That's Debatable...
...and we all know how much I love a good debate. Okay, maybe we all don't, but we will.
Recently I came across a video posted on facebook on the dangers of Gardasil, the HPV vaccine. Anyone who knows me on facebook probably knows what I'm talking about. I posted it simply because I wanted to make people think about it, and to this day there are a lot of people who will simply trust the opinion of their doctor, nurse, whatever... without coming to an informed decision.
I'm not reposting the video, but suffice to say that it brings up a number of adverse reactions to the vaccine and questions its safety. There have been, for instance, a number of girls who have passed out or had convulsions after the treatment. And what's alarming to me is that rather than recognizing this and investigating, the company responsible for the vaccine simply writes it off as "nerves", "fear of needles", what have you.
I am generally against the vaccine as it stands, largely because I don't like how aggressively its been marketed. But I must say that as I read more about it, I'm swaying into the neutral area of thinking.
When I searched Gardasil, I got one of 3 things, first page. One, Gardasil's own pages, two, wikipedia (and wikipedia-like) info entries, and three, news clips/articles questioning its safety. I should add a fourth, links to injury lawyers... yes, that was page one also. When I look up say, the Varicella vaccine (for chicken pox), all I find is information. I should note too that I haven't bothered to get my kids the chicken pox vaccine either, simply because I think its rarely life-threatening and (oh I need a cane to lean on...) back in my day, we just got chicken pox and got done with it. That's just an information comparison which really doesn't prove anything, but it's interesting.
So far these are the points I've found for Gardasil:
- Nobody wants to get cervical cancer.
- Gardasil does not contain mercury as many other vaccines do, which we all know, isn't a great thing to have kickin' around in your body.
- Contrary to what I thought walking into this, as of 2009 Gardasil has been tested on children as young as 9. Original trials were 16+, and it concerned me then to see it marketed for children as young as 9.
My points against it:
- As I said, I don't like the aggressive marketing. If it's really a wonder drug, safe and effective, it should sell itself. Simple as this: "We've created a vaccine which will almost certainly protect you against these types of cancer, and it's proven safe". I'd get it, assuming it's true.
- Along the marketing vein, I don't like the guilt/pride combo this is marketed with. The idea that if you love your daughter you'll get this for her. The mind can't think in emotional AND rational terms at once, and this is a tactic aimed at eliciting an emotional response, not a logical one. Again, I question why.
- As of now, March 2011, this vaccine has been on the market 5 years. That, to me, is just not enough time to prove its safety or effectiveness. What we're left with is theory and opinion.
I have this from the CDC website:
...which can be interpreted any which way. I know many will say (and I'm not knocking this) that clearly the CDC recommends this and that's good enough. What I see is a large number of adverse events recorded (which doesn't take into account any that were not reported), and that further reports would fuel an investigation and/or action to ensure safety. I see this as a "We think it's safe, we've weighed out the risks, but essentially your children are our guinea pigs here". "Here, take this, if it does something bad we'll check it out."
So bottom line is it's not for my family. At least not thus far. I'll keep on watching it, to be sure, but I'd rather not risk it as it stands.
Facebook limits my long-windedness so here I am.
Thoughts?
 |
| I also really enjoy this picture, for what it's worth. |
I'm not reposting the video, but suffice to say that it brings up a number of adverse reactions to the vaccine and questions its safety. There have been, for instance, a number of girls who have passed out or had convulsions after the treatment. And what's alarming to me is that rather than recognizing this and investigating, the company responsible for the vaccine simply writes it off as "nerves", "fear of needles", what have you.
I am generally against the vaccine as it stands, largely because I don't like how aggressively its been marketed. But I must say that as I read more about it, I'm swaying into the neutral area of thinking.
When I searched Gardasil, I got one of 3 things, first page. One, Gardasil's own pages, two, wikipedia (and wikipedia-like) info entries, and three, news clips/articles questioning its safety. I should add a fourth, links to injury lawyers... yes, that was page one also. When I look up say, the Varicella vaccine (for chicken pox), all I find is information. I should note too that I haven't bothered to get my kids the chicken pox vaccine either, simply because I think its rarely life-threatening and (oh I need a cane to lean on...) back in my day, we just got chicken pox and got done with it. That's just an information comparison which really doesn't prove anything, but it's interesting.
So far these are the points I've found for Gardasil:
- Nobody wants to get cervical cancer.
- Gardasil does not contain mercury as many other vaccines do, which we all know, isn't a great thing to have kickin' around in your body.
- Contrary to what I thought walking into this, as of 2009 Gardasil has been tested on children as young as 9. Original trials were 16+, and it concerned me then to see it marketed for children as young as 9.
My points against it:
- As I said, I don't like the aggressive marketing. If it's really a wonder drug, safe and effective, it should sell itself. Simple as this: "We've created a vaccine which will almost certainly protect you against these types of cancer, and it's proven safe". I'd get it, assuming it's true.
- Along the marketing vein, I don't like the guilt/pride combo this is marketed with. The idea that if you love your daughter you'll get this for her. The mind can't think in emotional AND rational terms at once, and this is a tactic aimed at eliciting an emotional response, not a logical one. Again, I question why.
- As of now, March 2011, this vaccine has been on the market 5 years. That, to me, is just not enough time to prove its safety or effectiveness. What we're left with is theory and opinion.
I have this from the CDC website:
As of February 14, 2011, approximately 33 million doses of Gardasil were distributed in the U.S. Since February 14, 2011, VAERS received a total of 18,354 reports of adverse events following Gardasil vaccination in the U.S. Of these reports, 92% were reports of events considered to be non-serious, and 8% were reports of events considered serious.*
Based on all of the information we have today, CDC recommends HPV vaccination for the prevention of most types of cervical cancer. As with all approved vaccines, CDC and FDA will continue to closely monitor the safety of HPV vaccines. Any problems detected with these vaccines will be reported to health officials, health care providers, and the public and needed action will be taken to ensure the public's health and safety.
...which can be interpreted any which way. I know many will say (and I'm not knocking this) that clearly the CDC recommends this and that's good enough. What I see is a large number of adverse events recorded (which doesn't take into account any that were not reported), and that further reports would fuel an investigation and/or action to ensure safety. I see this as a "We think it's safe, we've weighed out the risks, but essentially your children are our guinea pigs here". "Here, take this, if it does something bad we'll check it out."
So bottom line is it's not for my family. At least not thus far. I'll keep on watching it, to be sure, but I'd rather not risk it as it stands.
Facebook limits my long-windedness so here I am.
Thoughts?
Comments
Post a Comment