Adverse reactions to Merck's Gardasil cervical cancer vaccine headlines Australian news

Recently in Australia a large number of reports are coming in about Merck's Gardasil the cervical cancer vaccine causing terrible adverse side effects in school girls in Australia. The Australian government Health minister Tony Abbott cites reports that this is just due to an 'anxiety reaction' to injections but the number of girls reacting means that it is not just some 'mass emotional response'.
click here to read report
A key fact in this is that the Australian government spent millions helping fund the vaccine and development in partnership merck so its likely its in their interest to ensure that adverse effects are kept under wraps so they are not impacting on the vaccine campaign.

[edit on 22-5-2007 by ufossydney]

[edit on 22-5-2007 by ufossydney]

Shocking, just shocking. Not.

I don't even blame the drug companies anymore. We all know they are sleezy, I blame the parents. Why are they letting their young female children get this shot?

More research is needed, it's too new, and I don't think it's been widely tested enough. We also need to know what will happen past 3 years down the line.

At this stage, I no longer blame the drug company, there is enough out there that responsible parents can read and say, know what, I would like to hold off on my girls getting this shot for just a little bit longer.

Also it does not cure all forms of the pap virus, and I get irritated with this being totted as a cancer drug, it's not a cancer drug. It's an STD shot. That kills 4 of 10 strains that can potentially lead to cervical cancer.

BUMP.

Anyone else volunteering their daughters as Ginea Pigs?? I would love to hear if they had any side-effects themselves.

I'm sorry, but I have to call BS on this. Look at this one girl's account:

Student Natasha D'Souza said she collapsed and was left paralysed for six hours after being injected. "I couldn't move at all," she told reporters.
"There were girls dropping like flies, basically."

I have two major problems with this. First, there is nothing in the vaccine that would cause paralysis, and it wouldn't tak effect immediately if there were. This is no different than the Salem witch trials where girls *sweared* they were speaking in satanic tongues and were seen "possessed" as they writhed on the floor.

Second, if girls were "dropping like flies", I'm going to go out on a limb and say some media outlet other than a poorly put together UFO website would have picked this up. Like, oh I don't know, BBC. They tend to like rubbing things in Pharma's faces, with good reason, so I highly doubt the BBC would pass this opportunity up if it were legit.

Debunked.

Are their any reliable and credible sources for this story other than a UFO website? I have been looking on Australian News sites and I can't find this story anywhere. I have a hard time believing a vaccination would cause people, much less children, to "drop like flies" without proof that this actually happened from a credible source. There were 11,000 people all over the world that were given Gardasil in the clinical trials and the most they ever complained about was mild soreness at the injection site, which is quite common in itself.

[edit on 22-5-2007 by Jazzerman]

Alternate source:

www.abc.net.au...

www.news.com.au...

www.smh.com.au...

[edit on 22-5-2007 by thisguyrighthere]

www.worldnetdaily.com...

A researcher who worked on a vaccine for the human papillomavirus is warning that it hasn't been tested on young girls, is "silly" for states to mandate the vaccination, and in a worst-case scenario could even increase cervical cancer rates.

In a report published by the Indiana-based Daily News, researcher Diane M. Harper said giving such a vaccine to 11-year-olds "is a great big public health experiment."

Further, she said, requiring vaccinations now "is simply to Merck's benefit."

Older story from back in March, but I would not give this to young girls without further testing. There are other reports of these adverse reactions.

Harper also reported that the drug company "bridged" the studies to apply to young girls. That means that Merck assumed that because it proved effective in the older girls, it also would be effective in the younger girls.

And she warned more than 40 cases of Guillian-Barre syndrome – an immune disorder that results in tingling, numbness and even paralysis of the muscles – have been reported in girls who got the HPV vaccine in combination with a meningitis vaccine.

I am not sure if the story was picked up by other news sources, but I have been trying to keep track of this story in my spear time. I really feel horrible for these girls if this has life long repercussions for them, so some drug company could make some money. It's not even a cure for cancer. Just some stupid STD shot, that really more testing should be done on.

"This vaccine should not be mandated for 11-year-old girls," Harper said. "It's not been tested in little girls for efficacy. At 11, these girls don't get cervical cancer – they won't know for 25 years if they will get cervical cancer."

She said the vaccine is not a cancer vaccine or cure – it just prevents development of a virus that could lead to cancer.

It just irritates me, these girls being put at risk so young and for what? Human pap is a sexually transmitted disease, and this STD shot, does not cure all forms of the virus. So these girls could still get any of the other 6 strains, and it could still lead to cervical cancer. Since they will have to still go in for a yearly pap test, then I really don't see why more study is not done first.

After looking at the three sources given above (and disregarding worldnetdaily because it is worldnetdaily), I see nothing unusual. What the girls termed "paralysis" in the original source is described as "fainting" in the other sources. This fainting (more accurately called syncope) is a listed side effect of this vaccine and many others. I don't see why people are shocked that a small minority of the thousands of vaccinated individuals are exhibiting side effects.

