Two sisters claim Gardasil caused their infertility - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 45 Old 11-12-2013, 09:03 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 252 Post(s)

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/doctors-call-claims-gardasil-caused-sisters-infertility-bogus/story?id=20830299 

 

Two sisters are claiming that the Gardasil vaccine caused their Premature Ovarian Failure. Here's part of the article: 

 

"There is nothing about this particular vaccine that would make this at all plausible," said Dr. Kim Gecsi, who directs the ob/gyn clerkship program at University Hospitals Case Medical Center in Cleveland. "There is nothing hormonal in Gardasil or anything anti-hormonal in Gardasil -- nothing that should encourage the body to stop producing ovarian hormones."

 

"Since this is not a recognized adverse effect, the judges will have to make a decision about that," said Dr. William Schaffner, chairman of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. "There's no scientific basis for it."

What do you guys think about this? Obviously I don't think that the Gardasil vaccine causes POF but I do feel awful for these two girls. How sad for them to have to go through infertility at such a young age. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#2 of 45 Old 11-12-2013, 09:22 AM
 
MaggieLC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 410
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Very sad. I have no idea if that vaccine causes this awful side effect. I just know that I have not and will not give the vaccine to my daughters. It's too iffy, it doesn't immunize for all forms of HPV and even those that it does, there's a huge chance that your DD won't get immunity anyway.

 

I don't see the point.


Attachment Parenting: The radical notion that children are human. bfinfant.gif
MaggieLC is offline  
#3 of 45 Old 11-12-2013, 09:31 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,259
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/doctors-call-claims-gardasil-caused-sisters-infertility-bogus/story?id=20830299 

 

 I don't think that the Gardasil vaccine causes POF but I do feel awful for these two girls. 

 

I think I does

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=23902317


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is online now  
#4 of 45 Old 11-12-2013, 09:58 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 252 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

 

I think I does

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=23902317

 

A sample size of three? really? just because some women happen to get POF after receiving the vaccine doesn't mean anything.  POF affects 1 out of every 1,000 women aged 15-29 and 1 out of every 100 women ages 30-39 (http://americanpregnancy.org/womenshealth/pof.htm

 

There have been over 57 million doses of Gardasil given in the US since 2006.  By chance alone, thousands and thousands of those girls/women are going to get diagnosed with POF.  As has been pointed out before in other threads, other conditions don't just stop happening because someone gets vaccinated.  If they did, that would have to be thoroughly investigated as that would mean that the Gardasil vaccine somehow protects against premature ovarian failure. 

Alenushka likes this.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#5 of 45 Old 11-12-2013, 09:58 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

 

I think it does

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=23902317

Yes, it certainly can cause POF.  Thanks for the link, Serenbat.

 

The fact that those doctors insist that "There is nothing about this particular vaccine that would make this at all plausible" when there is published mainstream, peer-reviewed research showing that it CAN happen?  That has to make you wonder what kind of doctor is insisting that it can't happen.  Does she really not know that it can happen?  Or is she paid to insist that it can't?

applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#6 of 45 Old 11-12-2013, 10:23 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 252 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

Yes, it certainly can cause POF.  Thanks for the link, Serenbat.

 

The fact that those doctors insist that "There is nothing about this particular vaccine that would make this at all plausible" when there is published mainstream, peer-reviewed research showing that it CAN happen?  That has to make you wonder what kind of doctor is insisting that it can't happen.  Does she really not know that it can happen?  Or is she paid to insist that it can't?

 

You really think three anecdotal stories of women being diagnosed with POF after receiving the Gardasil vaccine is good evidence?  Have you actually looked at the "study"? 

 

One of the girls was complaining of irregular periods before she ever received the first dose of the vaccine. The second girl is her sister, suggesting a possible genetic factor. Also, this second girl had started her period on the late side of average at age 15. She only had two periods and didn't have anymore. This was two years after she received the Gardasil vaccine.  Third girl is much of the same kind of thing. Problems with her period starting months after the vaccine followed by a couple years of irregular periods before being diagnosed with POF. 

 

As Orac puts it "No evidence is presented, and they labor mightily to turn three anecdotes into “data.” Basically, their “reasoning” (such as it is) boils down to this. Three females developed POF sometime within several months to a couple of years of receiving Gardasil. Two of them had autoantibodies, but not the same autoantibodies. Therefore, Gardasil must have caused their ovarian failure through ASIA. Yes, their arguments are just that bad." 

