Messages

>But the best available evidence at this time
>indicates that the benefits outweigh the risks. Erring in
>either direction to support a bias is not correct.

Actually, the evidence at this time says that getting the shot may help 500 people or less a year.  Getting the shot may harm 3200 people or more a year.  Gee...I'll take my chances with the LOWER number of people harmed, thanks.

>Then why aren't you/your office informing the parents as well?

The parents are told.  But then, it doesn't sound as great if you just say, "It's a vaccine that may help prevent a few strains of a virus that occasionally lead to cervical cancer, which can be deadly if you refuse to get yearly pap tests."  And the doctors want to push the vaccine, so they're going to let them think what they want.

>No, it has NEVER been touted as a
>vaccine for cancer, ONLY as a vaccine against certain strains
>of HPV.  

Yeah...I guess that's what "Gardasil The only cervical cancer vaccine" means, huh?  FYI, that is EXACTLY what the Gardasil website says.  Yes, it give more information down below, but what's in big letters there, and in the commercials?  The information that most people see?  "Gardasil The only cervical cancer vaccine."  To make the claim AT ALL that it is a vaccine against cervical cancer is sickening.

>My very first post to this thread asked an innocent question
>as to WHY you didn't want your SD to get the vaccine, because
>I have NOT heard one adverse comment about the vaccine.  But
>then I don't have girls and am too old for it anyway.  So my
>question was one of interest, NOT to be rude.  

And that's what I assumed was going on, and that is why I politely answered your question.  And then you took it and ran, becoming very rude and oppositional, when my point was NOT to debate the vaccine, but to ask for some help with a legal issue.  So, thanks a lot.  I wonder if the people who created this website realize that their forums are being used to bash NCPs asking questions, instead of helping them?  

>I strongly suggest you get out of conflict completely and
>leave it up to the biological parents.

*Rolling eyes*  Yeah, cause if they are related BIOLOGICALLY, they are the best ones to make decisions, right?  SD's mother is emotionally and physically abusive to her (yes, it's documented), and thought it was ok to move her then-12-year-old daughter in with an ephebophile.  

And FTR:  DH IS the one making the decision.  HE is the one who said, "I don't want her to get the vaccine, what can I do to make sure she doesn't get it?"  Excuse me for daring to support my husband!

>Well, the last time I looked, the FDA WAS the 'government',
>and they're the ones APPROVING the vaccine.  And you've been
>bashing them all through this thread.  So which is it?  You
>keep levitating back and forth and contradicting yourself, so
>I wouldn't know whether to believe you or the government,
>since you both can't give a straight answer.

My point is that I don't believe there has been enough research to accept the vaccine as safe.  Your argument has been that the FDA says it is, so it is.  I posted pages of reports to VAERS which show that it is not, and I'm told (by the other poster) that it's not good enough.  Now, if VAERS (a government website) isn't good enough, how can they trust that the vaccine is safe?

"Bashing?"  *LOL*  I guess that's what you WOULD see it as, since I don't just accept what I'm told at face value.

>Of course I understand it. I also understand that anecdotal
>evidence is not proof.

No, a few people telling what happened to them isn't proof.  However, over 1600 serious reactions are compiled together.  Chances are, that is only a fraction of the number of reactions, considering how reluctant doctors are to report adverse effects.  And a lot of "anecdotal evidence" is what MAKES statistics.

>The FDA has testing protocols in place. After spending half a
>billion dollars on testing, the drug has been approved.

So was Thalidomide.  So was the oral polio vaccine.  And how many others have been approved, then pulled?  It sounds to me like you have blinders on regarding this.  Just because the government approved it does not mean that it is automatically safe.

>The
>results are good enough that quite a few states are looking at
>making it mandatory.

Um...Yeah, and of the TWO states working on making it mandatory, one of them was signed by the Governor, instead of going through the normal channels.  A Governor whose campaign was funded primarily by Merck (the company who makes Gardisil).  Hmm...

>It's obvious that you prefer your conspiracy theory to facts
>and research.

On the contrary, I fully support research.  I simply feel they have not done ENOUGH of it.

>But what would you expect from someone who
>thinks that they infect people with HPV to test the vaccine?

Wow, you really are a prize, aren't you?  Are you sure you graduated from high school?  Because your reading ability seems very, very lacking.  I made it quite clear that I did NOT think that, but you still would rather set up a nice straw man.

>I'm through with this discussion.

Good for you, maybe you can move on to harassing other people in order to boost your obviously lacking self-esteem.  

Oh, and by the way:  SD saw the doctor on Monday.  They did not give her the shot.

>I guess your post might be accurate IF you consider 5,000
>deaths per year from cervical cancer to be a "few".

And getting your annual pap test would result in about 4500 of those deaths NOT happening.  500 deaths a year?  Tragic, yes.  Some big health crisis?  Well, considering that more than THREE TIMES that number had already had a serious reaction to that vaccine by the end of May, looks to me like getting the vaccine is more dangerous than forgoing it.

