"Gardasil never tested in girls under 15 years old" says whistleblower Diane Harper

[Glamourcide]

The thing that gets me is that everyone seems to think it's a 'cancer' vaccine. It's not. It's a HERPES vaccine, and herpes is not responsible for 100% of cervical cancers, so personally I see no point in it. You can't 'catch' cancer from sleeping with someone, but you sure can catch herpes or any number of infections/diseases. I'll let my girls make an informed choice when they're old enough to have done the research and can choose what's best for them, but I still think the smarter option is to a) have as few sexual partners as possible and b) when you do sleep with someone, use protection! (Although I do know that condoms won't 100% prevent genital herpes, but it's a good start.)

[sas85]

I thought it wad HPV Human Papiloma Virus not herpes?? Are they related

[Glamourcide]

^ They're the same thing, or very close to, as far as I know. There are different strains of HPV, the one this vaccine is aimed at preventing is the genital herpes one, which has been linked with cervical cancer.

[Eenee]

HPV is genital warts and is a totally different thing to herpes. Genital herpes is realted to the chicken pox and cold sore virus.

The vaccine only works against the HPV- and to be truthful no vaccines are tested properly on humans before they are released. The reason for this is it takes to long to release the vaccine, because to be tested to be totally safe they have to see the long term effects, which they don't do. Which is what aggravates me about all vaccines- none are safe.

[Glamourcide]

^ Ah, warts. Yes. My bad Cheers for the correction!

[Eenee]

Glamourcide: no worries

[HotI]

The thing that gets me is that everyone seems to think it's a 'cancer' vaccine. It's not. It's a HERPES vaccine, and herpes is not responsible for 100% of cervical cancers, so personally I see no point in it. You can't 'catch' cancer from sleeping with someone, but you sure can catch herpes or any number of infections/diseases. I'll let my girls make an informed choice when they're old enough to have done the research and can choose what's best for them, but I still think the smarter option is to a) have as few sexual partners as possible and b) when you do sleep with someone, use protection! (Although I do know that condoms won't 100% prevent genital herpes, but it's a good start.)

However, they do know that cancer in some people is caused by the strains of HPV that the vaccine is targetted to. So, if you have the vaccine, and it works for you, you are protected against a certain % of cervical cancers. If this is proven, i think this is better than no protection.

Your plan for your kids is great in theory, and hopefully they will use protection every time (and their partner is tested before they stop using protection), but reality is that not every young person uses protection every time. And it only takes one exposure to the HPV to then be at risk of cervical cancer.

I don't know if this vaccine is the answer, but the idea is a good one. I feel that even though it can't cover all causes of cervical cancer, it can reduce the risks.

[tenar]

Vaccines are not totally safe.

They are, however, a whole lot safer than the diseases they are used to protect against.

It's like seatbelts. Seatbelts are not totally safe. You can be injured by a seatbelt. You can be injured by an airbag, too. But we all understand that these things actually make cars safer because there is much much more chance of being injured because you weren't wearing a seatbelt than of being injured because you were wearing one. Ditto with airbags. So we all, I'm sure, belt in our children and would buy cars with airbags if we could. Because it makes us safer. Even though there is a risk associated with using those safety devices.

Now, someone might argue that they will never crash their car. But we all understand that even if one person is a perfect driver, not everyone is. So you can't be totally protected from car accidents unless you never use a road at all, not even to cross it walking. It's like that with diseases. We would all like to think that our children won't be exposed to diseases, but the fact is that we can't protect them from exposure entirely. It's impossible. All we can do is to reduce the risk for them if they are exposed. Like we reduce the risk for them if they are in a car accident. So we vaccinate. Or we use seatbelts. Same idea entirely.

Now, the odd thing is, as far as I'm concerned, is that it is illegal not to use seatbelts in cars. But it is not illegal not to vaccinate your kids (or yourself). There is community consensus that matches the research. But there is obviously not community consensus about vaccinations, even though the research supporting them is just as strong as that supporting seatbelts. (Actually it's probably stronger - vaccination is getting an awful lot of research these days, and scientifically there is as much consensus as you ever get from scientists about anything at all). My guess is that this is because car accidents are somehow more concrete, so the risks about those are easier for people in general to understand. So the laws about seatbelts got passed a generation ago, and everyone understands why we use them, and everyone agrees on the need for them, to reduce the risks.

[LimeSlice]

Vaccines are not totally safe.

They are, however, a whole lot safer than the diseases they are used to protect against.
.

That is not actuallythe case at all - this is the issue. There are MANY illnesses that are NOT as dangerous as the vaccine can be for you. Chicken Pox is the glaring example of this.

But this is not supposed to be a Vax Dabate.
It is purely about the testing and targeting issues of vaccines - the Cervical Cancer Vaccine in particular.

And without the appropriate testing there is no way for anyone to categorically say that they are safe.

The fact that they have even called it a "Cervical Cancer Vaccine" is the most miseading piece of propaganda I have ever heard!
It is NOT a cervical cancer vaccine!!

But the fact that they are giving it to children they havent tested it on is a disgrace.
I have heard the argument that it is "unethical" to test on chicldren, pregnant women...
Well what are you doing when you are giving them en masse an UNtested intravenous injection of chemicals and drugs?? How is that more ethical?
I just don;t understand why we are so desperate to find a magical cure for something that we would put more lives at risk.