 

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/08/09/antivaccinationists-against-the-hpv-vaccine-round-5000/  


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#7 of 45 Old 11-12-2013, 10:25 AM
 
chickabiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,483
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

Yes, it certainly can cause POF.  Thanks for the link, Serenbat.

 

There is absolutely no proof of that.

teacozy likes this.

Carseat-checking (CPST) and WAH mama to a twelve-year-old girl.
chickabiddy is online now  
#8 of 45 Old 11-12-2013, 10:47 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

 

There is absolutely no proof of that.

Did you not read the study?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=23902317

CONCLUSION:  "We documented here the evidence of the potential of the HPV vaccine to trigger a life-disabling autoimmune condition. The increasing number of similar reports of post HPV vaccine-linked autoimmunity and the uncertainty of long-term clinical benefits of HPV vaccination are a matter of public health that warrants further rigorous inquiry."

applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#9 of 45 Old 11-12-2013, 10:52 AM
 
rnra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
They say that they showed "potential" not "proof." There's a big difference.
rnra is offline  
#10 of 45 Old 11-12-2013, 10:58 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 252 Post(s)

Yeah, it's good to know a sample size of three anecdotal stories is now considered "good evidence".  I could probably just as easily find three women who became pregnant within a month of getting the Gardasil vaccine and claim that the vaccine boosts fertility! 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#11 of 45 Old 11-12-2013, 11:01 AM
 
cwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 560
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
The fact that those doctors insist that "There is nothing about this particular vaccine that would make this at all plausible" when there is published mainstream, peer-reviewed research showing that it CAN happen?  That has to make you wonder what kind of doctor is insisting that it can't happen.  Does she really not know that it can happen?  Or is she paid to insist that it can't?

 

It is not peer-reviewed research.  It is a case study paper and it's really, really weak.  Here is the full text for anyone interested.  Can you point to specific evidence in the paper that the vaccine caused POF?

http://www.luontaisnetti.fi/hpv/3%20cases%20of%20Primary%20Ovarian%20Failure%20following%20HPVvaccination,%20Am%20J%20Reproductive%20Immunol%202013.pdf

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

A sample size of three? really? just because some women happen to get POF after receiving the vaccine doesn't mean anything.  POF affects 1 out of every 1,000 women aged 15-29 and 1 out of every 100 women ages 30-39 (http://americanpregnancy.org/womenshealth/pof.htm

 

There have been over 57 million doses of Gardasil given in the US since 2006.  By chance alone, thousands and thousands of those girls/women are going to get diagnosed with POF.  As has been pointed out before in other threads, other conditions don't just stop happening because someone gets vaccinated.  If they did, that would have to be thoroughly investigated as that would mean that the Gardasil vaccine somehow protects against premature ovarian failure. 

 

Exactly. Even given the very conservative estimate of 1 in 10,000 for women under 20, we would expect nearly 2000 of the vaccinated population to develop POF.  So far there have been 4 published reports, with 3 under 20.

teacozy likes this.
cwill is offline  
#12 of 45 Old 11-12-2013, 11:31 AM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

Honestly, all the hype about the dangers of Gardasil makes me nervous.  It's actually really reassuring to come across stuff like this and see that so much of what the anti-gardasil people put forth as evidence is just bunk.  Seeing reports of numbers of Gardasil deaths also used to make me nervous until I actually looked thruogh VAERS (generally listed as the source) and saw how many had obvious causes that were not Gardasil or were cases of "I read in a magazine" or people reporting incidences that they had seen referred to online or some other worse-than-third hand way.  It was like a big sigh of relief.  And yet, so many people cite these death numbers as if they were without a question all caused by the vaccine when some of hem may not even have happened in the case of "I read on an internet forum that a girl died after Gardasil"  Knowledge is power, I guess.  Also this discussion is rather relevant to me as I just sent the consent forms back to school with my daughter today. 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaggieLC View Post
 

Very sad. I have no idea if that vaccine causes this awful side effect. I just know that I have not and will not give the vaccine to my daughters. It's too iffy, it doesn't immunize for all forms of HPV and even those that it does, there's a huge chance that your DD won't get immunity anyway.

