I know some of you may disagree with me on this and I'm probably earning my way towards a bad reputation, but I must speak.
First, I am NOT a religiously conservative person. I do not think the religious groups' claims that this vaccine will "promote premarital sex" is a legitimate reason at all. And for some reason, this seems to be the only highly publicized counterargument in the controversy.
What I do think are legimate reasons for refusing the vaccine are the questionable ethics of the industry and Merck. I think these are more than apparent indicators that Merck is more interested in profits than public health.
Gardasil is Merck's cash cow, being one of the most expensive vaccines ever on the market at a time Merck was (and is still) swamped with Vioxx lawsuits and billions in owed revenue.
Merck is a untrustworthy company. Even when the risks of Vioxx were clear, Merck tried hard to keep it on the market. This company also continued to supply infant vaccines laced with thimerosal for several years after it claimed to have removed it in addition to the rotavirus vaccine that have caused significant cases of infant intrasucception (sp?). Its chicken pox vaccine was also found to be not very effective. And now, Merck is again under scrutiny and investigation for withholding clinical data that could potentially harm its sales suggesting Vytorin may increase the risk of suicidal behavior.
Merck spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a secretive behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign across the US to mandate Gardasil. When discovered, it sparked an uproar, and Merck ceased the campaign. The question is, why can't they come clean that they have to resort to secrecy against the people's knowledge and judgement?
Merck also has numerous conflicts of interests with political figures and groups for those supporting the mandate of Gardasil-by endorsing them financially and/or contributing generously to their campaign. This is not limited to Merck, conflicts of interests between the pharmaceutical companies and doctors are ever rampant these days even if in the form of petty gifts that can influence their prescribing habits.
Gardasil is a vaccine that has undergone little trial testing and for too short of a trial. Its efficacy, effectiveness, protection period, and risks are not fully understood. And to market/promote it so aggressively... It has been said that Gardasil protects for at least five years. Isn't that targeting the wrong age group? Provided middle-aged women have the highest incidences of cervical cancer. If a girl got it at age 9, she would only be in early adolescence by the time the protection span is over.
Gardasil only protects against several strains of HPV, with a protection range of 70%. 30% is still a high probability, and it is feared it can allow less harmful strains to flourish and become more malevolent from the ecological gap. And given that various agents (not just HPV) that can lead to cervical cancer can be contracted all in same sex act. There is insufficient evidence that Gardasil actually helps in prevention, given the nature of HPV and the time.
As with just about any vaccine, there are toxic incredients in Gardasil. Aluminum is a potent neurotoxin. Polysorbate 80 is theorized to cause infertility. And sodium borate...like borax.
Gardasil is not a safe vaccine. There have been cases of sudden death, dangerously increased heart rate, blood clots, paralysis, Guillan-Barre syndrome, and fainting associated with it. With this many incidents of girls blacking out after receiving the shot enough to make several headlines, it's a clear sign that something's not right. And it's not from "anxiety" either. Look at the VAERS statistics, and that's only a small percentage reported. Merck never tells you this. There have been allegations that Merck even skewered the trial data and the placebos to give the impression that the vaccine is safe. AND even allegations that the vaccine may cause infertility. There was a article amendment of the Virginia legislature that explicitly grants immunity to Merck from legality should a woman be unable to bear a child after receiving the vaccine. It was rejected.
Rates of cervical cancer is at an all time low (here as a modern society) and is still decreasing. There are only about 3,000 cases more or less each year. And contrary to imposed exaggerations, that is a minimal percentage. Regular pap smears are perfectly fine in detecting precancerous leisions and facilitating early intervention, if the woman cares about her health.
The federal agencies (that includes the FDA and CDC and for the count record the EPA also) are just as corrupt as the industry nowadays. We hear all the time of drugs being expensive but not necessary more effective than older drugs, drugs increasing various health risks, cough syrup for kids that don't work, drugs being recalled, taken off the shelves, skewered trial results to hide the bad sides, etc. Where was the FDA? The FDA is too quick to give the fasttrack these days. The CDC will approve just about anything.
So, after all those red flags... I have no doubt that Merck is reckless and cares only for their own interests. Now..normally I'm a liberal person, but this is one thing that I have to take a adamantly conservative stance on. If I had a daughter, I would say NO.
OP: John117 04/02/2008
Posted: 23 Sep 03:55