or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gardasil

post #1 of 5
Thread Starter 

I am technically a delayed vaxer because I spread out (and in the process somewhat delayed some) infant vaxes, but I am basically pro-vax.

 

I am unsure about Gardasil for my 11yo, however.  I don't feel it's been out long enough to have a real track record of safety.  I've been doing my research and don't feel convinced one way or the other, though I am slightly leaning towards it.

 

If anyone has any great, solidly researched (not opinion pieces) links, I'd really appreciate them.

post #2 of 5

I'm also interested in what others will post. Here is what I have been looking at so far:

 

Specifically about the HPV:

http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2013-08-05/scientists-explain-why-hpv-vaccines-are-unsafe/

 

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/08/24/scientists-point-out-corruption-in-vaccines-promotion-11498/

 

http://preventdisease.com/news/13/022013_5-Vaccines-To-Never-Give-A-Child.shtml  (scroll down to number 5 for the HPV) 

 

About vaccines in general but also including specifics on the HPV: 

http://www.nvic.org/

 

http://vactruth.com/

 

What got me really into re-considering vaccines was the book The Business of Baby. All 4 of my kids are 100% vaccinated according tot he regular schedule. It is just recently that I have come across this information and grown an interest. I thought health professionals and scientists had everything all figured out but apparently, they don't. 

post #3 of 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtapc90 View Post
 

I'm also interested in what others will post. Here is what I have been looking at so far:

 

Specifically about the HPV:

http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2013-08-05/scientists-explain-why-hpv-vaccines-are-unsafe/

 

 

The article and the study it discusses have big problems starting right from the main point: 

 

Quote:
 The paper starts by discussing three cases of young women, studied by the authors, whose development had been quite normal, yet who experienced ovarian failure after receiving HPV vaccinations. They were studied extensively and all other potential causes were ruled out, leaving only the vaccines as the causative agent

 

Do some basic research on premature ovarian function though and you'll find out that while it is not common in young women, it does happen from time to time (several place say up to 1 in 1000 women ages 15 to 29, though I don't know the original source of that statistic, but it does happen and has been happening for a lot longer than gardasil has been around).  To show that Gardasil has anything to do with it, they would need to show at the very least that i was more common in women who got the vaccine than in women who didn't.  Just giving three case studies tells us nothing about causation.  If instead they gave three case studies of teens who got Gardasil and then became pregnant within the next year, would we conclude that Gardasil increases fertility? 

 

Regarding the bold text, this is the biggest problem - while there are a number of known causes  of premature ovarian failure, in most cases, THE CAUSE IS NEVER KNOW.  Some sites say that as many as 90% of case have no known cause.  How do you rule out no known cause to conclude that these three cases must be Gardasil rather than whatever those unknown things caused it in all those women it happened to prior to Gardasil?

 

Also, if you look at their chart of symptoms of "autoimmune syndrome induced by adjuvants," notice that the symptoms of it just happen to match symptom of menopause/early menopause (with the exception of "evolvement of autoimmune disorder," but there is no other mention of the case having an autoimmune disorder, and while I can't read the full text of the case studies, what I have read about them leads me to think the autoimmune disorder is just the ovarian failure which the authors have decided must be an autoimmune problem).  

 

It's notable at least four of the five scientists referred to in the title of the second link are anti-vaccine activists. is it surprising that they are also against HPV vaccination?  

 

One of the main points of the third seem to be that we shouldn't vaccinate because vaccine don't provide 100% protection and there can still be outbreaks.  They use a huge outbreak of about 1500  mumps cases, most cases in vaccinated people, in New Jersey in 2012 as an example of this.  Yes, the mumps vaccine is not as effective as the measles and rubella portion of the MMR, and some people may get mumps, but I do not follow the logic that this means that we should stop vaccinating and go from now when 1500 is an unusually large number for a year (three times the average) to where hundreds of thousands or millions of cases a year is the norm. 

 

Common threads through both links also include that Gardasil hasnever been shown to prevent cervical cancer.  Well, yeah, we wouldn't expect it to yet since cervical cancer takes 10 to 20 years to develop, so it is still a few years from when we would expect to start noticing results.  What we have seen though is a reduction in the two strains of HPV known for causing most cases of cancer.  Why is it not logical to conclude that by preventing the cause of the cancer, you will also prevent the cancer? 

 

Another common thread is reports of adverse reaction to VAERS.  See here and here for an great response to those.  

 

Finally, there are mentions that Gardasil is worthless because it fails to clear existing HPV infections when given to people who already have them - who ever claimed it would?  It is intended to prevent infection, not cure it.  There are also mentions of Gardasil being dangerous to give to women who are already infected with HPV because it can increase the number of cervical lesions.  This is a concern and deserves more research. However, what they fail to mention is that the numbers they quote are from a single study where by shear chance it was also found that the Gardasil group had a significantly higher incidence of known risk factors (smoking, etc.) than the placebo group and that when further analyzed with other studies, the increase was not seen.  You can read the whole thing here: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4222B3.pdf starting on page 13. 

post #4 of 5
Thanks for all that info pers. Like chickabiddy this is actually one I worry about a bit, and I'm glad to have a few years before my oldest is the age. Where I have to make a decision on this one. I'll be following all the studies I'm sure are in the pipeline. Hoping for a cochrane report on it too. I don't think there is one yet right?
post #5 of 5

No Cochrane yet.  I did talk go to a forum about it at the local med school (specifically geared towards discussion of delays & opting out).  Consensus was that it was best to get the vax prior to sexual activity since most of the adverse side effects in the initial study we with women who already had a strain of HPV or had other STIs in the past (the thought was they might have HPV, but had not yet tested positive).  The basic premise was that since it takes 3 injections, starting at 11 increases the chances that all  doses are complete before any sexual activity has started.

 

My kids are still young, so I am hoping for more info before we get to that point.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Selective & Delayed Vaccination