 

I don't see the point.

 

Many form of HPV are harmless.  Why would they invest resources into creating a vaccine against them?  The strains that they do vaccinate for include the two that are responsible for causing nearly all cases of cervical cancer and two common ones that cause genital warts. 

 

There is a chance that it won't be effective, but a huge chance?  Based on what?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

Did you not read the study?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=23902317

CONCLUSION:  "We documented here the evidence of the potential of the HPV vaccine to trigger a life-disabling autoimmune condition. The increasing number of similar reports of post HPV vaccine-linked autoimmunity and the uncertainty of long-term clinical benefits of HPV vaccination are a matter of public health that warrants further rigorous inquiry."

 

How does three instances of women who had gardasil developing ovarian failure show that gardasil causes it? 

 

While premature ovarian failure isn't that common, it certainly happens, and it happened to women in my generation (prior to the development of Gardasil). In the vast majority of cases, there was never a cause found Unless there is some reason to expect Gardasil to prevent premature ovarian failure, then it shouldn't be a shock at all to know that it happens on occasion to women who have been vaccinated with Gardasil just as it does to women who haven't.

 

Is it possible that gardasil causes this?  Well, sure.  Is it possible that yoga classes and the positions girls get into and stay in for prolonged periods causes it?  Well, guess we can't rule that out either, and I'm sure if you did a survey of women who suffered from premature ovarian failure with no known cause you could find at least a few who had never been vaccinated with gardasil but had stared taking yoga classes no long before noticing symptoms.  However, there is no reason to believe that either of these things actually caused premature ovarian failure. 


Where is the evidence showing a increase in premature ovarian failure following the introduction of Gardasil?  Where is the evidence showing that girls vaccinated with Gardasil are more likely to suffer from premature ovarian failure than girls who have not? 

 

This "study" is so weak it's utterly ridiculous.  

teacozy likes this.
pers is offline  
#13 of 45 Old 11-12-2013, 06:49 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,009
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)

"Honestly, all the hype about the dangers of Gardasil makes me nervous.  It's actually really reassuring to come across stuff like this and see that so much of what the anti-gardasil people put forth as evidence is just bunk. "  Pers.

 

Seeing as there is only one study listed in this thread, I am not sure where you are getting the "so much ….is bunk" thing.  
applejuice likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#14 of 45 Old 11-13-2013, 03:58 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,259
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)

Does anyone have a study that shows that Merck did any testing on ovaries and the effects Gardasil has on ovaries?


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is online now  
#15 of 45 Old 11-13-2013, 08:33 AM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

"Honestly, all the hype about the dangers of Gardasil makes me nervous.  It's actually really reassuring to come across stuff like this and see that so much of what the anti-gardasil people put forth as evidence is just bunk. "  Pers.

 

Seeing as there is only one study listed in this thread, I am not sure where you are getting the "so much ….is bunk" thing.  

 

 

"Stuff like this" as in the link in this thread is one example of the sort of stuff I've seen many times before. 

pers is offline  
#16 of 45 Old 11-13-2013, 08:50 AM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

Does anyone have a study that shows that Merck did any testing on ovaries and the effects Gardasil has on ovaries?

 

What sort of testing would they do?  Is there any sort of reason to expect that Gardasil may somehow harm the ovaries that would justify invasive testing?  

 

Clinical trials followed girls/women injected with either Gardasil or a placebo and recorded health events.  

pers is offline  
#17 of 45 Old 11-13-2013, 06:45 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,259
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post
 

 

What sort of testing would they do?  Is there any sort of reason to expect that Gardasil may somehow harm the ovaries that would justify invasive testing?  

 

Clinical trials followed girls/women injected with either Gardasil or a placebo and recorded health events.  

Why would they not have done testing on the effects of the reproduction system? Last time I checked "genitals" were very much a part of the reproduction system. Since the whole reproductive system is to work together, why would one not want to see that testing had been done? 

 

As far as clinical trials, since when do we know the long term effects on fertility among those who have been vaccinated? Do we have data that supports the first age group to receive the vaccine has not had infertility issues? 2006 approval - 2008 is about the time it started to be in general/mass use - so where is the data that shows the first age on women is not having fertility issues?

