Should my daughter get the Gardasil vaccine?

[Doormat]

Vaccines have been tested with and without the main active ingredient, as well as with and without the adjuvant.

You're making stuff up now, and what you're claiming doesn't even make sense. I've already shown the clinical trial tables for Gardasil that show exactly what they used in the test, and you still have not overcome the problem that presents.

Why are you still posting here? You said you were done. Stop trying to waste my time with nonsense.

 

[gcthomas]

Come on, Doormat. Admit it. You are not just against Gardasil, but are against vaccinations in general. You claim scientific backing for your claims, but fail to take in the science reports I present you with.

 

[Nazaroo]

You're making stuff up now, and what you're claiming doesn't even make sense. I've already shown the clinical trial tables for Gardasil that show exactly what they used in the test, and you still have not overcome the problem that presents.

Why are you still posting here? You said you were done. Stop trying to waste my time with nonsense.

I warned you he was a troll.

 

[kmoney]

I haven't read this thread but I got an email with this in it and figured I'd post it:

Lead Gardasil developer clears conscience, admits vaccine is useless and deadly

 

[Doormat]

If you don't think that is a good test, then explain what would have been better.

I already did.

Injectable normal saline is 0.9%, and that would have been an acceptable placebo.

 

[elohiym]

At least Cabinetmaker was talked out of vaccinating his daughters with that Gardasil 9 poison. A small victory on this forum, though I doubt he would give credit.

Considering that the decision was made LONG before this thread was started, nobody can claim they talked us out of it.

The Gardasil thread, silly.

What caused you to decide to reject the Gardasil 9 vaccine and how is that consistent with the reason you gave on this thread for getting your daughters vaccinated with Gardasil?

 

[elohiym]

My daughters have had the shots to minimize their chance at cancer. Given that their mother is a breast cancer survivor, that is why enough in our book.

Apparently that's no longer a good enough reason for you, and I'm curious to know why.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Apparently that's no longer a good enough reason for you, and I'm curious to know why.

Our reasoning has not changed. We vaccinated with the first generation of the vaccine and have decided that our girls are old enough to decide if they want to go for additional vaccinations. Were our girls much younger, we would have a different conversation.

You need to keep in mind that this thread was started in 2013 and our daughters had been vaccinated roughly five years before this thread even started. Time has passed and our daughters have grown. As part of raising young women (as opposed to just training them to ready for marriage by age 15), We have had ongoing discussions with out daughters about healthcare issues and they are allowed to make decisions for themselves. We give them advice and show them where to find reliable information regarding things such as vaccination so they can make informed decisions.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

So they decided against it, then? Is that it?

 

[CabinetMaker]

So they decided against it, then? Is that it?

For the time being, yes. They may decide to to a booster later. New evidence suggest that the vaccine is effective for women into their mid 40's.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

I hope they never get the booster. But you gave them something so inferior it's almost like no protection compared to G9, if you think G4 had any good impact.

And how would they know it protects into the 40s if no girl has aged into her 40's after getting the vaccine in her early teens?

 

[CabinetMaker]

I hope they never get the booster.

Their choice, not yours.

But you gave them something so inferior it's almost like no protection compared to G9, if you think G4 had any good impact.

They had state of the art at the time they received the vaccination. It affords them some degree of protection that they would not have had otherwise. In a few years they may have G15 out so it doesn't hurt them to wait.

And how would they know it protects into the 40s if no girl has aged into her 40's after getting the vaccine in her early teens?

Believe it or not, the drug was tested on women who were into their twenties and thirties and the evidence suggests that the vaccine is effective for a broader age range than first anticipated.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Their choice, not yours.

:duh:

They had state of the art at the time they received the vaccination. It affords them some degree of protection that they would not have had otherwise. In a few years they may have G15 out so it doesn't hurt them to wait.

But the G9 "protects" (I use the term sarcastically) against the majority of all HPV related cancers 70+ percent.

(It's silly, though, correlation of HPV with cancer does not equal causation. Wolves hunt the weak; viruses love to destroy cancer cells, as an affinity has already been demonstrated.)

Believe it or not, the drug was tested on women who were into their twenties and thirties and the evidence suggests that the vaccine is effective for a broader age range than first anticipated.

