Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-25-2009, 04:47 PM
 
1,094 posts, read 2,969,796 times
Reputation: 737

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Danielle* View Post
Unless your the pathologist that performed these autopsies on these girls your word is an assumption...and only that. For every death each of these girls had an underlying ailment. I think I would believe an autopsy report over a ticked off parent.
LInk me to where you read that Gardasil was the COD for any of these girls. Unless you have a link to the autsopsy report, you have no proof of that...
.
A ticked off parent? I think that would be more like a heart broken parent. And let me ask you this. When you have a runny nose, coughing and sneezing, do you need a doctor to tell you that you have a cold? How can you look at these previously healthy 27 girls, from all over the country that suddenly get sick with nothing else in common, other than their symptoms and the fact that they had the Gardasil shot and say it's not the shot? The really sad thing is that probably more girls will have to die before others like you, believe it. I'll use the vioxx example one more time, how many people had to get sick and die before it was pulled? What about phen phen? What about Rezulin, that was also fast tracked and then proven to kill people? I could go on and on, but the point is that these drugs get fast tracked, don't get the testing they need, are advertised as the new 'super cure" and then kill people. It takes too many people dying, too many people permanently damaged before "enough" people and proof have been gathered!What is that cut off? How many people and injuries consitute ENOUGH? Does it take my daughter? Or your sister? I think there have already been TWENTY SEVEN GIRLS TOO MANY. Do you know 27 girls? Think about which 27 girls you could live without over a drug that didn't get tested enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-25-2009, 04:51 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
2,868 posts, read 9,552,301 times
Reputation: 1532
Quote:
Originally Posted by miasmommy View Post
Ok, I hate providing links but this is straight from the horses mouth!!!!

It states right here that MOST people with HPV do NOT get cancer. And if they do there are many factors that must come in to play.

Like smoking, taking birth control, diet and family history.

So why not eliminate those risk factors (obviously not family history) rather than poking yourself with a needle filled with MORE toxins that hasn't even been studied thoroughly???????

And I did read somewhere on this site that of the women who do die of cervical cancer, they are over 35.

And I'm just curious because I know nothing about this DNA test. If you test negative, why get the vaccine? I'm not sure how it works though.

ACS :: What Are the Risk Factors for Cervical Cancer? (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_What_are_the_risk_factors_for_cervical_ cancer_8.asp - broken link)
I had the DNA test done because my 6 week post baby check fell on my yearly pap date, my results came back as an ASCUS. Just and abnormal read. So they did the DNA test due to the abnromal results. It came back negative and it turns out I had an abnormall result due to having a baby 6 weeks prior ... They do the DNA test (as of now) if you have an abnormal pap result. If some one gets a HPV DNA test at 16,,,things can change...she could pick up HPV when she is 20...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2009, 04:55 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
2,868 posts, read 9,552,301 times
Reputation: 1532
Quote:
Originally Posted by happeemommee View Post
A ticked off parent? I think that would be more like a heart broken parent. And let me ask you this. When you have a runny nose, coughing and sneezing, do you need a doctor to tell you that you have a cold? How can you look at these previously healthy 27 girls, from all over the country that suddenly get sick with nothing else in common, other than their symptoms and the fact that they had the Gardasil shot and say it's not the shot? The really sad thing is that probably more girls will have to die before others like you, believe it. I'll use the vioxx example one more time, how many people had to get sick and die before it was pulled? What about phen phen? What about Rezulin, that was also fast tracked and then proven to kill people? I could go on and on, but the point is that these drugs get fast tracked, don't get the testing they need, are advertised as the new 'super cure" and then kill people. It takes too many people dying, too many people permanently damaged before "enough" people and proof have been gathered!What is that cut off? How many people and injuries consitute ENOUGH? Does it take my daughter? Or your sister? I think there have already been TWENTY SEVEN GIRLS TOO MANY. Do you know 27 girls? Think about which 27 girls you could live without over a drug that didn't get tested enough.
Besides the fact that all 27 had an underlying ailment? Diabetic, heart failure, drug abuse, viral illness etc etc... Your applying these were just 100% healthy girls, got a shot and died from it...That is not the full story....they infact were ill already.

Again, provide me a link to where it says the Gardasil shot was the COD in these 27 girls like you claim...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2009, 05:01 PM
 
1,094 posts, read 2,969,796 times
Reputation: 737
You are completely misguided here. Where does it say these girls were previously UNHEALTHY? That is completely NOT true. And if someone is ill, don't the vaccine guidlines say NOT to give a vaccine? And you prove to me where Gardasil is not the underlying cause? I'm not going to get into a tit for tat, but seriously, do you not see the similarities between Gardasil and the other drugs that have been later proven to kill people? My daughter was completely healthy, NO UNDERLYING issues, was running ten miles a day and then couldn't walk to the bathroom alone after getting the shot.She was never diabetic, never had any heart isues, never had any auto immune disorders, but then was too weak to feed herself? A coincident?! And my daughter is not the only one, there are THOUSANDS!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2009, 05:20 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
2,868 posts, read 9,552,301 times
Reputation: 1532
So in other words, you come on here claim it is a killer, say it is the COD listed on autopsy reports and then you 'don't want to go tit for tat'? Back your claim up...