 

Guess you would not know what effect it would have on the ovaries unless you checked the effects - like with lab rats, the way other vaccines and /or drugs are check on their effects on organs.

 

I say we don't know the full extent on the infertility issues with Gardasil but we do know there are some issues that some did get compensated for - http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/hpv-vaccine-injuries-and-deaths-is-the-government-compensating/

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/131306945/HPV-Claims-3-7-2013  - if you look to the right you can find lots of things to read :wink


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is online now  
#18 of 45 Old 11-13-2013, 07:54 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 252 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

Why would they not have done testing on the effects of the reproduction system? Last time I checked "genitals" were very much a part of the reproduction system. Since the whole reproductive system is to work together, why would one not want to see that testing had been done? 

 

 

This line of reasoning is ridiculous. It's like saying " Well, measles causes pneumonia which affects the lungs so it should be biologically plausible that the MMR  vaccine causes lung cancer or emphysema!"  Or " Well, mumps can cause infertility in men, so it's logical to assume that the MMR may cause penile cancer or prostate cancer since, after all, mumps affects the reproductive organs of men"  Or " We should assume that the MMR causes brain cancer since measles can cause Encephalitis which affects the brain." 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#19 of 45 Old 11-13-2013, 08:24 PM
 
MountainMamaGC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,048
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

If POF is autoimmune, I think its totally possible that the vaccine could do that. Its not the first time a vaccine has caused autoimmune issues. 

applejuice likes this.

Me(33), Mama to a crazy DD (6), Wife to a wonderful mountain man(32) BF my babe for 2 years.
MountainMamaGC is online now  
#20 of 45 Old 11-13-2013, 08:37 PM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainMamaGC View Post
 

If POF is autoimmune, I think its totally possible that the vaccine could do that. Its not the first time a vaccine has caused autoimmune issues. 

:yeah

applejuice likes this.
ma2two is offline  
#21 of 45 Old 11-14-2013, 04:37 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,259
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

This line of reasoning is ridiculous. It's like saying " Well, measles causes pneumonia which affects the lungs so it should be biologically plausible that the MMR  vaccine causes lung cancer or emphysema!"  Or " Well, mumps can cause infertility in men, so it's logical to assume that the MMR may cause penile cancer or prostate cancer since, after all, mumps affects the reproductive organs of men"  Or " We should assume that the MMR causes brain cancer since measles can cause Encephalitis which affects the brain." 

:rotflmao

 

oh yes, I want to use eyedrops that cause throat cancer! 

 

 

Reproduction system is just that and like it or not, gentiles are very much a part of it………...Why would they not have done testing on the effects of the reproduction system? Last time I checked "genitals" were very much a part of the reproduction system. Since the whole reproductive system is to work together, why would one not want to see that testing had been done? 

 

 $5,877,710 dollars to 49 victims - makes me feel real SAFE! :irked


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is online now  
#22 of 45 Old 11-14-2013, 08:44 AM
 
moderatemom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

Why would they not have done testing on the effects of the reproduction system? Last time I checked "genitals" were very much a part of the reproduction system. Since the whole reproductive system is to work together, why would one not want to see that testing had been done? 

 

As far as clinical trials, since when do we know the long term effects on fertility among those who have been vaccinated? Do we have data that supports the first age group to receive the vaccine has not had infertility issues? 2006 approval - 2008 is about the time it started to be in general/mass use - so where is the data that shows the first age on women is not having fertility issues?

 

Guess you would not know what effect it would have on the ovaries unless you checked the effects - like with lab rats, the way other vaccines and /or drugs are check on their effects on organs.

