Required STD shots worry some parents - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-07-2007, 12:57 PM   #61
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

But hey, it's Perry, he's a shit governor.
I don't like him. I voted 3rd party this time around.
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 02-07-2007, 12:58 PM   #62
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 09:15 PM
Good for you.

__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-07-2007, 01:03 PM   #63
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
MrPryck2U's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Long Island, NY, USA, Earth
Posts: 8,953
Local Time: 10:15 PM

This issue is thrown onto the pile with "giving out condoms in school will encourage them to have sex".
__________________
MrPryck2U is offline  
Old 02-08-2007, 06:32 PM   #64
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:15 PM
If I had a daughter, I'd bring her up in my faith and teach her the value systems of my faith, and tell her why I think that value system is the way to go.

However, she has free will, and if she grows up to go against that value system, that's something she would have to live with. I do not think that getting the Gardisil shots would iinfluence her to have sex.

But there are other objections to Gardisil. These objections aren't getting much press, but they do exist.

The reason I wouldn't want my daughter to receive Gardisil treatments is because it hasn't been around long enough for me to put my faith in it being safe. It was just approved in 2006. Only about 11.5 thousand people have been officially studied, and the studies weren't for very long.

I found two interesting articles that question the safety of Gardisil:

First, here's a little something an OBGYN wrote, from http://www.healthychild.com/gardasil-objections.htm

OBGYN Against ACIP HPV Vaccine Decision

I am a Board Certified Obstetrician Gynecologist and have several objections to the ACIP "recommendations".

Most of the following is taken directly form the Gardasil package insert.

First, the endpoint is the prevention of "High Grade disease", this encompasses CIN II-III and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) which are "immediate and necessary precursors" for squamous cell and adenocarcinoma of the cervix. The MAXIMUM of the median follow up in any of their studies is FOUR years. However, the time course from CIN III to invasive cancer averages between 8.1 to 12.6 years. Claiming this vaccine "prevents cervical cancer", with the longest median study subject being 4 years, is ludicrous.


Furthermore, the vast majority of women clear or suppress the virus to levels not associated with CIN II or III and for most women this occurs promptly. The duration of HPV positivity (which is directly related to the likelihood of developing a high grade lesion or cervical cancer) is shorter, and the likelihood of clearance is higher, in younger women.

Therefore, vaccinating these children against HPV with a vaccine that is of unknown duration of efficacy will only postpone their exposure to an age which they are less likely clear the infection on their own and be subject to more severe disease. This would require an unknown number of boosters and is a setup for complacency in the older population that is a recipe for disaster. Furthermore, the likelihood for regression to a normal pap from CIN II is 40%. This beats Gardasil’s "best" reduction of CIN II-III of only 12%. In this case, "first do no harm” rules.


Furthermore the vaccine only "protects" against 4 high risk HPV subtypes. We are currently screening for 13 "high risk" HPV subtypes. This may lead to an increase in infection with other and possibly more aggressive subtypes.


The study of the vaccine in children and adolescents is limited to only measuring the development of antibodies to the HPV subtypes in the vaccine. There is absolutely no evidence that the vaccine prevents anything when administered at this young age. Merck expects you to extrapolate their adult data to the immune response in children. If they were really interested in vaccine efficacy in children, should it not be studied properly in children?


Currently, precancerous lesions are readily identifiable and treatable in the developed world. The only utility of this vaccine may be in third world countries in which regular screening is not available and cervical cancer is still a major cause of morbidity and mortality. All of the data reported and advertised by Merck is based on world wide morbidity and mortality related to cervical cancer. Nowhere will you find specific data related to developed nations.


I have personally witnessed the devastation caused by severe vaccine reaction, including patients, their children, nurses and my own family. To proceed with mass vaccination against this embellished "threat" is irresponsible.

Clayton Young, M.D., F.A.C.O.G.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And here's what the National Vaccine Information Center has to say about it, from
http://www.nvic.org/PressReleases/pr62706gardasil.htm

MERCK'S GARDASIL VACCINE NOT PROVEN SAFE FOR LITTLE GIRLS
National Vaccine Information Center Criticizes
FDA for Fast Tracking Licensure

Washington, D.C. - The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is calling on the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to just say "no" on June 29 to recommending "universal use" of Merck's Gardasil vaccine in all pre-adolescent girls. NVIC maintains that Merck's clinical trials did not prove the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine designed to prevent cervical cancer and genital warts is safe to give to young girls.

"Merck and the FDA have not been completely honest with the people about the pre-licensure clinical trials," said NVIC president Barbara Loe Fisher. "Merck's pre and post-licensure marketing strategy has positioned mass use of this vaccine by pre-teens as a morality play in order to avoid talking about the flawed science they used to get it licensed. This is not just about teenagers having sex, it is also about whether Gardasil has been proven safe and effective for little girls."

