative to want that.
And saying condoms sometimes fail is a very very weak argument for not having them available to people.
Abstinence is good, teaching kids to wait to have sex until they're married or at least older and in a committed relationships good...I'm traditional in that respect and think those are good, moral, and build a healthy culture for our country....however you have to keep reality in mind, and kids are having, will have, always have had sex...and the more taboo a topic it is, the less discussion there is in the home or in other circles, that is not a good thing. Making condoms less available for the thin reasons you stated are just dumb....sorry...I don't want to name call, but that attitude doesn't address the problem, doesn't prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortion. And I'm pro life and want abortions to decrease dramatically in my life time. The pill, condoms, these things are very effective.
I'm with both of you, sort of
July 31, 2009 - 18:31 ET by bre1227See earlier post about oral sex resulting in contracting the HPV virus. On the other hand, I think handing out free condoms and birth control pills doesn't discourage sex for sex's sake.
Also, birth control pills (with exception of Lo-Ovral) supposedly has been linked to an increased risk of breast cancer. Chose your poison?
The only thing I know for sure is that Americans, both adults and teens, have got to be open with each other, do the research and make the best decision they know how at the time. Flinging insults for one's beliefs back and forth does not solve the problem!
"Your statement has a touch
July 31, 2009 - 19:25 ET by ckc1227"Your statement has a touch of classism/elitism in it. We give food to
the hungry, shelter to the poor, and using your approach, we'll just
have more poor folks having unprotected sex, resulting in more poor
people needing entitlements and handouts. I'm too fiscally
conservative to want that."
You're not fiscally conservative, you're liberally stupid. What's next, a government funded member of ACORN available to slip the condom on for them?
By the way, what do poor kids do for condoms during the Summer when school is out? According to you, they're too stupid to figure out that WalMart sells condoms, so what do they do? Do they just go without sex for the whole Summer?
There is nothing elitest about it. If you can't afford 50 cents for a condom, you can't afford the potential repercussions. If anyone here is elitest, it's you for assuming poor people are too stupid to behave responsibly.
"Making condoms less available for the thin reasons you stated are just dumb"
Do you really want to bring up thin reasons, or the word dumb? Please, stop the insanity. No one is entitled to have a government funded sex life, and there is no lack of availability of condoms for anyone who wants one.
Here's an idea: let's stop teaching kids at an early age that it's government's job to give us stuff.
If I'm not buying condoms for my own pathetic sex life, I damn sure don't want to buy them for someone else's kid.
"Your attitude is not
July 31, 2009 - 19:56 ET by MrShy"Your attitude is not good....and is what keeps many independents from claiming to be Republican these days"
Uhhh, that's because Republicans -- and specifically, true conservatives -- know that "independent" is The Big Lie, and really means.... l - i - b - e .... you know the rest.
"...and has pushed some folks out of the party."
Folks that never belonged IN the party in the first place. We're not the "pander party" anymore... not after what happened in 2008.
When you go peddling and advocating for more sex education and more easily-available condoms, don't play us for fools and claim to be conservative in any real way.
Rpeggio
July 31, 2009 - 18:48 ET by MrShyYou just don't get it. Or you do, but you prefer we all do away completely with emphasizing personal responsibility. That we all implement safe-guard after safe-guard, program after program, drug after drug, all in the name of complete free will to do whatever we feel like doing, any time, anywhere:
Young adults have sex, it's just the way it is and always has been and will be. So if they're going to have sex, make safe sex easier for them by making condoms available and sex education in schools etc..
Young adults (teenages, we're talking) do drugs, it's just the way it is and always has been and will be. So if they're going to do drugs, make it all easier for them by making drug addiction clinics available and don't-do-drugs education in schools etc..
Young adults often run with gangs, it's just the way it is and always has been and will be. So if they're going to run with gangs, make gang activity safer for them by making get-away cars easily available and more gang education in schools etc..
Young adults drive fast, it's just the way it is and always has been and will be. So if they're going to drive fast, make driving fast safer for them by making speed-radars available, designating certain streets as "teenage drag-racing streets" and fast-driving education in schools etc..
And the downward spiral keeps spiraling dooooowwwwwn.....
Is it sinking in now?
EDIT: yes, I made one. No, I won't tell you what it was :)
Struck a chord
August 1, 2009 - 05:31 ET by RpeggioI really struck a chord with my comments on this article. I never said I was a conservative, just fiscally and defense-wise conservative, I said I was a Republican, and more so an Independent these days. I do not like liberals and despise far left liberals even more so.