And yes, vaccines are not supposed to be given to sick kids...you would think THE PARENTS would not have taken their kids in to get it...


"There have also been 27 cases of death after vaccination reported to VAERS. Each death has been reviewed, and there was no common pattern to the deaths that would suggest they were caused by the vaccine. When there was an autopsy, death certificate, or medical record, the cause of death was explained by factors other than the vaccine. Some causes of these deaths include drug abuse, diabetes, viral illness, and heart failure"

ACS :: Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), Cancer, and HPV Vaccines – Frequently Asked Questions
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2009, 05:39 PM
 
2,839 posts, read 9,982,986 times
Reputation: 2944
The New England Journal of Medicine published an article that questions whether Gardasil makes much of a difference in the HPV rates.

NEJM -- HPV Vaccination -- More Answers, More Questions

Quote:
What can be inferred from these data about the potential effect of vaccination on populations that include sexually active women? In the FUTURE II trial, 93% of subjects were nonvirgins. With grade 2 or 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ as the outcome, the difference in risk so far appears to be modest: 219 of 6087 vaccinated women (3.6%) received this diagnosis over an average of 3 years, as compared with 266 of 6080 unvaccinated women (4.4%). The absolute risk difference of 0.8% indicates that 129 women would need to be vaccinated in order to prevent one case of grade 2 or 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ occurring during this period. If grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ were the most relevant outcome, evidence was insufficient to infer the effectiveness of vaccination.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2009, 06:23 PM
 
1,094 posts, read 2,969,796 times
Reputation: 737
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Danielle* View Post
So in other words, you come on here claim it is a killer, say it is the COD listed on autopsy reports and then you 'don't want to go tit for tat'? Back your claim up...

And yes, vaccines are not supposed to be given to sick kids...you would think THE PARENTS would not have taken their kids in to get it...


"There have also been 27 cases of death after vaccination reported to VAERS. Each death has been reviewed, and there was no common pattern to the deaths that would suggest they were caused by the vaccine. When there was an autopsy, death certificate, or medical record, the cause of death was explained by factors other than the vaccine. Some causes of these deaths include drug abuse, diabetes, viral illness, and heart failure"

ACS :: Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), Cancer, and HPV Vaccines – Frequently Asked Questions
Vaccine Safety Group Releases GARDASIL Reaction Report
New Page 4

In addition to the four cases of death from blood clots, there was also one reported
death due to myocarditis, which is an inflammation of the heart, as well as one death
from arrhythmia and one death from meningitis. Both the arrhythmia and meningitis
cases occurred months after the patients received the Gardasil vaccine; the myocarditis
death occurred six days after vaccination but was a pre-existing condition. Even
excluding these deaths though, there are still fourteen cases that occurred within three
weeks of receiving the vaccine. One was from anaphylactic shock:
An 11-year-old female was vaccinated “within the
past month” in approximately May 2007 with a first
dose of Gardasil. Subsequently, 3 days after
vaccination the patient presented to an ER . . . the
physician from the hospital said that “the death was
due to an anaphylactic reaction to Gardasil.”
VAERS ID: 280163-1 (D)


The remaining deaths reported to VAERS all have unknown causes; however, all but one
occurred within three weeks of receiving Gardasil, and six occurred within three days.
Below are additional excerpts from deaths with no apparent cause reported to VAERS:
A 18-year-old female patient was vaccinated with the first
dose of Gardasil . . . In the evening of the same day she was
found unconscious (or liveless) [sic] by the mother.
Resuscitation was performed by the emergency doctor but
was unsuccessful, i.e. the patient finally died . . . The cause
of death of this patient remains totally unclear.
VAERS ID: 300741-1 (D).
* * *
A 19-year-old female with no previous medical history
reported, who on 19-Sep-2007 was vaccinated with the 1st
dose of Gardasil . . . On the morning of 12-Oct-2007, the
patient was found dead in her bed . . . Contraception was
stopped 3 months before vaccination. No reason for the
death was detected in autopsy.
VAERS ID: 299377-1 (D)
* * *
Information has been received from a physician’s assistant
concerning a 12-year-old female with no reported medical
history who on approximately 15-Sep-2007 was vaccinated
with Gardasil . . . On 06-OCT-2007 the patient died in her
sleep. No further information was provided.
VAERS ID: 297528-1 (D)
* * *
Sudden unattended death [February 22, 2007] . . . patient
[17-year-old female with no medical history or known
allergies] last seen in office by nurse only on 2/20 for HPV
#3 . . . The autopsy was negative for all findings. Scene
indicated sudden death from collapse and fall.
VAERS ID: 305606-1 (D)
* * *
Information has been received from a physician concerning
a 20-year-old female with no medical history reported, who
on 01-APR-2008 was vaccinated with a dose of Gardasil.
On 05-APR-2008, the patient died four days after receiving
Gardasil . . . An autopsy was performed which ruled out
suicide and anything suspicious. The cause of death is
currently unknown.
VAERS ID: 310262-1 (D) 49
Perhaps all these deaths are simply coincidence, but given the unknowns about Gardasil
and its overall safety, it is far too important an issue to simply ignore.