>If the vaccine prevents even half of those deaths, it makes a
>difference. Not to mention the network effects.

If they had spent half of the money they spent on developing a vaccine on encouraging women to get their annual pap test instead, they could prevent 90% of those deaths.  

>Except for one thing that you've missed. That does not prove
>causality. Doctors report everything that might possibly be
>related, but only after statistical analysis can it be shown
>that the vaccine caused the deaths or reactions.
>
>Some people die all the time - whether they receive the
>vaccine or not. The fact that someone died after receiving the
>vaccine does not prove the vaccine caused it. For example, if
>someone were run over by a car after receiving the vaccine,
>would you also claim that the vaccine causes auto deaths?

Funny how you were bashing me and claiming there was no evidence, and that the website I mentioned was a bunch of "posts" that couldn't be verified...Yet now you're blithering on about causality.  Care to get your story straight?

The reports don't mention people being run over by cars.  They mention girls dying of cardiac arrest after receiving the vaccine, or dropping into seizures right there on the floor, and a whole host of other problems.  The fact that we see the SAME reactions, over and over again, tells us that there IS causality, not just correlation.

>The FDA's analysis is currently that the vaccine remains on
>the approved list and there is no evidence that it causes
>significant harm or death.

Yeah, and how long did it take for them to drop Thalidomide from their list of "approved drugs?"  How long before they stopped using the oral polio vaccine?  It's a HUGE money maker, if they drop it from their approved list, they will have to admit they made a mistake.  And we all know how much the government likes to do that.

>Typical article. No facts, just allegations. People die all
>the time. There is absolutely no evidence that the vaccine
>caused those deaths.

*LOL*  Do you have problems with reading comprehension or something?  I am beginning to wonder, just based on the many mistakes you've made just here.  

The article contains a link with the ACTUAL REPORTS from the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.  Do you seriously not understand that?  

>IOW, some people die whether they receive the vaccine or not.
>The fact that someone died after receiving the vaccine does
>not demonstrate causality.

Yes, I'm sure teenage girls drop dead from cardiac arrest all the time, the fact that it happened upon receiving this vaccine means nothing.  *snort*

>Where is the info that two girls have died and that others
>have had seizures?  

Actually, 3 have died, as of May this year.  You can find the info on the VAERS website.  Here is a link to an article about it.  The article has links to the VAERS reports, too, so you don't have to go and mess around VAERS with a search. http://judicialwatch.org/6299.shtml

>When my daughter got her first shot, we were told that some
>teens have passed out when receiving the shot.  As this is a
>mix of teens and needles and I have seen adults pass out when
>giving blood, I didnt think that was very odd myself.

The teens who passed out didn't just do this immediately upon receiving the injection, but up to hours afterwards.  At least one girl (I didn't read EVERY SINGLE over 1600 report) had a tonic clonic seizure, not just a "slump to the floor" reaction.  

>I did read in one post where you stated that you werent
>questioning people who want to allow their child to have it,
>but simply wanting to know about the legalities if one is for
>and one is against... no problem with that.....I would hope at
>age 16, the parents would both agree to let the daughter make
>the choice.

I agree.  And we have discussed it with my SD.  We gave her the pros, too.  She decided that she didn't want it now, and I think that should be respected.  They'll give her an abortion if she gets pregnant, but they won't let her choose whether or not they inject her with a brand new drug?  That just sounds messed up.

>My daughter was aware of what the vaccine actually was
>for...and she wanted this vaccine.  

Did she realize that it wasn't a vaccine for cancer?  I have scheduled tons of girls for appointments for this vaccine, and I cringe every time I hear the girls being "informed" about it.  Typically, it goes something like this:

Girl:  Wait, what's that for?  Why do I need a shot?
Mom:  It will keep you from getting cancer.
Girl:  Oh, cool.  

>I think, personally that as parents, its what you weigh as the
>greater risk.  Vaccinations come with some amount of risk....

Exactly.

>I have no idea what the VAERS web site is, nor do I have any
>reason to believe that their posts are factual.

*ROFL*  Um...Yeah, and *I* haven't done enough research.  VAERS = Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.  //www.vaers.hhs.gov  Yes, "dot gov."  It's a GOVERNMENT website.  Doctors are required by law to report adverse effects of vaccines.  The government compiles their reports.  The VAERS website has nothing to do with "posts," it's the report from the United States government about the adverse effects of vaccines.  

>Do you have a documented web site which supports your claim?

Here is a copy of the VAERS reports on the deaths, as of May 11, 2007.http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/GardasilVAERSDeaths.pdf

And a copy of the VAERS reports for the 1637 serious side effects as of May 11, 2007.  http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/GardasilVAERSReports.pdf
 
But gee, if the govenment isn't well "documented" enough for you, don't know that I can help.