 

I say we don't know the full extent on the infertility issues with Gardasil but we do know there are some issues that some did get compensated for - http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/hpv-vaccine-injuries-and-deaths-is-the-government-compensating/

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/131306945/HPV-Claims-3-7-2013  - if you look to the right you can find lots of things to read :wink

 

What do the ovaries have to do with HPV at all?  HPV is a disease of the skin and mucous membranes...it's not a disease of the "genitals," per se, and is only an issue for the cervix (as opposed to the mouth or the nose) due to the method of transmission. 

chickabiddy likes this.
moderatemom is offline  
#23 of 45 Old 11-15-2013, 04:32 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,259
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

 

What do the ovaries have to do with HPV at all?  HPV is a disease of the skin and mucous membranes...it's not a disease of the "genitals," per se, and is only an issue for the cervix (as opposed to the mouth or the nose) due to the method of transmission. 

apparently to you- nothing

 

HPV the disease is one thing, the effects of the vaccine for HPV is another  

 

there have been 152 reports (that are known) that included symptoms of amenorrhoea in their VAERS/HPV for Gardasil 

http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?EVENTS=on&PAGENO=1&PERPAGE=10&ESORT=&REVERSESORT=&VAX=(HPV+HPV4)&SYMPTOMS=(Amenorrhoea___%2810001928%29+Infertility_%2810021926%29+Infertility_female_%2810021928_%25_29+Menopausal_symptoms_%2810027304%29+Menopause_%2810027308%29) - >>>I do not know why this link will not imbed but you can copy & paste it to open it<<<<

 

- thus far we do known there are been compensation for injureS & deathS related to the HPV / Gardasil vaccine (see previous link I posted with freedom of information request) http://www.scribd.com/doc/131306945/HPV-Claims-3-7-2013 

 

 

would be nice if the records weren't sealed and we knew what "injures" they compensated for

 

I wonder why PRO vaccinators don't push to have compensation records open, would think they would like to know since they acknowledge reactions happen, think they would like to know what ones are called injures since some are being compensated.


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is online now  
#24 of 45 Old 11-15-2013, 09:27 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,259
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)

and this means nothing either! 

 

The Vaccine Injury Table (Table) makes it easier for some people to get compensation. The Table lists and explains injuries/conditions that are presumed to be caused by vaccines. It also lists time periods in which the first symptom of these injuries/conditions must occur after receiving the vaccine. If the first symptom of these injuries/conditions occurs within the listed time periods, it is presumed that the vaccine was the cause of the injury or condition unless another cause is found. For example, if you received the tetanus vaccines and had a severe allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) within 4 hours after receiving the vaccine, then it is presumed that the tetanus vaccine caused the injury if no other cause is found.

 

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccinetable.html

 

 
let is spin, let it spin, let it spin :rotflmao
 
com·pen·sa·tion
ˌkämpənˈsāSHən/
noun
 
  1. 1.
    something, typically money, awarded to someone as a recompense for loss, injury, or suffering.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is online now  
#25 of 45 Old 11-15-2013, 11:00 AM
 
chickabiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,483
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)

Legal "proof" is not scientific or medical proof.  It just means that certain conditions were met and the government decided it was cheaper to compensate than fight.  I don't need you to post dictionary definitions.


Carseat-checking (CPST) and WAH mama to a twelve-year-old girl.
chickabiddy is online now  
#26 of 45 Old 11-15-2013, 11:38 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,259
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)

we are talking about vaccine injury compensation, not lemon laws and the money (compensation) is not coming from the EPA http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreports.html#Stats

 

yes, people are being compensated for injuries from vaccines, no matter how some wants to spin it  http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreports.html#Stats

 

fairy dusty is not being handed out by unicorns because you show up with a lawyer and just look nice - injuries from vaccines (not by a car or a boat) and handed out by a fund set up just for vaccine injuries (not for floods or natural disasters) 

 

 cases are dismissed and you don't just get money because it's cheaper to do so, if that was true, they ALL would be dismissed and that is NOT happening, and they all would get the same amount, again, that is not happening either :eyesroll 

kathymuggle likes this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is online now  
#27 of 45 Old 11-15-2013, 12:48 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,259
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

 
  It just means that certain conditions were met and the government decided it was cheaper to compensate than fight. 
please provide "proof" of your assertion the government is doing this

ETA- are you aware of certain cases that have caused you to state that? If so, do please do tell which ones- what vaccine injuries did they do this for ?

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is online now  
#28 of 45 Old 11-15-2013, 01:27 PM
 
Magali's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Molten Core
Posts: 2,333
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

Legal "proof" is not scientific or medical proof.  It just means that certain conditions were met and the government decided it was cheaper to compensate than fight.  I don't need you to post dictionary definitions.

