Gardasil: doesn't protect against HPV or cancer?

Turns out one of the main reasons that Merck is backing off on the Gardasil lobby is that the vaccinations as recommended may be pointless:

Lawmakers looking to force preteen girls to take Gardasil, a new vaccine against a virus that causes cervical cancer, are targeting the wrong age group, cancer data shows.

Middle-school girls inoculated with the breakthrough vaccine will be no older than 18 when they pass Gardasil’s five-year window of proven effectiveness — more than a decade before the typical cancer patient contracts the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV). emphasis mine --Ed.

Gardasil is currently only FDA approved for girls and women age 12-26, and is therefore not KNOWN to be effective at the age when the majority of HPV  infections occur and HPV-related cancers are diagnosed for ANY woman receiving the vaccine, under current guidelines.

This is why I (and MANY medical professionals) am against mandating this vaccine.  All of this bandwagon science in the name of "the children" completely jumped the gun on this one.  If there is no evidence that the vaccine will even protect these girls from this virus or subsequent cervical cancer at the age when many of them will contract it, then why should we subject our daughters to the potential hazards and side effects of the injections?

Nurse and Cotillion sister Raven has a lot more in her very thoughtful post:

Far be it for me to say, but with the known side effects being reported so far, from doctors who have given the shots to young girls, I question it’s worth. Reports of seizures, blindness, episodes of passing out, tremors, memory problems, vision loss-are coming in at an alarming rate. Are these true side effects of the vaccine, or just the bad luck of coincidence for the young ladies? We don’t know, yet. It takes many years of data collection and analysis to come up with an honest, medically sound answer.

One thing we do know: Condoms prevent the spread of ALL forms of HPV. Period. As well as other viral infections and disease. They’re much cheaper and don’t cause the serious side effects drugs cause. Why are little girls being mandated to get vaccinations that cause them harm, that do not guarantee freedom from the very disease the vaccine is said to protect against when we could mandate condom use for boys? Don’t answer that because I know it’s a stupid question. But for the love of GAWD people…do we see a problem here?

Read the whole thing!

Posted by caltechgirl at February 21, 2007 04:13 PM | TrackBack