Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[mashman]

"Dr. Harper agrees with Merck and the CDC that Gardasil is safe for most girls and women.

Merck and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention maintain Gardasil is safe and effective, and that adequate warnings are provided, cautioning about soreness at the injection site and risk of fainting after vaccination. A new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found while the overall risk of side effects appears to be comparable to other vaccines, Gardasil has a higher incidence of blood clots reported. Merck says it continues to have confidence in Gardasil's safety profile. Merck also says it's looking into cases of ALS, commonly known as Lou Gehrig's Disease, reported after vaccination. ALS is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that attacks motor neurons in the brain and spinal cord. Merck and the CDC say there is currently no evidence that Gardasil caused ALS in the cases reported. Merck is also monitoring the number of deaths reported after Gardasil: at least 32. Merck and CDC says it's unclear whether the deaths were related to the vaccine, and that just because patients died after the shots doesn't mean the shots were necessarily to blame.

According to Dr. Harper, assessing the true adverse event risk of Gardasil, and comparing it to the risk of cervical cancer can be tricky and complex. "The number of women who die from cervical cancer in the US every year is small but real. It is small because of the success of the Pap screening program."

She also worries that Merck's aggressive marketing of the vaccine may have given women a false sense of security. "The future expectations women hold because they have received free doses of Gardasil purchased by philanthropic foundations, by public health agencies or covered by insurance is the true threat to cervical cancer in the future. Should women stop Pap screening after vaccination, the cervical cancer rate will actually increase per year. Should women believe this is preventive for all cancers - something never stated, but often inferred by many in the population-- a reduction in all health care will compound our current health crisis. Should Gardasil not be effective for more than 15 years, the most costly public health experiment in cancer control will have failed miserably."

CDC continues to recommend Gardasil for girls and young women. The agency says the vaccine's benefits outweigh its risks and that it is an important tool in fighting a serious cancer." [END QUOTES].

All medications, carry the risk of side effects and should be chosen after qualified consultation by the patient.

In my family history as far back as I can go, nobody has ever had a more serious complication than localised soreness or a brief feeling of sickness. All of my immediate family and whanau have been regularly immunised as per the medical recommendations. No significant side effects beyond what I have said. None of us have ever suffered a serious illness or death, either, by contracting the reason for the vaccine.

I, and my children, will not send the kids to school or Kindy, were they not vaccinated and were exposed to other unvaccinated children.

Your choice, for sure, but I would rather believe the qualified medics and scientists over conspiracy theorists.

What's the conspiracy Ed?

[mashman]

...

Your choice, for sure, but I would rather believe the qualified medics and scientists over conspiracy theorists.

What's the conspiracy Ed?

[Edbear]

What's the conspiracy Ed?

Okay, maybe the anti-vaccination movement spreading misinformation and claiming that the drug companies are manipulating things behind the scenes. Claiming all manner of conspiracies, from deliberately making people sick to genocide.

[mashman]

Okay, maybe the anti-vaccination movement spreading misinformation and claiming that the drug companies are manipulating things behind the scenes. Claiming all manner of conspiracies, from deliberately making people sick to genocide.

Funny, I didn't read anyone saying anything about anti-vaccination... just raising concerns as per your CBS link.

Hardly conspiracy theorists

[Edbear]

Funny, I didn't read anyone saying anything about anti-vaccination... just raising concerns as per your CBS link.

[URLU][/B][/URL]

Laying a complaint is one thing, the outcome is the main thing. We'll have to wait until the case is resolved to find out the truth.

I prefer to wait for the full details to come out before making a judgement.

[Katman]

I prefer to wait for the full details to come out before making a judgement.

I think a lot of people would like to be made aware of the full details regarding risks versus benefits too.

[TheDemonLord]

I think a lot of people would like to be made aware of the full details regarding risks versus benefits too.

But do those people have the adequate knowledge/experience/understanding/logical faculties to be able to adequately evaluate the full details of said risk?

I'm happy to agree on the principle of this point but I must disagree with the practical application of this point.

People have routinely shown to be horrendously bad at weighing probability of risk (myself included) - we might refuse to get on a ferry because of an irrational fear of it sinking (and death by drowning), yet will happily smoke ciggarettes and eat greasy food to excess.

Everyone here who rides a motorbike is a testament to that fact - we do something voluntarily that we know to be less safe than its alternatives. The difference is however, if I ride like a twat on my bike, I'll most likely kill myself, in rare situations, I might kill a few other people. Infectious diseases on the other hand have the potential for one person to infect multiple people (Typhoid Mary springs to mind)

[mashman]

Laying a complaint is one thing, the outcome is the main thing. We'll have to wait until the case is resolved to find out the truth.

I prefer to wait for the full details to come out before making a judgement.

But you've already made the judgement that it's conspiracy theorists that are pushing the argument.

"In all of the clinical trials with GARDASIL 9 subjects were evaluated for new medical conditions
potentially indicative of a systemic autoimmune disorder. In total, 2.2% (351/15,703) of GARDASIL 9
recipients and 3.3% (240/7,378) of GARDASIL recipients reported new medical conditions potentially
indicative of systemic autoimmune disorders, which were similar to rates reported following GARDASIL,
AAHS control, or saline placebo in historical clinical trials. "

[Edbear]

I think a lot of people would like to be made aware of the full details regarding risks versus benefits too.