The FDA allowed Merck to use a potentially reactive aluminum containing placebo as a control for most trial participants, rather than a non-reactive saline solution placebo.[1] A reactive placebo can artificially increase the appearance of safety of an experimental drug or vaccine in a clinical trial. Gardasil contains 225 mcg of aluminum and, although aluminum adjuvants have been used in vaccines for decades, they were never tested for safety in clinical trials. Merck and the FDA did not disclose how much aluminum was in the placebo.[2]

Animal and human studies have shown that aluminum can cause nerve cell death [3] and that vaccine aluminum adjuvants can allow aluminum to enter the brain, [4 5] as well as cause inflammation at the injection site leading to chronic joint and muscle pain and fatigue. [6 7] Nearly 90 percent of Gardasil recipients and 85 percent of aluminum placebo recipients followed-up for safety reported one or more adverse events within 15 days of vaccination, particularly at the injection site.[8] Pain and swelling at injection site 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. [9 10] Gardasil recipients had more serious adverse events such as headache, gastroenteritis, appendicitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, asthma, bronchospasm and arthritis.

"Merck and the FDA do not reveal in public documents exactly how many 9 to 15 year old girls were in the clinical trials, how many of them received hepatitis B vaccine and Gardasil simultaneously, and how many of them had serious adverse events after being injected with Gardasil or the aluminum placebo. For example, if there were less than 1,000 little girls actually injected with three doses of Gardasil, it is important to know how many had serious adverse events and how long they were followed for chronic health problems, such as juvenile arthritis."

According to the Merck product manufacturer insert, there was 1 case of juvenile arthritis, 2 cases of rheumatoid arthritis, 5 cases of arthritis, and 1 case of reactive arthritis out of 11,813 Gardasil recipients plus 1 case of lupus and 2 cases of arthritis out of 9,701 participants primarily receiving an aluminum containing placebo. Clinical trial investigators dismissed most of the 102 Gardasil and placebo associated serious adverse events, including 17 deaths, that occurred in the clinical trials as unrelated.

"There is too little long term safety and efficacy data, especially in young girls, and too little labeling information on contraindications for the CDC to recommend Gardasil for universal use, which is a signal for states to mandate it," said Fisher. "Nobody at Merck, the CDC or FDA know if the injection of Gardasil into all pre-teen girls - especially simultaneously with hepatitis B vaccine - will make some of them more likely to develop arthritis or other inflammatory autoimmune and brain disorders as teenagers and adults. With cervical cancer causing about one percent of all cancer deaths in American women due to routine pap screening, it was inappropriate for the FDA to fast track Gardasil. It is way too early to direct all young girls to get three doses of a vaccine that has not been proven safe or effective in their age group."

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), founded in 1982 by parents of vaccine injured children, has been a leading critic of one-size-fits-all mass vaccination policies and the lack of basic science research into biological mechanisms and high risk factors for vaccine-induced brain and immune system dysfunction. As a member of the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), Barbara Loe Fisher urged trials include adequate safety data on pre-adolescent children and warned against fast tracking Gardasil at the November 28-29, 2001 VRBPAC meeting .[11]

Full 2001 FDA Transcript: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/cber01.htm#Vaccines & Related Biological

For more information go to www.NVIC.org.

-end-

1. Merck & Co., Inc. 2006. Gardasil [Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Types 6,11,16,18) Recombinant Vaccine] product insert. Table 6.

2. Food and Drug Administration. May 18, 2006. FDA Background Document for Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee: Gardasil HPV Quadrivalent Vaccine.

3. Kawahara M et al. 2001. Effects of aluminum on the neurotoxicty of primary cultured neurons and on the aggregation of betamyloid protein. Brain Res. Bull. 55, 211-217.

4. Redhead K. et al. 1992. Aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines transiently increase aluminum levels in murine brain tissue. Pharmacol. Toxico. 70, 278-280.

5. Sahin G. et al. 1994. Determination of aluminum levels in the kidney, liver and brain of mice treated with aluminum hydroxide. Biol. Trace. Elem. Res. 1194 Apr-May;41 (1-2):129-35.

6. Gherardi M et al. 2001. Macrophagaic myofastitis lesions assess long-term persistence of vaccine-derived aluminum hydroxide in muscle. Brain, Vol 124, No. 9, 1821-1831.

7. Shingde M eta la. 2005. Macrophagic myofastitis associated with vaccine derived aluminum. MJA, 183 (03):145-146.

8. Merck & Co. May 18, 2006. Merck briefing document for Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee: Gardasil. Table 24.

9. Merck & Co., Inc. 2006. Gardasil product insert: Serious Adverse Experiences.

10. Food and Drug Administration. May 18, 2006. FDA Background Document for Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.: Gardasil. Table 32.

