GARDASIL (ITP CAUSER)

TODAY THESE NEWS WAD ANNOUNCED:

The Gardasil vaccine, given to prevent diseases caused by the Human Papillomavirus (HPV), has been linked to the development of ITP and other autoimmune diseases. However no one knows how many people have been affected.


I WOULD LOVE TO SEE EVERYONE'S REACTION

I'm not surprised one bit. That's my reaction. They keep wanting to pump everyone full of vaccines to prevent this and that, but end up causing more problems. I can't believe there are people who think all these vaccines are safe and good and keep lining up to get them.

Lucy,
What is the source of your information?

I don't doubt that some people will have adverse reactions to immunizations. For most of these vaccinations, the disease is far worse and affects far more people than the adverse affects.

I sure wish gardisal was around when I was young.
Erica

The only sources I'm finding in a quick google search are the anti-vaccination sites. Again I'm sure there are adverse affects in some people - but how many, and what effects?

The PDSA sent out an alert about it on their FB page. I didn't really read it yet, just saw the headlines.

I know you feel differently about vaccines than I do. While I agree that some diseases that vaccines prevent can be worse than ITP, it's the other autoimmune problems that damage people that concern me. To each his own.

Here's the link if you can get on it. The actual pdf about Gardacil is 30 pages long.


www.facebook.com/plateletdisorder

My daughter was diagnosed with ITP just before her thirteenth birthday. She had not yet had Gardasil, as we were waiting to see how things went for those vaccinated. There were reports of some adverse events, including Guilliain-Barre Syndrome (I'm sure I misspelled it), but the adverse reactions, over time, were no more frequent with this than with other vaccinations. Our hematologist wanted my daughter to have the vaccine once her counts stabilized. She had the shots, as did her older sister, with no problems. While I don't like the thought of my child being a first recipient of any new vaccine, I'd rather give her the shot than have her face the disease one day.
Norma

they don't know how many people from the ages of 9-26 have been affected by ITP or any other autoimmune disorder. they ar still looking into it but at least we have evidence that this adverse reaction does happen. it is very rare to get this adverse reaction but it is still a chance to everyone who gets this shot even if is just one of them.

My daughter was dx with ITP 4 weeks to the day she received her 2nd gardisil injection.... I have always wondered if that had anything to do with it.

If you follow Sandi's link and then click on that 30 page pdf.... and then scan for the word "autoimmune" you will find that there was 1 case of ITP in 3093 tested - such data is pretty meaningless and could be attributed to a coincidence....

That's the problem....you can't know what is coincidence and what is caused by vaccines. Some things don't show up until years later, so it's never attributed to the vaccine. Who ever said it had to be an immediate reaction? Also, if no one reports it, it doesn't get added to the percentages. I've had side effects that I know were never reported.

My friend's father in law got a flu shot a few years ago and did end up with Guillain Barre. He was in the hospital for 8 months unable to move and then in rehab for 4 months. He would have rather had the flu. I know the flu can kill, but it's a darned if you do and darned if you don't type of thing.

I took the vaccine too and 2 years later, ITP showed up

I'm like that with the polio vaccine, only it was 40 years later.
Erica

eklein wrote: Lucy,
What is the source of your information?

I don't doubt that some people will have adverse reactions to immunizations. For most of these vaccinations, the disease is far worse and affects far more people than the adverse affects.

I sure wish gardisal was around when I was young.
Erica

I will up front admit to be so far anti-vaccine that you'd have to kill me before shooting up one of my kids again. Why? Because I have three vaccine damaged kids. I can directly link their health issues to their shots. We stopped all shots at 12 mos. of age as we watched kid after kid have serious side effects. Each time thinking the next kid would be fine. Why it took me until the 3rd kid to completely get it I will put down to being young and dumb and trusting my doctor WAY too much. That experience taught me to trust no one in the medical field and to educate myself on what gets put into their bodies. No one will EVER take care of your kid the way you will. They have no self interest in doing so.