That's where a good GP comes in. Mine always discusses the benefits and side effects of any medication he recommends. He's always proven to be up to date with the latest information, or will offer to research any questions I have that he can't answer immediately.

In hospital, they must inform you of all potential risks, and that's where I have, at times, wished they didn't...

[Edbear]

But you've already made the judgement that it's conspiracy theorists that are pushing the argument.

"In all of the clinical trials with GARDASIL 9 subjects were evaluated for new medical conditions
potentially indicative of a systemic autoimmune disorder. In total, 2.2% (351/15,703) of GARDASIL 9
recipients and 3.3% (240/7,378) of GARDASIL recipients reported new medical conditions potentially
indicative of systemic autoimmune disorders, which were similar to rates reported following GARDASIL,
AAHS control, or saline placebo in historical clinical trials. "

No, that's because on this thread, we are dealing with conspiracy theorists. Apologies if you misunderstood.

[mashman]

No, that's because on this thread, we are dealing with conspiracy theorists. Apologies if you misunderstood.

No, you're dealing with people who have made a choice in regards to HPV given the knowledge that's currently available. That some of us can be tarred as conspiracy theorists does not detract from the point at hand... irrespective of what you say. Walk a mile etc...

Nothing to say about the quote I posted? Oh and in that quote, note the use of the word NEW. No mention of existing known conditions. Now then, tell me about safety again.

[Edbear]

No, you're dealing with people who have made a choice in regards to HPV given the knowledge that's currently available. That some of us can be tarred as conspiracy theorists does not detract from the point at hand... irrespective of what you say. Walk a mile etc...

Nothing to say about the quote I posted? Oh and in that quote, note the use of the word NEW. No mention of existing known conditions. Now then, tell me about safety again.

"In all of the clinical trials with GARDASIL 9 subjects were evaluated for new medical conditions
potentially indicative of a systemic autoimmune disorder. In total, 2.2% (351/15,703) of GARDASIL 9
recipients and 3.3% (240/7,378) of GARDASIL recipients reported new medical conditions potentially
indicative of systemic autoimmune disorders, which were similar to rates reported following GARDASIL,
AAHS control, or saline placebo in historical clinical trials. "

This is what I mean. You can ignore relevant facts in the data and make an adverse judgement. The fact that a saline placebo produced the same results, is rather significant, no?

Coupled with the very low percentage that would probably be below the margin of error for the study, and that it was recorded of anecdotal opinions from the recipients, not medically tested.

[Katman]

But do those people have the adequate knowledge/experience/understanding/logical faculties to be able to adequately evaluate the full details of said risk?

So why do you think Dr Harper (and many other qualified specialists) questions the risk-versus-benefit profile of Gardasil?

[mashman]

"In all of the clinical trials with GARDASIL 9 subjects were evaluated for new medical conditions
potentially indicative of a systemic autoimmune disorder. In total, 2.2% (351/15,703) of GARDASIL 9
recipients and 3.3% (240/7,378) of GARDASIL recipients reported new medical conditions potentially
indicative of systemic autoimmune disorders, which were similar to rates reported following GARDASIL,
AAHS control, or saline placebo in historical clinical trials. "

This is what I mean. You can ignore relevant facts in the data and make an adverse judgement. The fact that a saline placebo produced the same results, is rather significant, no?

Coupled with the very low percentage that would probably be below the margin of error for the study, and that it was recorded of anecdotal opinions from the recipients, not medically tested.

Is that because Saline is considered to be benign?

Really? Someone has to validate that the medical condition is new. Nah, let's just take the persons word for it that have a new autoimmune condition.

Consider that 0% would be affected by any Gardasil issues if they didn't have it v's "The benefit to public health is nothing, there is no reduction in cervical cancers, they are just postponed, unless the protection lasts for at least 15 years, and over 70% of all sexually active females of all ages are vaccinated." i.e. 2.2%, or perhaps 3.3% or perhaps something entirely different given that there are still concerns being raised about it and not all cases have been "connected" to the vaccine.

0% chance sounds good to me for my kids. I'm not too worried should they develop cervical cancer down the line given the current treatments available. No contest.

[Edbear]

Is that because Saline is considered to be benign?

Really? Someone has to validate that the medical condition is new. Nah, let's just take the persons word for it that have a new autoimmune condition.

Consider that 0% would be affected by any Gardasil issues if they didn't have it v's "The benefit to public health is nothing, there is no reduction in cervical cancers, they are just postponed, unless the protection lasts for at least 15 years, and over 70% of all sexually active females of all ages are vaccinated." i.e. 2.2%, or perhaps 3.3% or perhaps something entirely different given that there are still concerns being raised about it and not all cases have been "connected" to the vaccine.

0% chance sounds good to me for my kids. I'm not too worried should they develop cervical cancer down the line given the current treatments available. No contest.

That's why saline was used as the placebo, as it cannot produce any reactions in the human body. It's the standard first call for replacing blood loss, for example as there are no issues with typing.

So for an inert simple salt solution to produce the same results as Gardasil, suggests that Gardasil is not the problem many think it is.

In bold, is my main concern. Hindsight, for my own children, would be that I would not have used it anyway as they didn't fit the criteria for needing it.