Gardasil!

[PinkinPA]

taken from another site for our discussion.


This is disgusting....In Australia they are proposing to add 'Gardasil' to the recommended schedule for BABIES!!!!! They want to discuss 'testing' on infants in their first few months of life. This is CRIMINAL at best!

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/H...ow/2314918.cms

[honeybunch2k8]

Just wonderful. Your baby dies from gardasil, they accuse you of murder, then cps your other kids. I could just about promise you that if they give gardasil to infants. I see that coming from a mile away.

[kiara7]

:

Absolutely disgusting!

[1littlebit]

i do not understand this testing on babies crap.. and more then that i don't understand why parents would test something on their babies. i mean who would take that risk? you would think even the most pro vax people would have a problem using their kids as Guinea Pigs.

[Mama~Love]

Those poor babies - who would sign thier infant up for that?? Would they get the baby boys too, or just girls??

[2boyzmama]

So, tell me if I have this right…we’ll vaccinate a newborn, who has virtually NO CHANCE of contracting the virus. But, the vaccine only lasts a few years (not sure yet how many, but likely 10 or less) so when the girls are approaching the age when they might actually benefit from protection, they’re no longer immune! So now they need a booster, at the age when they would normally be getting their first dose anyway. But they’re not reachable at that age because they’re dropping out of school.

Does anyone else see this?? WHY is this not obvious? What problem do they think they're solving here?

[DisplacedYooper]

Originally Posted by 2boyzmama

What problem do they think they're solving here?

They're solving the problem of needing a captive audience, the same as with the HepB... My ex-ped openly admitted that the only reason it was on the infant schedule is because that's when they have babies coming in for the other shots.

Once you have the vax, you "need" to get the booster 15 years down the line... they will be pushing the booster in OB/GYN offices.

Wow... when did I get so cynical?

[denimtiger]

The captive audience problem is the core of much of the vaccination program.

Hep B - given to babies because the problem population is "hard to reach."

Hep A - young children are usually asymptomatic or very mildly sick -- they're vaccinated so that they don't spread Hep A to adults.

Rubella- mild illness, no risk to children - we again vaccinate children to protect pregnant women.

Influenza - a key component of the newish national immunization strategy is that schoolchildren (who are generally at very low risk of complications from flu) are the ones who "spread" the flu to the elderly. So, we vaccinate kids to "protect" their grandparents.

Kids are powerless and helpless -- they are not capable of refusing the shots, and their parents can be easily scared and bullied into consenting.

Vaccinating babies as young as possible solves another major issue -- it's much easier to downplay a frightening side-effect if it happens in a person who is unable to explain what is going on with their body. I almost threw up when I read the info sheets about the vaccins listing "crankiness" as a possible "minor" side effect. Hello! Cranky is not a diagnosis. Cranky is a symptom of something being WRONG. If it was somebody old enough, they'd be able to tell you that their head felt like it was going to explode, or that their neck was feeling weak, or that their vision was blurry, or they felt like they were going to throw up, or that they couldn't move their leg without blnding pain. But if that person is two months old, you can write it off as "cranky." And then, everyone can laugh and smile knowingly, and say that "he's just cranky because he got shots today."

Besides, if you're two months old, and you die the next day, somebody can call it SIDS.

[fresh_veggie]

Originally Posted by denimtiger

Besides, if you're two months old, and you die the next day, somebody can call it SIDS.

: My thought exactly. And then you're a crazy hippy if you blame a vaccine for any problem!

This is all insane. What's the point if you'll need a booster by the time you'd "need" to vaccine anyway? I remember my gyno (and his nurse) pushing Gardisil on me - I flat out refused. I knew my stuff in high school. I'd never allow it to be given to a child of mine unless they ask for it and know the risks.

[Fyrestorm]

Originally Posted by Mama~Love

Those poor babies - who would sign thier infant up for that?? Would they get the baby boys too, or just girls??

The same ones who sign them up for Hep B - Besides, it's not given as an option in most places, it's just given!

Originally Posted by 2boyzmama

So, tell me if I have this right…we’ll vaccinate a newborn, who has virtually NO CHANCE of contracting the virus. But, the vaccine only lasts a few years (not sure yet how many, but likely 10 or less)

Just like Hep B

[peainthepod]

Originally Posted by denimtiger

The captive audience problem is the core of much of the vaccination program.

Hep B - given to babies because the problem population is "hard to reach."

Hep A - young children are usually asymptomatic or very mildly sick -- they're vaccinated so that they don't spread Hep A to adults.

Rubella- mild illness, no risk to children - we again vaccinate children to protect pregnant women.

Influenza - a key component of the newish national immunization strategy is that schoolchildren (who are generally at very low risk of complications from flu) are the ones who "spread" the flu to the elderly. So, we vaccinate kids to "protect" their grandparents.

Kids are powerless and helpless -- they are not capable of refusing the shots, and their parents can be easily scared and bullied into consenting.

Vaccinating babies as young as possible solves another major issue -- it's much easier to downplay a frightening side-effect if it happens in a person who is unable to explain what is going on with their body. I almost threw up when I read the info sheets about the vaccins listing "crankiness" as a possible "minor" side effect. Hello! Cranky is not a diagnosis. Cranky is a symptom of something being WRONG. If it was somebody old enough, they'd be able to tell you that their head felt like it was going to explode, or that their neck was feeling weak, or that their vision was blurry, or they felt like they were going to throw up, or that they couldn't move their leg without blnding pain. But if that person is two months old, you can write it off as "cranky." And then, everyone can laugh and smile knowingly, and say that "he's just cranky because he got shots today."

Besides, if you're two months old, and you die the next day, somebody can call it SIDS.

Great post!

[claddaghmom]

Originally Posted by denimtiger

the captive audience problem is the core of much of the vaccination program.