11. Food and Drug Administration. November 29, 2001. Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. Excerpt from transcript.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 02-08-2007, 06:35 PM   #65
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 09:15 PM
Most vaccines had objections at first, in fact most meds period had objections at one point.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-08-2007, 07:11 PM   #66
The Male
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 65,805
Local Time: 07:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
If we call it what it is: A CANCER vaccine, then will these people shut up?
Exactly, but since it has to do with sexual organs and STD's, people are getting upset.

This is a sick society we live in.
__________________
LemonMelon is online now  
Old 02-08-2007, 07:57 PM   #67
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 10:15 PM
Well, 80s, I can agree with the objection that it hasn't been around long enough to say for sure, but for something that's gotten so much publicity, I'll assume it does what it claims as long as I am aware of what it DOESNT do. It has never claimed to prevent 100% of cervical cancer, not even close.



Quote:
The MAXIMUM of the median follow up in any of their studies is FOUR years. However, the time course from CIN III to invasive cancer averages between 8.1 to 12.6 years. Claiming this vaccine "prevents cervical cancer", with the longest median study subject being 4 years, is ludicrous.
I was just at the OBGYN's the other day, and she told me that I though I'm married now and am not at risk unless someone cheats or is raped, I could have gotten HPV over TEN years ago and still be at risk for developing the cancer. Now that was something I did not know. If I was hypothetically exposes as a young teen, getting the vaccine now wouldn't cancel out the virus (as I understand it). I guess it's important for women who've already been sexually active to take this into account, and I was glad the doctor brought this up before I asked.

On the other hand though, knowing this makes me MORE inclined to support it being required for younger girls, so they get the vaccine before they even consider exposing themselves.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-08-2007, 09:04 PM   #68
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Liesje
Well, 80s, I can agree with the objection that it hasn't been around long enough to say for sure, but for something that's gotten so much publicity, I'll assume it does what it claims as long as I am aware of what it DOESNT do. It has never claimed to prevent 100% of cervical cancer, not even close.

On the other hand though, knowing this makes me MORE inclined to support it being required for younger girls, so they get the vaccine before they even consider exposing themselves.
I don't understand how you can say on one hand that it hasn't been around long enough to know if it's safe and yet on the other hand support it being required?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 02-08-2007, 09:06 PM   #69
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Most vaccines had objections at first, in fact most meds period had objections at one point.
That's right, but how many of those became required for all young girls after being in existence such a short period of time?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 02-08-2007, 09:07 PM   #70
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 09:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


I don't understand how you can say on one hand that it hasn't bee around long enough to know if it's safe and yet on the other hand support it being required?
Do you know the history of other vaccinations?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-08-2007, 09:12 PM   #71
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 10:15 PM
If 80s has issues with the FDA testing, I respect that. There are FDA-approved drugs that I still raise my eyebrows at, frankly, so it's not uncommon.

I think that people like 80s will be shown to be wrong over time and the vaccine is safe and effective, but I certainly respect his right to oppose it on scientific grounds. It is at least a valid and logical worry and I can afford understanding.

For people objecting on other (religious and moral) grounds, I say their claims are ridiculous and asinine and we should not sugarcoat it and be polite any longer. Enough is enough.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 02-08-2007, 10:00 PM   #72
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Do you know the history of other vaccinations?
Do you?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 02-08-2007, 10:10 PM   #73
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 10:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


I don't understand how you can say on one hand that it hasn't been around long enough to know if it's safe and yet on the other hand support it being required?
I was objecting how "safe" it is (in terms of side effects or causing other complications), just how effective it is, especially for people my age who may have already been exposed and might even have HPV but not know it. That's why it makes sense for girls age 11, because most likely they haven't started experimenting sexually and the vaccine will prevent getting the virus.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-08-2007, 10:33 PM   #74
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 09:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


Do you?
A little. I know there have been other mandatory vaccines with just as much FDA approved time even less. And controversies over vaccines have always been around, they escalated quite a bit in the 90's. There are still many parents who won't let their children get vaccinated( any vaccine) due to autism fears.

Like Anitram said, I respect anyone who's cautious(as long as it's for logical reasons) for FDA isn't a guarantee. But then again, there are no guarantees in medicine.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-09-2007, 11:41 AM   #75
War Child
 
Devlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 922
Local Time: 03:15 AM
I think it's rather goofy to try and vaccinate against the - probably remote - possibility that your girl might, maybe, at some point actually get cervical cancer. I mean, really, people, how long before we start putting kids in bubbles and not allowing them to leave the house because they might, maybe, possibly get hit by a car, or catch a cold? Think about it. MMR - lesse, usually dangerous, and hellishly contagious.

Might, maybe get cervical cancer. Eh, not so much. Especially if this is a virus that stands a good chance of going away and leaving you healthy. No. Believe me, I wouldn't do it. I actually don't get the flu vaccine for this very reason. In the off chance I actually get the flu, I'll survive it. It's called using your head.
__________________

__________________
Devlin is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com