A major pharmaceutical company lobbies to require that children be
given a vaccine. Parents should be made aware of any problems resulting from the vaccine, right? Not according to a recent Washington Post article.
Rob Stein’s March 26 article about the Gardasil vaccine debate failed to include any references to the several documented cases of health problems and even death that resulted from the vaccinations. His two-page article highlighted the tone of the Gardasil debate, reflecting the impact on young girls’ sex lives and the potential use for a male vaccine. But Stein barely touched on the concerns of critics that the vaccine actually caused health issues for young women.
The Gardasil vaccine is a series of three shots offered to young women to significantly lower their risk of contracting the Human Papillomavirus (HPV), which can cause cervical cancer. Stein noted that “Critics worried that vaccinating children would send a subtle signal that their parents assumed they would become sexually active and that it would give youngsters a false sense of security.” True enough, but critics are also worried that this miracle vaccine may come with its own set of problems.
The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is one of those critics. According to the website NVIC is “the oldest and largest consumer organization advocating the institution of vaccine safety and informed consent protections in the mass vaccination system…” The mission of the NVIC is to prevent vaccine injuries and one of its targets is the Gardasil vaccine.
According to a June 26, 2007 NVIC press release, “Nearly 90 percent of all Gardasil recipients and 85 percent of aluminum placebo recipients reported one or more adverse events within 15 days of vaccination, particularly at the injection site. Pain and swelling at injection site and fever occurred in approximately 83 percent of Gardasil and 73 percent of aluminum placebo recipients. About 60 percent of those who got Gardasil or the aluminum placebo had systemic adverse events including headache, fever, nausea, dizziness, vomiting, diarrhea, myalgia. Gardasil recipients had more serious adverse events such as headache, gastroenteritis, appendicitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, asthma, bronchospasm and arthritis.” The information in the press release was obtained from the vaccine’s maker, Merck, and the Food and Drug Administration, and it prompted NVIC to advise against recommending the “universal use of Merck’s Gardasil vaccine in all pre-adolescent girls” to the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
A February 2009 NVIC report noted that there are at least 29 known cases in which young patients died after receiving the Gardasil vaccine,. “A 21-year old Maryland artist, athlete and honor roll college student died suddenly without explanation in June 2008 after her third Gardasil shot,” the article reported. “She is one of the 29 Gardasil death reports in VAERS.” VAERS is the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System.
Stein did note concerns that the vaccine isn’t totally safe. Buried at the end of the article was this: “Federal health officials, Merck and others say they are confident that the vaccine is safe. But some experts said they are concerned that there is insufficient evidence about how long Gardasil's protection will last, whether serious side effects will emerge and whether the relatively modest benefits for boys are worth even the small risks associated with any vaccine.”
Death is hardly a small risk, and NVIC’s very serious concerns should have been prominently featured in an article about the Gardasil controversy.
Photo via University of Wisconsin, Stout.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
My doctor assured me this
March 26, 2009 - 15:20 ET by Radical1979My doctor assured me this was a safe vaccine and my 17 year old should get it. I refused. As this article proves, she'll be safer waiting for sex until she's married and faithful to her husband. I wouldn't give her an AIDs vaccine either if it was available. These diseases are preventable.
Good job Radical1979 for not
March 26, 2009 - 15:27 ET by EugeniaGood job Radical1979 for not listening to your doc. A lot of these vaccines are just ways for pharmaceuticals to make a ton of money and the lazy left to promote a false sense of security for sexual promiscuity. It's the same old story.
Sorry, but this vaccine has
March 26, 2009 - 19:56 ET by StewMcKinSorry, but this vaccine has nothing to do with promoting a false sense of promiscuity. It simply is meant to protect women from contracting a virus that is know to cause cervical cancer. Nowhere has it been stated that the vaccine protects against every other STD or pregnancy. Afraid of the medical side effects? Good, don't take it. The "lazy left" is not guilty of what you're accusing them.
Actually...