[BellyBelly]

I'm not willing to risk a vaccine on my children which we have absolutely no idea what it might do to their bodies - short or long term. What is in the vaccine is a problem, as is the fact they're telling us to give this to our children without even knowing how it could affect them... this is not good. We are giving something to them which we have no idea what it could do so how can they call it safe?

Was it acceptable for them to induce VBAC women with what they said was 'safe' misoprostol in the 1990's? How come it took them almost a decade to work out that it was the cause for many ruptured uteruses and dead babies? Everyone needs to start questioning safe - by whose standards? Certainly not a simple assurance from the pharmaceutical company making the drug as well as millions of dollars along with it. Where is the proof of this safety? Why are lead researchers all coming out one by one blowing the whistle?

Blindly accepting an untested vaccine is asking for trouble - it's no wonder disasters happen.... many many drugs and vaccines are not tested or not tested properly. It's just not a risk I want to take.

[Eenee]

well said Kelly!

Before I was before I was educated on vaccines i used to get them, now i know better.

[kawazuki]

before a vax can be given in australia it has to go through so much testing. its has to be approved by the therapuetic goods act, and a few other agencies that deem it safe for use. its the same as any medication.

it is then monitored closely and any reaction is listed on a database.
if you want true AUSTRALIAN statistics go the department fo health or beuro of statistics it will give u the number of deaths, reactions etc per people immunised.

also the vax used in america is slightly different to here.

nothing in life is 100% safe this we must remember.

also the programme is a school based programme and free. the 16-26 programme has finished, if you havent had your first jab yet you have to pay and i can tell you its around $300 per shot that you pay for out of your pocket. this is the incentive either get it at 13-16 for free or pay $900 later in your life.

the immunisations are tested on the age group they are aimed at. the australian government and Theraputiuc goods act requires this, where as in america it is a requirement. so in australia yes it has been tested on people of the same age as those recieving it as part of the programmes.

[Roryrory]

Personally I am actually quite ok with (IMO) safe, tested vaccines. But to me gardasil seems a bit like circumcision. Take gardasil so if you have sex with a boy you won't get HPV, get circumcised so reduce your risk of contracting HIV/AIDS or pass on HPV to your girlfriend.

Ahhh, what about using a CONDOM?

I won't be giving any daughter of mine this vaccine. And this is from someone who vaccinated both her boys from everything on offer......

[kawazuki]

everyone is a carrier of most diseases, its how the body reacts to the nonself organism which is the disease as to wether you develop it or not.

there is a thing called herd immunity, basically it goes along the lines of i dont need the vaccine because everyone else will have it so it will be stopped in its tracks before i catch it.
but it doesnt work like that sadly.

[Claire_A]

I have had surgery a few years ago to remove pre-cancerous cells from my cervix. I now have yearly checks to make sure they don't come back. My GP was pushing for me to have the vaccine however when I spoke to my specialist he advised me not to. He said the chance of me getting cervical cancer was so slight because I have regular checkups. He said the vaccine only targets a few strands of HPV and new strands are coming up all the time. I guess my point is, I think it's more important to make sure girls are having regular pap smears than a vaccine that won't protect them 100% anyway. It is a slow spreading cancer so if girls are having regular checkups, it will be caught before it gets to the cancer stage. JMO.

[Oorki Galoorki]

before a vax can be given in australia it has to go through so much testing. its has to be approved by the therapuetic goods act, and a few other agencies that deem it safe for use. its the same as any medication.

7 weeks, so much testing?? that is what the current swine flu vax went through! gardisil went through a minimal amount of testing too..
lots of testing is MANY years not weeks

[CrankyPants]

Hello,

Could you please supply your source re: trials of Gardasil in girls here in OZ? Also, your source re: the different vaccine for HPV here in OZ? There are only 2 vaccines for HPV: Gardasil and Cervarix. We here in Australia have Gardasil made by Merck.

Check out this website: ThinkTwice Global Vaccine Institute: Avoid Vaccine Reactions

and this one: iansvoice.org/default.aspx

That second one will make you weep.

Thanks!

[Glamourcide]

So, if you have the vaccine, and it works for you, you are protected against a certain % of cervical cancers. If this is proven, i think this is better than no protection.

I suppose this is pretty much the heart of the matter for me - it's not protecting women against 100% of cervical cancers, only the ones caused by that particular strain of HPV. But the way the media's carrying on, you'd think this one little needle was the be-all and end-all as far as cancer cures are concerned, which obviously is untrue. FWIW, I vaccinate my kids according to the schedule, because the schedule is protecting against contagious and infectious diseases that can kill or severely disable a child. So the Gardasil vaccine is something I would prefer to do more research on in order to decide whether or not to get it done, because it's not really a 'life-or-death' matter, kwim? At least I have a good decade or so before my girls are eligible for the vaccine so I hope by then that there is much more information and research into this particular vaccine available.

You are right though about people not being smart 100% of the time about the choices they make, and it probably came off like I was being quite arrogant about it Which wasn't intended! I just want my girls to know that this vaccine is only going to prevent a certain percentage of cervical cancers, not all of them, and that while they're protected from one strain of HPV as a result of the vaccine, it doesn't mean they're protected against any other sexually transmitted disease or infection (some of which can be really nasty and cause infertility etc), so if they're going to have the vaccine, it's not really protecting them against much of anything, kwim? They still have to be sensible and careful about their choices.