Thanks thisguyrighthere, that was exactly what I was looking for.

However, I do agree with bsl4doc. I see no unusual side effects that have taken place in these young girls to warrant hysteria about the product. Most vaccines that you get throughout your life, including the vaccine for polio and influenza have been known to have slight side effects in SOME people including fever, aches, general soreness at the site of injection, etc.

Case in point, just look at the vaccination side effects for something as common as Varicella (Chickenpox in laymans terms):

CDC

-Seizure, pneumonia, mild rash, etc.

Vaccines are not "cure all's" as many people seem to think they are, and most every vaccine has side effects in some individuals. The easiest way to describe a vaccine without getting to in-depth is: When you go to your physician and get a vaccine what they are doing is loading you with dead viral particles so that when you actually come in contact with a certain virus your body will be able to recognize and destroy it. Even though a vaccine is supposed to get rid of a certain communicable diseases or STD's, like all medicine, there is a moderate risk to certain people who take the medications that they will develop side effects.

The question is still why is more testing not being done? Why do we not know what this drug will do past 3 years down the line?

Why are they giving the drug to 10, 11 year olds. It's not a cancer drug. It's an STD shot, for a sexually transmitted virus. Where these girls will still have to go in for yearly pap tests to make sure they have not contracted any of the other 6 strains that can lead to cervical cancer.

Also I think the worldnet article with the feedback from someone who actually worked on the STD shot/vaccine does have merit, because she worked on this.

Originally posted by Harassment101
The question is still why is more testing not being done? Why do we not know what this drug will do past 3 years down the line?

This vaccine has been in testing for over 7 years, as per clinical testing protocol.

Why are they giving the drug to 10, 11 year olds. It's not a cancer drug. It's an STD shot, for a sexually transmitted virus.

It's a vaccine for a virus which has been proven to lead to cancer, and which nearly all women will be exposed to at some point in their lives.

" Among those ages 15-49, only one in four Americans has not had a genital HPV infection. "
www.ashastd.org...

"Where these girls will still have to go in for yearly pap tests to make sure they have not contracted any of the other 6 strains that can lead to cervical cancer. "

Pap smears test for cervical cancers, not viruses. Cervical cancer has many possible causes, thus it is obviously necessary for women to continue regular pap smears. Use common sense.

Also I think the worldnet article with the feedback from someone who actually worked on the STD shot/vaccine does have merit, because she worked on this.

Worldnetdaily has been proven to be a bad source. They clip, slant, edit, and generally don't support anything they do. They also make up sources from time to time. I make it a general rule to not trust anything on that site unless it links to a cited source.

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Worldnetdaily has been proven to be a bad source.

Kind of like when they claimed in Dec. of '06 that Drinking Soy products as a child contributes to the childs amount of homosexuality later in life.

I'd love to see the scientific basis behind that.

Originally posted by Jazzerman

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Worldnetdaily has been proven to be a bad source.

Kind of like when they claimed in Dec. of '06 that Drinking Soy products as a child contributes to the childs amount of homosexuality later in life.

I'd love to see the scientific basis behind that.

Lol, that's the EXACT story I had in mind when I typed that,

Hi bsl4doc.

This vaccine has been in testing for over 7 years, as per clinical testing protocol.

That is what I understood, but we only have results for 3 years down the line.

Will it be a life time shot or will they require the shot again in 4 years? Don't know. That's what I mean about more testing. Will there be any lifetime consequences? Don't know.

What if we find that 8 years down the line there are consequences? Just when these girls would be ready to start having their kids.

It's a vaccine for a virus which has been proven to lead to cancer, and which nearly all women will be exposed to at some point in their lives.

25% according to the stats. Which have really changed in the last 10-15 years.

Pap smears test for cervical cancers, not viruses. Cervical cancer has many possible causes, thus it is obviously necessary for women to continue regular pap smears. Use common sense.

Common sense tells me in the society we have today, that this might lead to woman not going in for the yearly pap and thinking that they have a cure all for cervical cancer. Early detection via pap smears has been the number one reason that this has been caught in times past. This false sense of security might change behaviours.


www.mayoclinic.com...

If you get regular Pap smears, you substantially decrease your chances of getting cervical cancer. But even if you develop cervical cancer, the chances of a cure are as high as 90 percent — if discovered early. The Pap smear is the best tool to detect cervical cancer in its earliest stage.

Worldnetdaily has been proven to be a bad source.

I don't have any prior reference point for them, but they do quote the source as a doctor who worked on this drug, and we can check if the article or her words are quoted by any other source. If she really did express these concerns then I think that is worth looking into.


Hi Jazzerman.

Kind of like when they claimed in Dec. of '06 that Drinking Soy products as a child contributes to the childs amount of homosexuality later in life.

That would certainly bring their credibility into question, if it's true. It would not render everything they have to say in the future as none credible, but it sounds like a source that I will be more careful when using in the future. Still I would like to see if the person quoted in the article has expressed her concerns elsewhere.

www.fwdailynews.com...