Hep b - given to babies because the problem population is "hard to reach."

hep a - young children are usually asymptomatic or very mildly sick -- they're vaccinated so that they don't spread hep a to adults.

Rubella- mild illness, no risk to children - we again vaccinate children to protect pregnant women.

Influenza - a key component of the newish national immunization strategy is that schoolchildren (who are generally at very low risk of complications from flu) are the ones who "spread" the flu to the elderly. So, we vaccinate kids to "protect" their grandparents.

Kids are powerless and helpless -- they are not capable of refusing the shots, and their parents can be easily scared and bullied into consenting.

Vaccinating babies as young as possible solves another major issue -- it's much easier to downplay a frightening side-effect if it happens in a person who is unable to explain what is going on with their body. I almost threw up when i read the info sheets about the vaccins listing "crankiness" as a possible "minor" side effect. Hello! Cranky is not a diagnosis. Cranky is a symptom of something being wrong. If it was somebody old enough, they'd be able to tell you that their head felt like it was going to explode, or that their neck was feeling weak, or that their vision was blurry, or they felt like they were going to throw up, or that they couldn't move their leg without blnding pain. But if that person is two months old, you can write it off as "cranky." and then, everyone can laugh and smile knowingly, and say that "he's just cranky because he got shots today."

besides, if you're two months old, and you die the next day, somebody can call it sids.

ty

[honeybunch2k8]

Originally Posted by 1littlebit

i do not understand this testing on babies crap.. and more then that i don't understand why parents would test something on their babies. i mean who would take that risk? you would think even the most pro vax people would have a problem using their kids as Guinea Pigs.

Well, I think a HUGE problem is that people see drs as authority figures who know everything. Then you come in and try to tell them, but that doesn't count b/c ur not an MD or RN. However, I have heard generally pro-vax people denounce gardasil, but I think there are people out there who are uninformed. I admit, I didn't know or give much thought about this stuff b4 I was preggy. I really do think people need to take it upon themselves to be informed about medicine.

[honeybunch2k8]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm

The same ones who sign them up for Hep B - Besides, it's not given as an option in most places, it's just given!



Just like Hep B

BOOOOO HIISSSSSSSSS
:

[honeybunch2k8]

Originally Posted by denimtiger

The captive audience problem is the core of much of the vaccination program.

Hep B - given to babies because the problem population is "hard to reach."

Hep A - young children are usually asymptomatic or very mildly sick -- they're vaccinated so that they don't spread Hep A to adults.

Rubella- mild illness, no risk to children - we again vaccinate children to protect pregnant women.

Influenza - a key component of the newish national immunization strategy is that schoolchildren (who are generally at very low risk of complications from flu) are the ones who "spread" the flu to the elderly. So, we vaccinate kids to "protect" their grandparents.

Kids are powerless and helpless -- they are not capable of refusing the shots, and their parents can be easily scared and bullied into consenting.

Cuz you don't want your baby to die do you???

Vaccinating babies as young as possible solves another major issue -- it's much easier to downplay a frightening side-effect if it happens in a person who is unable to explain what is going on with their body. I almost threw up when I read the info sheets about the vaccins listing "crankiness" as a possible "minor" side effect. Hello! Cranky is not a diagnosis. Cranky is a symptom of something being WRONG. If it was somebody old enough, they'd be able to tell you that their head felt like it was going to explode, or that their neck was feeling weak, or that their vision was blurry, or they felt like they were going to throw up, or that they couldn't move their leg without blnding pain. But if that person is two months old, you can write it off as "cranky." And then, everyone can laugh and smile knowingly, and say that "he's just cranky because he got shots today."

Besides, if you're two months old, and you die the next day, somebody can call it SIDS.

Exactly to all of this post.

They'll call it SIDS or accuse you of killing your baby...Then here comes CPS for your other children.

I'm so tired of all this nonsense.

[Frootloop]

Are you freakin' kidding me?!?

I'll freely admit that I haven't studied all vaccines enough, but this particular vaccine is one that makes my gut and instincts scream "noooooo!!!". I want to curl up in a ball and cry when I hear of parents allowing their children to receive it. The thought that they want to test this crap on babies absolutely enrages me. WHY?

[Mama~Love]

Originally Posted by honeybunch2k8

Well, I think a HUGE problem is that people see drs as authority figures who know everything. Then you come in and try to tell them, but that doesn't count b/c ur not an MD or RN. However, I have heard generally pro-vax people denounce gardasil, but I think there are people out there who are uninformed. I admit, I didn't know or give much thought about this stuff b4 I was preggy. I really do think people need to take it upon themselves to be informed about medicine.

I think that has a lot to do with it. They think that because the Dr.'s/nurses/etc. went to medical school, they know their stuff, which is mostly biased from the influence of drug co.'s & other places that have $$$ to make off of the latest "research".

[1littlebit]

don't they have to tell you that they are testing this though? that this has not been used in babies before and yours is going to be one of the first? wouldn't it be illegal not to tell them? its not like they doctor can they follow with "its very safe" how the F@ck would he know since they want to test it on YOUR baby? yk?

and going with that.. most people wouldn't let someone test the newest pain killer or anti depressant on their kids.. why vaccines?

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by 1littlebit

don't they have to tell you that they are testing this though? that this has not been used in babies before and yours is going to be one of the first? wouldn't it be illegal not to tell them? its not like they doctor can they follow with "its very safe" how the F@ck would he know since they want to test it on YOUR baby? yk?

and going with that.. most people wouldn't let someone test the newest pain killer or anti depressant on their kids.. why vaccines?

The first Hep B vaccine was not tested on newborns but in children over 5 I think...or was it 10? Didn't stop them from stating it was safe to give on the first day of life....