This doesn't sound very reassuring.  What other things are they doing that are cheaper  than the alternative?

applejuice likes this.

 caffix.gif

Magali is offline  
#29 of 45 Old 11-15-2013, 02:57 PM
 
MaggieLC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 410
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post
 

 

Many form of HPV are harmless.  Why would they invest resources into creating a vaccine against them?  The strains that they do vaccinate for include the two that are responsible for causing nearly all cases of cervical cancer and two common ones that cause genital warts. 

 

There is a chance that it won't be effective, but a huge chance?  Based on what?

 

 

 

How does three instances of women who had gardasil developing ovarian failure show that gardasil causes it? 

 

While premature ovarian failure isn't that common, it certainly happens, and it happened to women in my generation (prior to the development of Gardasil). In the vast majority of cases, there was never a cause found Unless there is some reason to expect Gardasil to prevent premature ovarian failure, then it shouldn't be a shock at all to know that it happens on occasion to women who have been vaccinated with Gardasil just as it does to women who haven't.

 

Is it possible that gardasil causes this?  Well, sure.  Is it possible that yoga classes and the positions girls get into and stay in for prolonged periods causes it?  Well, guess we can't rule that out either, and I'm sure if you did a survey of women who suffered from premature ovarian failure with no known cause you could find at least a few who had never been vaccinated with gardasil but had stared taking yoga classes no long before noticing symptoms.  However, there is no reason to believe that either of these things actually caused premature ovarian failure. 


Where is the evidence showing a increase in premature ovarian failure following the introduction of Gardasil?  Where is the evidence showing that girls vaccinated with Gardasil are more likely to suffer from premature ovarian failure than girls who have not? 

 

This "study" is so weak it's utterly ridiculous.  


I can choose to NOT shoot what I consider poisons into my daughters.

 

Here's some highlights of an interesting article based on a seminar that MERCK presented, with their statistics.

 

Quote:
 70% of HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment in one year. After two years, this rate climbs to 90%. Of the remaining 10% of HPV infections, only half coincide with the development of cervical cancer.

Dr. Harper further undercut the case for mass vaccination campaigns in the U.S. when she pointed out that “4 out of 5 women with cervical cancer are in developing countries.” (Harper serves as a consultant to the World Health Organization (WHO) for HPV vaccination in the developing world.) Indeed, she surprised her audience by stating that the incidence of cervical cancer in the U.S. is so low that “if we get the vaccine and continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in the US.”

If this is the case, I thought, then why vaccinate at all? From the murmurs of the doctors in the audience, it was apparent that the same thought had occurred to them.

In the U.S. the cervical cancer rate is 8 per 100,000 women.1 Moreover, it is one of the most treatable forms of cancer. The current death rate from cervical cancer is between 1.6 to 3.7 deaths per 100,000 women.2 The American Cancer Society (ACS) notes that “between 1955 and 1992, the cervical cancer death rate declined by 74%” and adds that “the death rate from cervical cancer continues to decline by nearly 4% each year.”3

 

And

 

Quote:
 To date, 15,037 girls have officially reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). These adverse effects include Guilliane Barre, lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many others. The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported deaths.7

Dr. Harper, who seems to specialize in dropping bombshells, dropped another in an interview with ABC News when she admitted that “The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer.”8 This being the case, one might want to take one’s chances with cancer, especially because the side effects of the vaccine are immediate, while the possibility of developing cancer is years in the future.

In the clinical studies alone, 23 girls died after receiving either Gardasil or the Aluminum control injection. 15 of the 13,686 girls who received Gardasil died, while 8 died among the 11,004 who received the Aluminum shot. There was only one death among the group that had a saline placebo. What this means is that 1 out of every 912 who received Gardasil in the study died.9, see p. 8 The cervical cancer death rate is 1 out of every 40,000 women per year.10

The numbers of deaths and adverse effects are undoubtedly underestimates. Dr. Harper’s comments to ABC News concur with the National Vaccine Information Center’s claim that “though nearly 70 percent of all Gardasil reaction reports were filed by Merck, a whopping 89 percent of the reports Merck did file were so incomplete there was not enough information for health officials to do a proper follow-up and review.”11 On average, less than 10 percent—perhaps even less than 1 percent—of serious vaccine adverse events are ever reported, according to the American Journal of Public Health.12

Given the severity and frequency of Gardasil adverse reactions, I definitely wasn’t the only one in Dr. Harper’s audience who winced when she dismissed most Gardasil side effects as “easily just needle phobia.”