It was first released in 2007-8. That's less than 10 years to see what it does. Very young girls are going to need it to last 20-30 years to determine what, if anything, the vaccine did.

 

[CabinetMaker]

:duh:

But the G9 "protects" (I use the term sarcastically)

Of course you do.

against the majority of all HPV related cancers 70+ percent.

(It's silly, though, correlation of HPV with cancer does not equal causation. Wolves hunt the weak; viruses love to destroy cancer cells, as an affinity has already been demonstrated.)

Where?

It was first released in 2007-8. That's less than 10 years to see what it does. Very young girls are going to need it to last 20-30 years to determine what, if anything, the vaccine did.

True. But what about a woman who was 25 in 2007? What about a woman who was 35 in 2007? What about a woman who was 45 in 2007? Is ti possible that they were vaccinated and that the vaccine proved beneficial to them?

By the way, clinical trials were started in 2001 and completed in 2009.

 

[The Barbarian]

Viral vaccines are very effective, relative to other kinds of vaccines. And there is always a residual protection, even if it's lowered over time. It's not a live-virus vaccine, so it's safer for immune-deficient people, but at the same time, it doesn't offer benefits as long-lasting as those from live-virus vaccines.

My daughter got the vaccine, reasoning that although she didn't plan on having sex before marriage, all it would take is for her future husband to have one lapse of judgement, maybe years before she and he would meet, and she could die as a result, if she didn't take the vaccine.

Can't argue with that.

 

[elohiym]

Can't argue with that.

Sure you can, and the argument was already made in this thread.

 

[elohiym]

My daughter got the vaccine, reasoning that although she didn't plan on having sex before marriage, all it would take is for her future husband to have one lapse of judgement, maybe years before she and he would meet, and she could die as a result, if she didn't take the vaccine.

Can't argue with that.

She could marry a man who is a virgin or have the non-virgin tested.

 

[aikido7]

Should my daughter get the Gardasil vaccine? That is the question I was seeking to answer. My two oldest daughters are 11 and 13. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends they get vaccinated against the human papillomavirus (HPV), variants of which are believed to cause cervical cancer. After researching the matter we have decided to not get the HPV vaccinations for our daughters because the risks clearly outweigh the potential benefits.

Here are some of the facts we had to work with:

1. "In most cases HPV goes away by itself before it causes any health problems..."

2. The incidence of cervical cancer in the U.S. is extremely low, only 7.9 per 100,000 (2006-2010).

3. The incidence of mortality from cervical cancer in the U.S. is extremely low, only 2.4 per 100,000 (2006-2010).

4. According to the American Cancer Society and attributed to screening, deaths from cervical cancer declined 74% between 1955 and 1992 and continue to decline by nearly 4% each year.

5. Cervical cancer incidence is correlated with use of oral contraceptives, smoking and HIV.

6. “The rate of serious adverse events [from the vaccine] is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer.”

7. The vaccine contains an ingredient (an aluminum adjuvant) know to cause motor neuron death in mice. See study 1 and study 2.

8. Another ingredient in the vaccine (polysorbate 80) has been shown to cause infertility in rats.

In light those facts, would you encourage your daughter to receive the HPV vaccine?

Would aspirin be accepted as a drug if it were just on the market today?

No.

The dangerous side-effects would prevent the drug from being used in this day and age.

Everything has side effects. Your doctor should tell you what they are and give you his best advice based on that knowledge. Visiting different doctors for more opinions is helpful. So is doing your own research online--but be careful. There are a lot of subjective opinions, but there are also many scientific studies that take seriously the "scientific method."

But finally, you are going to have to make your own choice, knowing the possible consequences of all possible choices.

 

[gcthomas]

Here are some of the facts we had to work with:

3. The incidence of mortality from cervical cancer in the U.S. is extremely low, only 2.4 per 100,000 (2006-2010).

That is more than twenty times the rate of death due to mass shootings. Do you really think that support of death rate is "extremely" low?

6. “The rate of serious adverse events [from the vaccine] is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer.”

Oh dear. Are you under the mistaken impression that reported events are events that had been linked to the vaccination?

 

[serpentdove]

Will she be a fornicator? :smokie: 1 Co 6:9