I highly dispute the statement that the diseases are worse then the side effects of the shots. Our bodies were created to have the immune system naturally stimulated and challenged to make it stronger. Yes, there are some cases where people with pre-existing health conditions or other health weaknesses have died from the diseases. But compared to the damage caused by the shots themselves to entire populations, you can't even hold a candle to that with the disease. Additionally, the vaccines are now causing these disease strains to mutate causing a second wave of stronger diseases that are more difficult to deal with. preventdisease.com/news/12/071712_Vaccines-Are-Causing-Mutations-That-May-Jeopardize-The-Health-of-Future-Generations.shtml

Nearly all cases of whooping cough today come from VACCINATED individuals. There have been a couple of cases of unvaxed people getting it but they are few and far between. Of the vaxed individuals it is because the whooping cough strain is mutating and the shots they got are no good against the new strain.

There are 94 strains of HPV. Gardasil uses FOUR strains in the vaccine. REALLY? So, there are still 90 other strains that can cause cancer? That must make people that get the shot feel great about their "protection!" The truth of the matter is, most people's bodies will take care of the HPV virus on its own. On average there are 3909 people that die from cervical cancer per year. Since gardasil was put into play there have been 100+ deaths attributed to and 25,183 severe injuries ranging from autoimmune diseases to seizures. And that's only the ones that were reported. The CDC knows that vaccine damage is under-reported. Of the 25,000+ damaged, how many will experience early death as a result of their new disease or damaged health? Right now, it's too early to tell because gardasil hasn't been around long enough. But you cannot tell me that the benefit outweighs the risk with those statistics. Of the parents I know of with vaccine damaged kids, most of them will tell you they consider "damage" as something that was life altering to their child; not allowing them to live the normal life they once had. We're not talking about fevers here.

I could literally write reams on vaccines, how they work, what's in them, etc. But the bottom line is there has NEVER been the massive amounts of disease that we have today since the uptick of vaccination. And it's bull to say things are more "diagnosed" today. Really? You want to tell me my in-laws didn't know my SIL was retarded in 1960? It took until the 90's to figure that out? Parents knew when their kids had issues 30yrs ago. It is NOT better diagnosis.

Vaccines are about two things - money and population control. I posted a link on another thread somewhere showing the correlation between those on the boards of drugs companies, the CDC, and the FDA. Follow the money - because that's the ONLY thing vaccines are about.

Bill Gates is the #1 proponent of vaccinating for population control. Why? Because it causes damage and kills people earlier in life. www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQtRI7A064 . There are multiple sources for this information but that was at my fingertips.

Vaccine damage is reported 1/10 of the time to VAERS. Why? Because it's incumbent upon physicians to report it and when you make that phone call that something is wrong with your kid, they'll tell you "it's normal" and not report it the majority of the time.

I am a lover of freedom and adamantly opposed to the nanny state. So my stand on vaccines while rock hard for my family is this for others - informed consent. I believe with every bone in me that doctors ought to be required to give the vaccine insert to parents to read the appt. BEFORE they are scheduled for specific shots. Should a parent not read it, or return and agree to it, then they do so fully knowledgable. They can make no beef with what happens to their kid as a result because they were at least given the information. Had I been given this information, I would have NOT had my kids vaccinated. I was already heavily questioning my doctor but trusted him enough I thought surely he would tell me if there was any risk. But I can tell you that ALL of the doctors my kids have had, when asked if they've read the vaccine inserts, know what the ingredients are and their potential risks, have told me unashamedly, "no, they have not read them." The doctor that did my kids told me that even though he hadn't read it, he knew they were fine. <shaking my head> It is to my shame that I did not push him on this issue.

So vaccinate if you wish, but be informed when you do so. Whether it's ITP or the seizures a friend's girl got the second she walked away after getting the gardasil shot, vaccines are dangerous and damaging to the entire health of a person.

I go back to a statement I made on another thread. Hippocrates said, "let food be thy medicine, and medicine they food." A population that cares enough to take care of themselves will whether childhood diseases with a whole lot less damage then a population shot full of chemicals that the body was NEVER created to utilize. I'm not saying people did not lose their lives from some of these childhood diseases, but the truth is, it was a far lesser amount then the number of people being diagnosed with damaged immune systems today.

I will not argue on here with anyone that has not spent at least an intense year studying BOTH sides of this issue. Because if you are one sided without the knowledge of the other side, you know nothing and only spew what you've been told. I have literally studied both sides of this issue for YEARS. And I continue to be a student of it.