Taking my statement that young adults have sex and then saying well, young adults do drugs and get into gangs or criminals steal so what can you do...is a ridiculous retort. I'm for very tough punishment for drug usage and gang activity and for old-school tough parenting and rules etc..
My ONLY point is that SEX in the US is made to be taboo all too often. We're pretty uptight about it, yet even with our approach, STD's are out of control, HPV in particular is in the Millions here in the US and if you don't use a condom, you just spread it even more. We can't click our heels together and cut teenage sex in half.
Do I think we can reduce the number of teenagers taking drugs, yes, do I think we can reduce the number of kids in gangs and crime and driving fatalities, yes...should we put programs in place to do just that, yes. Are we going to be able to significantly reduce pre-marital sex by telling teenagers that abstinence is the way to go, yes, but are we going to reduce it enough to where HPV becomes a thing of the past and abortions drop dramatically, unfortunately, I don't think so. I wish we could.
And it's not about giving condoms to poor people, some other poster brought that up, that's ridiculous. And I just pointed out that it was odd or classist to raise the poor issue.
When you're 17, 19, even early 20's, sex happens, even if every single parent is pushing abstinence and schools/sex ed are pushing it....teenagers and young adults will have sex, to one degree or another...and having some means to prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancies that result in abortions is a good thing....abortion is a very very sad result considering it's killing a life, I'm pro life and wish the 40M plus that have been killed since Roe v. Wade could have had a chance at life today. Especially considering many people would love to adopt but can't, or have to go overseas to do so.
So please don't call me liberal, don't extrapolate my comments and by extension say I'm not for cutting drug usage and tough driving laws and tougher schools and parenting and being tough on crime and gang activity etc... I don't want liberals like Obama and Pelosi running this country into the ground...I can't stand the social justice and socialist spreading the wealth garbage, and think the gov't should bve <20% of GDP, not 40% and rising. Entitlements and hand-outs are out of control and going to bankrupt this country, and create a welfare state. I don't like Obama being leniant on crime and drug usage and abortions and many other social items that eat away at our culture and society and morals.
I was just saying when it comes to sex, the abstinence only approach isn't enough, and though Gardasil appears to have issues, drugs that prevent cervical cancer are a good thing, and I hope they keep working on vaccines or cures for all types of cancer. There's no silver bullet, but unless pre-marital sex and unprotected sex are zeroed-out completely, STD's aren't going to disappear completely, so it's ok for some scientists and biotechs to keep working on things that help prevent cancers or the spread of STD's or whatever...meanwhile, we can all try to address the educational, moral and cultural issues around sex, at the same time. And we could start by getting a strangle hold on gangsta rap and sex-laden videos and marketing...I'm no prude, but it's way out of control and contributes to teen sex and crime and a degrading moral society...I'm with you on that believe me. My favorite station is Fox, favorite shows are The Factor with Bill O'Reilly and Dennis Miller and John Gibson's radio shows.....I hate Bill Maher, I can't stand MSNBC etc.. I'm pretty conservative on most issues....Romney in 2012.
Heck, my profile pic is Ronald Reagan....we could use another Reagan right now.
But how is saying people
July 31, 2009 - 22:59 ET by moderncommentaries83But how is saying people are incapable of keeping it in their pants (personal responsibility and self control) any different from saying, for example:
People are incapble of living within their financial means, so we should continually bail them out (see all the pictures of people waiting in line for some government benefit who are "poor" but have cell phones, leather coats, and souped up cars).
People are incapable of making healthy food choices, so the government needs to monitor what they eat.
People are incapable of spending their own money wisely or charitably, so the government needs to redistribute it accordingly.
It has to do with self-control and personal responsibility. We should not be expected to condone, applaud, or somehow subsidize behavior that is detrimental to the phyiscal, mental, and emotional well-being of people, especially women and girls.
We should not encourage behavior that leads to the contraction of STDs and unplanned pregnancies (which leads to millions of abortions) because people are "just going to do it."
Homicidal maniacs are "just going to" kill. Robbers are "just going to" steal. If we constantly give in to the basest desires among us, how does society benefit?
And how has sexual promiscuity really done good for people since the sexual revolution of the 60s? Divorce rates are up, so are STD infections and abortions. The traditional family structure has been damaged, and men are no longer taking responsibility for the children they fathered.
Conservatives, like me, who advocate abstinence do so because the alternative has been tried, and failed spectacularly.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
I read a couple of months ago....
August 1, 2009 - 08:22 ET by Gecksthat Guardacil should be required for males also since males are developing penile cancer (Google it, lovely pictures)at higher rates these days. Does that mean your son will be first in line.
HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. The HPV organism is so microscopic, that it can pass through latex condoms.
So, Rpeggio, you still "good" with YOUR son having casual sex with some girl he picks up?
I'm willing to bet that if you had the ability to pick your sons girlfriends, you wouldn't pick the girl who has no problem with having casual sex partners.
Gecks
"Your right to Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness ends at my front door, and my wallet!"-Me!
It's a type of liberal dementia
July 31, 2009 - 19:17 ET by c5thenThey are so focused on their goal that they don't see the collateral damage that their means to it is causing. Gardasil might prevent a few thousand cases of cervical cancer a year, they see no problem with it also causing almost a hundred deaths, dozens of cases of shock and maybe tens of cases of paralysis. This is just another step on their path to no-reason-not-to-have-sex-whenever-you-want-it.
Their nirvana is to get to a point where all sexually transmitted diseases are either preventable or curable and of course there is always infanticide for those pesky unwanted pregnancies.
They vehemently attack anyone who brings up abstinence which is the ONLY 100% effective method for avoiding STDs and pregnancy. Taking personal responsibility and denying yourself a carnal pleasure in order to prevent potential calamity is NOT in their game plan.
Throw 'da bums out!
no one re-elected who voted for socialism or debt
www.loyaltoliberty.com
c5then
July 31, 2009 - 19:29 ET by MrShyThey vehemently attack anyone who brings up abstinence which is the ONLY 100% effective method for avoiding STDs and pregnancy. Taking personal responsibility and denying yourself a carnal pleasure in order to prevent potential calamity is NOT in their game plan.
I tried to say it, above, but you REALLY said.
I'm an amateur around these NB parts. I throw in the towel and defer to you, c5then. :)
"Safe sex" not really, totally safe
July 31, 2009 - 20:52 ET by moderncommentaries83It is a "pro-sex vaccine", marketed for girls as young as nine. I believe some states tried to make this vaccine mandatory as part of the vaccinations required to attend public schools...oh, they did. In Texas, of all places:
Um, with all due respect, polio is highly contagious and can be contracted in many ways. HVP, on the other hand, is a disease transmitted only by sexual contact (which is why it's an STD). My child will not get HVP by sitting next to someone, but he may contract polio this way.
Of course not! No one is expected to be able to keep it in their pants, consequences be damned. You can attempt to make sex "safe" by tossing a gazillion condoms and Planned Parenthood pamphlets at kids and the fact remains that condoms, even with "perfect" use, are not 100% failsafe. Why is it liberals and our moral and intellectual superiors in the media insist that people take risks - very real risks - with their lives for the sake of a few minutes' pleasure? Keep in mind these are the same people who think kids can be taught safe sex but believe no safety measures - even for law-abiding adults - make guns safe.
And this vaccine has some problems. On May 31, 2007, Associated Content reported that Judicial Watch found 1,600 adverse reactions to Gardasil and 3 deaths. It also caused "spontaneous abortions and fetal abnormalities...in young pregnant women. The vaccine
wasn't recommended for pregnant patients, but because the vaccine
didn't contain a live virus, physicians were not warned to use extra
caution in screening for possible pregnancies before vaccination,
either."
Back in June 2008, additional deaths and other complications were linked to Gardasil, including "an 'otherwise healthy'
13 year old female who was vaccinated with her first and second doses
of Gardasil. Subsequently, the patient experienced … paralysis from the
chest down, lesions of the optic nerve…At the time of the report, the patient had not recovered."
Two deaths were reported in the UK.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Every time I take my girls
August 1, 2009 - 08:29 ET by msh1973Every time I take my girls in for a physical (ages 14 and 15) the doctor gives me a hard time about the Gardasil. I have chosen not to have my girls immunized at this time. When they are 18 they can make that choice for themselves. In the mean time, I am still their mother and I say "No". The research is still out on this drug. The fact that Nancy Snyderman is so "militant" about this drug makes me all the more against it.
Gardasil
August 3, 2009 - 01:17 ET by LorraineWhen this vaccine was first announce, I was appalled at the rush to require it for all young girls. Some states even made it mandatory before going back to school, like cervical cancer is something you can catch in the hallways.
I have a 17-year-old daughter. There is no way I'm going to let her be a guinea pig for a pharmaceutical company, their brand-new drug, and their government conspirators.
My daughter is NOT sexually active and doesn't plan to be so anytime soon. We have always had frank discussions about sex and it's consequences and she knows that protecting herself from pregnancy and disease are her responsibility once she becomes sexually active.
It's none of the government's, or the school district's business.