Due to the young age of the trial participants and the short duration of the studies, the effects of Gardasil on female fecundity have not been studied.

No thanks. I have no right to do that (give that vaccine that has NO long term studies done on it)  to my children for NO proven efficacy.


Attachment Parenting: The radical notion that children are human. bfinfant.gif
MaggieLC is offline  
#30 of 45 Old 11-15-2013, 06:33 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,259
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

If you look at the link in my OP you will see this:

 

"The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has received 212 claims against HPV vaccines, including 11 deaths, according to program records. (Gardasil is one of two HPV vaccines.)

Of those claims, 63 were dismissed and 68 received compensation of some kind. The rest are pending. Two deaths prompted compensation from the program.

"Please note that a settlement is not an admission by the United States or the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the vaccine caused the petitioner's alleged injuries, and, in settled cases, the court does not determine that the vaccine caused the injury," said David Bowman, a spokesman for the Health Resources and Services Administration, which runs the program." 

I guess no matter how many times this is repeated it just isn't going to be understood. Compensation by the vaccine court does *not* mean the vaccine caused the injury! 

Do you think that Gardasil is a vaccine that also protects against POF? I really am curious because that seems to be your argument.  Millions and millions of girls/women have been vaccinated with Gardasil. So unless your argument is that you believe that this vaccine also protects against POF, it shouldn't surprise you that out of those millions and millions of women that some of them (thousands and thousands) will end up developing POF by chance alone.  You have to show that POF happens *more frequently* in girls who are vaccinated with Gardasil than in girls who aren't to have any kind of case.  Even if there were 300 cases of girls developing POF after the vaccine in VAERS that *still* wouldn't mean anything at all.  Three cases is laughable. :dizzy

As SBM points out, when a study is this bad, about 95% of the time it's because the authors have an axe to grind. This is no exception. 

"Dr. Little is on the board of advisors for an Australian Catholic anti-abortion group called Family Life International, whose official patron laments the growth of promiscuity and the “redefining” of marriage (big surprise, the group is against gay marriage as well). On the website is a diatribe against Gardasil, which, FLI gravely notes, is “often associated with promiscuity,” along with a link to a YouTube video of the antivaccine propaganda film The Greater Good. It also turns out that Ward is, as one of my commenters put it, cut from the same cloth, described as a “pro-life obstetrician/gynecologist.” He also apparently helps an antiabortion activist named Stephanie Gray give talks at local churches in Canada in which she shows graphic abortion videos to convince the audience that abortion is “wrong 100% of the time.” Abortion?? not staying on topic here!

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/10/30/ovarian-failure-caused-by-gardasil-not-so-fast/   :dizzy

Why does this not surprise me? maybe because you read into things what you want, not what they really are and post from other that do they same

Compensation by the vaccine court does *not* mean the vaccine caused the injury! 

 

WRONG!

 

you are very confused here on what is compensation - let me help you - I had posted this link previously (AND only because of the restriction on words/copyright I can not post all of this) http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreports.html#awardspaid

 

there are three ways you "win"

the "criteria" has to be medial injury (not that you feel upset because you got a vaccination  - you must have an real injury)

 

DEFINITIONS:

  1. Compensable – The injured person who filed a claim was paid money by the VICP.   Compensation can be achieved through a concession by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a decision on the merits of the claim by a special master or a judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims (Court), or a settlement between the parties.
    1. ConcessionHHS concludes that a petition should be compensated based on a thorough review and analysis of the evidence, including medical records and the scientific and medical literature.  The HHS review concludes that the petitioner is entitled to compensation, including a determination either that it is more likely than not that the vaccine caused the injury or the evidence supports fulfillment of the criteria of the Vaccine Injury Table.  The Court also determines that the petition should be compensated.
      1. Court Decision: 
      2. Settlement: 

 

to state that Compensation by the vaccine court does *not* mean the vaccine caused the injury! is false and misleading, unless you can site cases here that show that all those who were compensated only met the support fulfillment it is not accurate  

furthermore one must meet "scientific and medical" criteria, not legal "proof" to be compensated 


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off