There are countless websites I could have listed, but just pulled a couple and a few excerpts a paper by the CDC. I also found this and thought it to be interesting:



Merck’s last wonder drug, Vioxx, was pulled from the market in 2002, after an
estimated 88,000 to 140,000 adverse reactions were attributed to it. Vioxx, like Gardasil,
was fast-tracked by the FDA in 1999, without a full safety testing and analysis period
taking place. It was an anti-inflammatory drug designed to relieve people suffering from
arthritis, menstrual cramps, and acute pain. Merck voluntarily pulled Vioxx from the
market after a safety trial was stopped because, “there was an increased risk for serious
cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks and strokes.”50 Vioxx was pulled after five
years on the market and after contributing to 27,785 heart attacks and sudden cardiac
deaths, in addition to other events, as estimated by the FDA.51 Analysts estimate that the
Vioxx recall decreased Merck’s stock value drastically, and could cost Merck anywhere
from $3 to $20 billion. Less than two years after Merck suffered this severe blow, the
company introduced Gardasil, the most expensive vaccine on the market, and it was
approved by the FDA.

I could go on and on and I'm sure you could pull five hundred websites saying it's safe.That was the reason for the tit for tat comment. I don't have to justify my feelings on this to you, just as you don't for me. You aren't going to change my mind, and honestly I'm not trying to change yours.You are obviously a grown woman, however, what I do think is important is that parents look at BOTH points of view and decide for themselves, not just take their doctor's word that this vaccine is safe. I will again point out that everyone thought vioxx was safe and look how many people had to have side effects / or die before the truth was found out about that drug. And as for PARENTS not giving the vaccine when their kids are sick, I have been at the doctor's office and been told "oh it's just a cold, they can get the vaccine". Ummm NOPE! But again, most parents believe that their doctors know what is best for their children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2009, 06:25 PM
 
1,094 posts, read 2,969,796 times
Reputation: 737
And just a further note, the final saftey trial on gardasil isn't even due to be out until JUNE 2009. So even if you plan on getting your child the vaccine, why not wait until the full testing period is complete?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2009, 07:18 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
2,868 posts, read 9,552,301 times
Reputation: 1532
You don't have to justify nothing to me...but when you come onto this thread and say this shot was the COD on autopsy...that is a false claim. Reports from VAERS are not autopsy findings... You made a claim, and I asked you to back it up...which you still have not provided a link to any autopsty report saying that Gardasil killed anyone.

My oldest dd is 5...so we will be waiting way past June '09.

And I think we are all aware that the VAERS site is not a conclusive site to determine if side effects are from a shot or not. It clearly says on its site:

Are all events reported to VAERS caused by vaccinations?

No. VAERS receives reports of many events that occur after immunization. Some of these events may occur coincidentally following vaccination, while others may truly be caused by vaccination.



And just out of curiousity...for people who boo hoo about the CDC and the FDA...how government has skewed numbers and stats and is lying to people etc etc...why do you hold the VAERS reports as valued information?


ETA...just read your 'link'...that is a real valuable site... not biased at all...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2009, 08:00 PM
 
1,094 posts, read 2,969,796 times
Reputation: 737
An 11-year-old female was vaccinated “within the
past month” in approximately May 2007 with a first
dose of Gardasil. Subsequently, 3 days after
vaccination the patient presented to an ER . . . the
physician from the hospital said that “the death was
due to an anaphylactic reaction to Gardasil.”
VAERS ID: 280163-1 (D)

That is not just from VAERS and even if it were the COD is still GARDASIL.It could be printed on toilet paper but the COD would still be the same! And ya know what? i'm done arguing with you, you want proof, I give it to you and then you tear it apart.You still haven't answered half of my questions, instead you just make accusations. I will continue to be a part of this discussion, but you can say what you please. And since you're daughter is only 5 that is fantastic because maybe gardasil will be off the market by then. And as for believing the governments numbers , that's crap. I could have listed a ton of personal websites, but tried to list some from reputable sources so you wouldn't have anything to complain about, even though I knew you would. I could have listed twenty more but instead listed just a couple , one from THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER and another from MEDICAL NEWS TODAY. Those are real biased.You don't want facts, you want to argue and I'm done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:47 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top