Yes, MD Gal, it is likely your immune system was damaged by it and set you up for ITP. And if it wasn't ITP, it may have been some other autoimmune disease. Clearly, your body did not handle the chemicals and immune stimulation that this shot caused.

Can I just say the comment about Bill Gates and population control is so far out of left field it's past the cheap seats. Why would Bill Gates have any interest in population control. If you look at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation website their mantra is "every life has value".

I have spent most of the last year working with the BMGF on an internal human resources project, and I cannot overemphasize how much good work they are doing around the world.

Here's a recent article about Gates' REAL beliefs about vaccines and which vaccines he supports and why.

www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/bill-gates/9812672/Bill-Gates-interview-I-have-no-use-for-money.-This-is-Gods-work.html

Wow alicin - and some people here call ME nasty................

tamar wrote: Can I just say the comment about Bill Gates and population control is so far out of left field it's past the cheap seats. Why would Bill Gates have any interest in population control. If you look at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation website their mantra is "every life has value".

I have spent most of the last year working with the BMGF on an internal human resources project, and I cannot overemphasize how much good work they are doing around the world.

Here's a recent article about Gates' REAL beliefs about vaccines and which vaccines he supports and why.

www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/bill-gates/9812672/Bill-Gates-interview-I-have-no-use-for-money.-This-is-Gods-work.html

Believe what you want, but dig a little deeper. Bill Gates is not a man I would trust. www.wnd.com/2012/08/bill-gates-world-needs-fewer-people/

Just because a person does some good, does not mean they do all good. Most people don't put out in public (on their webpage of all things) the garbage they know most people will disagree with. But listen to interviews and listen well to what they really believe and the truth tends to seep out.

Melinda wrote: Wow alicin - and some people here call ME nasty................

Because I clearly stated "this is my opinion" and I believe in informed consent? Not nasty all. Truthful.

Patti, I disagree with you and I disagree with your sources about Bill and Melinda Gates. We all know that a short sound bite from a long speech is often not the best way to understand someone's point of view.

People should make their own informed decisions. We've both posted sources we believe. Let's leave it at that.

Okay!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEvvRfuVk30

tamar wrote: Patti, I disagree with you and I disagree with your sources about Bill and Melinda Gates. We all know that a short sound bite from a long speech is often not the best way to understand someone's point of view.

People should make their own informed decisions. We've both posted sources we believe. Let's leave it at that.

With this, I can completely agree. It's difficult to site long sources because of time and space. Nonetheless, definitely something people can research on their own if they are so inclined.

Wow that was a new conspiracy theory to me! But not to the interwebs, plenty of information available - apparently even on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Here are a few links: www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread657914/pg1 and also www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2010/mar/10030810 and this one is fun because the website is called 'scam busting': scambusting101.blogspot.com/2010/10/bill-gates-says-vaccines-can-help.html


Gates was saying that families with access to good healthcare choose to produce fewer children because they do not have to worry about 'replacing' children that die from preventable childhood illnesses.

Excuse me while I go back to controlling the world media and Hollywood,
Erica

alicein wrote: There are 94 strains of HPV. Gardasil uses FOUR strains in the vaccine. REALLY? So, there are still 90 other strains that can cause cancer? That must make people that get the shot feel great about their "protection!"

I'll ignore most of what you say even though I don't agree with it, but I can't let this go.

Most of the HPV strains DO NOT cause cancer so your claim that they do is just plain wrong. The vast majority of cervical cancers are caused by HPVs 16 and 18 which are two that are vaccinated against.

Ann wrote:

alicein wrote: There are 13 strains of cancer causing HPV. Gardasil uses FOUR strains in the vaccine. REALLY? So, there are still 9 other strains that can cause cancer? That must make people that get the shot feel great about their "protection!"

I'll ignore most of what you say even though I don't agree with it, but I can't let this go.

Most of the HPV strains DO NOT cause cancer so your claim that they do is just plain wrong. The vast majority of cervical cancers are caused by HPVs 16 and 18 which are two that are vaccinated against.

Can HPV cause cervical cancer?