March 28, 2009 - 07:41 ET by Kelly72Actually, the vaccine does not even protect very well against cervical cancer, since in reality the FDA states only that it helps protect against some viruses that cause 70 percent of cervical cancer cases.
Any media failing to explain this correctly, failing to list major known side effects, and ignoring deaths of young women directly attributed to this vaccine...
... are indeed "guilty".
Same here w/ teen
March 26, 2009 - 21:18 ET by MaximusBraveheartOur Dr. rec'd it also & we did not do it. Expensive too. I forget but about $300 for 2 shots.
It would give a sense of security as it is suppose to protect you, true? Just like a condom obviously does, yet is not 100%. Maybe 95%? 0.95 to the 20th power is only 36% effective.
No sex or being virgin married is obviously highly effective. That is his point and I would say a valid point. By getting it, this would most certainly prepare your mind for the next step of actually doing it. You go buy condoms w/o 1st thinking of it, then doing it, then looking for "action." This is clearly stated in the Bible, that 1st comes the thought and then the deed.
M-B
I can't believe
March 26, 2009 - 17:03 ET by Joe CamelI went to the doctor, had my yearly physical and discussed the results with the physician. As he was explaining my blood work, he reached for his prescription pad, as my cholesterol was "slightly" elevated, and I mean slightly. Since he did not know me well, I just stopped him politely, and asked if there is a "natural" way of lowering these things. He just smiled and said directly, yes, and they are much more reliable. Those means were, diet, exercise..that is all. I took his advice. When I queried why they don't tell everyone that up front, he let me know the little secret..that is most folks won't do what is the right way, but..just want a pill so they don't have to change their lifestyles. Me, I prefer natural. Most others, the phama companies feed the ability for them to live how they want, with the fewest inconviences to them. They just provide the means to do so to the consumer.
Texas tried to mandate it
March 26, 2009 - 17:03 ET by GeronLTexas tried to mandate it for all pre-teen girls. Gov Perry pushed it hard and his aides had ties to the company that makes it, shocking.
It was a public backlash that stopped that, not our legislature.
Good Gravy
March 26, 2009 - 20:17 ET by someloudthunderIf your only reason for not getting this vaccine for your daughter is because you think it will make her sexually active then please, get some common sense. There's plenty of other reasons, like it's obviously not 100% effective or safe yet.
My daughter
March 26, 2009 - 21:00 ET by txtherepublicI took my 20 year old daughter to get her first pap exam and the attending nurse said that she should think about getting the Guardasil vaccine. So, my daughter and I talked about it and did some research on the internet. After discussing this with her, we have decided that it was not in her best interest to be a guinea pig. If you get a yearly exam, that is as preventive as you can get. All you parents with teenage daughters talk to them and do the proper research before subjecting your daughter to this.
this vaccine
March 27, 2009 - 01:43 ET by katainkentit's my understanding they've had to do a lot of tweaking to the dosing. My niece was one of the first to get it when it became available. It was so painful she passed out. I have two teenage daughters whom I've discussed this with and we've come to the conclusion that we're going to wait until its been on the market a couple more years.
_____________________________________________________
Obama does not perform as advertised. I'd like a refund.
Taxed Enough Already.
Slightly worrisome...
March 27, 2009 - 11:54 ET by kufir77A few things are disconcerting about Gardasil.
1) The lobbying group Women in Government, who were supported heavily financially by Merck, who makes Gardasil, lobbied to make this a REQUIRED vaccination in Texas.
2) The vaccine was "fast tracked" through government approval, which basically means Merck payed millions to the government to speed up the approval. Longterm testing longer than 10 years has not been done on this vaccine.
3) It is NOT a "cervical cancer vaccine". It only prevents against a handful of the most common strains of HPV, which sometimes cause cervical cancer. There is fear that the other, lesser common strains of HPV will become more prevalent because the vaccine does not prevent them.
4)The reason the left likes HPV so much is because condoms are not fully effective against it.