Orac had a nice takedown of an idiotic piece on Medscape about the Gardasil vaccine. As he reported, the link to the bad article is now dead, perhaps as a result of blograge. Now, on the front page of Medscape is a poll---a poll regarding physician prescribing habits given the "news" about Gardasil:
Serious neurologic, thromboembolic, and autoimmune complications have been reported in a small number of patients who received Merck's HPV vaccine, prompting a recent joint advisory by the FDA and CDC. But the agencies emphasize that the vaccine is safe. How will this news change your use of the HPV vaccine?
This poll question, along with being just silly, asks a question that begs the question---it assumes that the statement as written is true. Of course, it is not. Lies abound regarding the vaccine.
Look, it's reasonable to argue about whether HPV vaccines should be mandated, but arguing about the basic science is silly. Several HPV strains cause cancer. These cancers are serious health problems. The vaccine protects against the strains that cause the vast majority of these cancers. The vaccine is safe, and so far, in the post-marketing period, there have been far fewer reports of side-effects than most other vaccines.
These are the facts. A policy debate standing on these facts is useful. All the rest is superstition.
Oh, blatant pushpoll. Why not just come out and ask "When are you going to stop killing your patients?"
Slightly off-topic, but here's a scary article from today's Independent (UK) concerning the effects of the anti-vaccination ("causes autism") movement in the UK: http://tinyurl.com/68kkjt
It is time for the state to admit that just because one managed to breed does not grant one any special knowledge in how to raise children. Then, within that spirit, starting removing children from the homes of bad parents and then vaccinate the children.
So are you saying that
>Serious neurologic, thromboembolic, and autoimmune complications have been reported in a small number of patients who received Merck's HPV vaccine<
is not true or exaggerated?
Please refer to the link above to Orac's article...thanks.
"The vaccine is safe ..."
Oops, not so fast.
Like other vaccinations, breast implants, amalgams, various chemicals, pharmaceuticals, etc., there is a subset of human beings who have from mild to violent & temporary to permanent negative reactions from these products ... sometimes resulting in death.
To these people, no defintion of 'safe' applies.
" ... there have been far fewer reports of side-effects than most other vaccines."
Which vaccinations are those?
The VAERS database can be found here:
GARDASIL CANCER VACCINE PROBED FOR LINK TO 18 DEATHS
had to laugh at the link provided by "AntiVax." "They" have been suppressing "electronic medicine" and other cures for cancer. And the mention of a "vaccine genocide."
Very deep denialism.
I know, don't feed the trolls...
Ilena, the reports in VAERS aer seldom follwoed up for veracity nad often include anecdotal reports like, "I heard of someone who died after the shot." No names, no real info. VAERS is just for reporting. It cannot establish causality.
But enjoy your vaginal cauliflower and cancer for all I care. I got the shot, and I'm doing keenly well.
/points and laughs at AntiVax bahahahaha!
Ok, know everyone loves having the mentality of both, its worth it to sacrifice a few for the sake of the masses, and that it won't happen to me ..... till it happens to them. But, there have been a lot of reports of adverse side effect with this drug, especially when you compare it to how long it has been out. Not to mention that this drug has not been studied long enough to know weather or not this will be as effective as they want you to believe.
I mean isn't it common cense that even though you are helping to protect yourself again 4 strains of HPV that once those 4 strains are eliminated that the other 100+ strains will just become more dominant, or god help us that they mutate like all of our flu viruses have to wear none of our drug are successful in fighting them? Just think about it!
It's been thought about. Do you have a substantive point, or is this just another ill-informed rant? Read the literature. The "lot of reports" are actually mild, mostly irrelevant, and overblown.
What's your real issue? Come on, you can tell us. We won't bite... honest!