"Virtually all (97%) cases of cervical cancer are caused by HPV. Thirteen strains of HPV are known as "high risk" because they are associated with cervical cell changes that could eventually lead to cancer. It is now possible to test for the presence of these 13 strains of HPV by using special types of Pap smears." www.unco.edu/shc/topics/hpv.htm

So if we use your statistic, that makes this vaccine even more egregious because the risk of cervical cancer from it is very small but the risk of damage from the vaccine is tremendous. That means that this vaccine covers just 30% of those 13 possible cancer causing strains. If I got 30% on anything in school, it'd be a flunk. And so is this vaccine.




****edited to correct cancer causing numbers based on www.unco.edu/shc/topics/hpv.html ***

So now "cause" and "could eventually lead to" are equal? I have so much trouble keeping all this terminology straight! :laugh:

alicein wrote:

Ann wrote:

alicein wrote: There are 13 strains of cancer causing HPV. Gardasil uses FOUR strains in the vaccine. REALLY? So, there are still 9 other strains that can cause cancer? That must make people that get the shot feel great about their "protection!"

I didn't write this at all. You have doctored it. I quoted you saying that there are 94 strains of HPV. Changing a quote is bad netiquette and is hardly fair as it may put any response out of context.

So if we use your statistic, that makes this vaccine even more egregious because the risk of cervical cancer from it is very small but the risk of damage from the vaccine is tremendous. That means that this vaccine covers just 30% of those 13 possible cancer causing strains. If I got 30% on anything in school, it'd be a flunk. And so is this vaccine.

My statistic says that the vast majority of cervical cancers are caused by two strains which can be vaccinated against. My logic then says that that means that the vast majority of cervical cancers can be avoided. I'd think that with your argument you'd get less than 30% at logic so you're argument is a definite fail.

Ann wrote:

alicein wrote:

Ann wrote:

alicein wrote: There are 13 strains of cancer causing HPV. Gardasil uses FOUR strains in the vaccine. REALLY? So, there are still 9 other strains that can cause cancer? That must make people that get the shot feel great about their "protection!"

I didn't write this at all. You have doctored it. I quoted you saying that there are 94 strains of HPV. Changing a quote is bad netiquette and is hardly fair as it may put any response out of context.

No - if you go back it says I edited my original quote to correct it to 13 strains. I did not doctor anything. I was correcting it and noted that I correct it so others would know. So before you accuse, check what it actually says. You'll note it says it's *my* quote, not yours. Check the names.

So if we use your statistic, that makes this vaccine even more egregious because the risk of cervical cancer from it is very small but the risk of damage from the vaccine is tremendous. That means that this vaccine covers just 30% of those 13 possible cancer causing strains. If I got 30% on anything in school, it'd be a flunk. And so is this vaccine.

My statistic says that the vast majority of cervical cancers are caused by two strains which can be vaccinated against. My logic then says that that means that the vast majority of cervical cancers can be avoided. I'd think that with your argument you'd get less than 30% at logic so you're argument is a definite fail.

Perhaps your idea of risk vs. benefit is different then mine. I don't see the risk of the vaccine damage that this thing has caused worth the very few who will actually contract cancer from these strains. I stand by my statement that this vaccine is egregious (see note above about actual deaths from cerv. cancer vs. vaccine damage). And we will forever disagree on that point. We will obviously be forever on two opposite sides and people have enough of both sides here to know there is controversy over this vaccine. The argument has been put out there - others will do what they think is right for them. And hopefully they'll do some serious research so they can make a truly informed decision - one way or the other.

tamar wrote: So now "cause" and "could eventually lead to" are equal? I have so much trouble keeping all this terminology straight! :laugh:

"high risk" denotes high liklihood and the article states the 13 strains are "high risk."

alicein wrote: No - if you go back it says I edited my original quote to correct it to 13 strains. I did not doctor anything. I was correcting it and noted that I correct it so others would know. So before you accuse, check what it actually says. You'll note it says it's *my* quote, not yours. Check the names.

I said you edited my quote which is what you did. You edited what I quoted that you said. That is out of order. I don't expect an apology just don't reply to my posts again.

alicein wrote: ****edited to correct cancer causing numbers based on www.unco.edu/shc/topics/hpv.html ***

Sorry alicein - that doesn't say what you edited, just says you edited. If you went in and changed what Ann had quoted you saying that is very wrong.