Oh here it is. So the worldnet article was actually refering to an article that appeared in the fw daily news. Don't know this source at all and can't vouch for them one way or another. But the original source was not worldnet. Looks like they just picked it up.

She worked on this for 20 years.

A lead researcher who spent 20 years developing the vaccine for humanpapilloma virus says the HPV vaccine is not for younger girls, and that it is "silly" for states to be mandating it for them.

Not only that, she says it's not been tested for effectiveness in younger girls, and administering the vaccine to girls as young as 9 may not even protect them at all. And, in the worst-case scenario, instead of serving to reduce the numbers of cervical cancers within 25 years, such a vaccination crusade actually could cause the numbers to go up.

"Giving it to 11-year-olds is a great big public health experiment," said Diane M. Harper, who is a scientist, physician, professor and the director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth Medical School in New Hampshire.

Sounds fairly credible, but then we would want to know more about her. Just like people would want to know about the relationship with all the people pushing this drug, have with the drug company. Aussie government and the American politician, apparently both had ties.

I really think more study should be done on this, with a look to long term outcomes. If people want the drug volentarily in the mean time, give it to them, don't make it mandatory and not for very young girls.

Internationally recognized as a pioneer in the field, Harper has been studying HPV and a possible vaccine for several of the more than 100 strains of HPV for 20 years - most of her adult life.

Bit more about the researcher who things this should not be given to young girls. "She has been studying pap for a very long time.

[edit on 22-5-2007 by Harassment101]

Originally posted by Harassment101
That would certainly bring their credibility into question, if it's true. It would not render everything they have to say in the future as none credible, but it sounds like a source that I will be more careful when using in the future.

I just hope it helps to see that Worldnetdaily is actually an extremely biased and conservative publication (nothing against conservatives). I am glad that you bring up the issues you have on this subject, because it forces not only me, but others, to see the other side of the argument in order to have a good intelligent conversation about it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having an opinion, god knows that I do. There is also nothing wrong with biased newsources in some sense of the word, because as both you and I know everything is written by humans and no matter how unbiased they try to make it the simple fact is that one's own opinion will come out no matter what the subject is.

To formulate one's own ideas about a subject all sources should be used, unbiased or not, and from there one should weed out those sources that are proven to be unfounded. I'm sure even I have used sources in the past that are questionable, and that's why I have tried to ween myself off Wikipedia as well.

You know, after drug companies have bombarded us with drugs and nasty side effects over the years, I have difficulty believing that they have our best interests in mind in the first place.

I have seen very significant results from natural products on various problems. And they are many times very cheap compared to drug company concoctions. But the products that get all the glory are the ones with side effects. They are the ones who get the "silver platter" treatment on the air waves.

Troy

Originally posted by cybertroy
You know, after drug companies have bombarded us with drugs and nasty side effects over the years, I have difficulty believing that they have our best interests in mind in the first place.

I have seen very significant results from natural products on various problems. And they are many times very cheap compared to drug company concoctions. But the products that get all the glory are the ones with side effects. They are the ones who get the "silver platter" treatment on the air waves.

Troy

Hmm, well, I've seen countless people extol the benefits of "natural" products on these threads, but none of them have ever been able to produce any scientific studies or publications supporting their claims, despite the fact that a number of universities have researched these topics.

Weird.

Originally posted by bsl4doc

Hmm, well, I've seen countless people extol the benefits of "natural" products on these threads, but none of them have ever been able to produce any scientific studies or publications supporting their claims, despite the fact that a number of universities have researched these topics.

Weird.

yes it weird how so many people like you can be so ignorant..

who in their right mind would do expensive research on non patentable remedies?
trials cost £billions..
approval cost billions of $$..


fact is 240040 get killed every year in the USA from FDA APPROVED PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

TERRORISTS ONLY MANAGED TO KILL ONLY 5000 A YEARS SINCE 11/9..

Originally posted by esecallum

Originally posted by bsl4doc

Hmm, well, I've seen countless people extol the benefits of "natural" products on these threads, but none of them have ever been able to produce any scientific studies or publications supporting their claims, despite the fact that a number of universities have researched these topics.

Weird.

yes it weird how so many people like you can be so ignorant..

who in their right mind would do expensive research on non patentable remedies?
trials cost £billions..
approval cost billions of $$..


fact is 240040 get killed every year in the USA from FDA APPROVED PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

TERRORISTS ONLY MANAGED TO KILL ONLY 5000 A YEARS SINCE 11/9..

Billions? Haha! You obviously have no idea how these trials work.

I helped conduct stage three trials on a couple drugs when I was an undergrad. Universities do this sort of research all the time, and it costs in the hundreds of thousands, not "billions". And trust me, funding is abundant for this sort of research. Many, many companies, including the government WANT people to study alternative medications. Why do you think Pharma isn't trying to make money by selling "natural" remedies?

Because they don't work!