FDA Records Indicate 28 Deaths in 2008 Related to HPV Vaccine

[Crystal in VA]

FDA Records Indicate 28 Deaths in 2008 Related to HPV Vaccine

The 2008 FDA records indicate there were 28 deaths and 235 cases of permanent disability in young girls who received the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine, better known in advertisements as the Gardasil. Parents might consider this information when making vaccine decisions.

 

"Actually there have been 47 deaths in all, but they are apparently unsure about the cause of some of the deaths. The FDA documented 6,723 'adverse events' related to Gardasil in 2008, of which 1,061 were considered 'serious,' and 142 considered 'life threatening.'"

 

Gardasil Deaths

[Gretchen in NJ]

FDA Records Indicate 28 Deaths in 2008 Related to HPV Vaccine

The 2008 FDA records indicate there were 28 deaths and 235 cases of permanent disability in young girls who received the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine, better known in advertisements as the Gardasil. Parents might consider this information when making vaccine decisions.

 

"Actually there have been 47 deaths in all, but they are apparently unsure about the cause of some of the deaths. The FDA documented 6,723 'adverse events' related to Gardasil in 2008, of which 1,061 were considered 'serious,' and 142 considered 'life threatening.'"

 

Gardasil Deaths

 

So very sad. It would be nice if they had to mention the above in their advertisements.

[Pamela H in Texas]

And they can't possibly know how many will be unable to have children later or how many later-conceived children will have birth defects as only the tiny tips of those icebergs even could be seen this early on.

 

I really don't get why this vaccine is okay with ANYONE. Maybe it's a decent idea considering, but Gardasil just wasn't ready to be used on a whole country of young girls.

 

:(

[Orthodox6]

I wonder if the vaccine will turn out to be this century's version of that drug taken by so many women in the mid-20th century (I've blanked out on the name of it) -- the one that rendered that rendered their daughters almost infertile, if not actually so. My cousin is one of those "daughters", and cannot have children as a result.

[Satori]

That drug was the DES drug.

http://www.cdc.gov/DES/

[Perry]

I don't have time right now to do any detailed investigation, but just want to point out that in most of these cases there is no CAUSAL relationship. If you look at a similar population of young females that did NOT receive the shot, there are very similar rates of deaths and disability.

 

There is a suggestion of a possibility of a causal association between Gardasil and a neurological syndrome, but that isn't clear yet. There have also been a couple deaths due to head injury when the patient hits their head after passing out after the shot, but that has been reported in young girls receiving *any* vaccine, and isn't specific to Gardasil. People should always be sitting or lying down when reeiving a shot, and shouldn't stand up if they're feeling dizzy at all. The rest of those problems are very unlikely to have anything to do with the vaccine.

[Radish4ever]

The high level of aluminum in the vaccine made me oppose it from the beginning. The potential link between alheimerzer's and aluminum is frightening as it runs in my family anyway.

[Karen sn]

I don't have time right now to do any detailed investigation, but just want to point out that in most of these cases there is no CAUSAL relationship. If you look at a similar population of young females that did NOT receive the shot, there are very similar rates of deaths and disability.

 

 

 

I have to ask.

Are you saying that girls who don't get these shots just wake up one day and have the same disfiguring and paralyzing health issues as the girls who HAVE had the shots? Because I have never heard of this happening.

[Gretchen in NJ]

And they can't possibly know how many will be unable to have children later or how many later-conceived children will have birth defects as only the tiny tips of those icebergs even could be seen this early on.

 

I really don't get why this vaccine is okay with ANYONE. Maybe it's a decent idea considering, but Gardasil just wasn't ready to be used on a whole country of young girls.

 

:(

:iagree:I love the points you have laid out here. I feel they are so very important. It is similar to the points raised by Weston Price. (spelling?) The current generation's physical appearance wasn't affected by the "Western" diet, but the next generation physical appearance was affected. They had less room in their mouths for all of their teeth.

[Karen sn]

FDA Records Indicate 28 Deaths in 2008 Related to HPV Vaccine

The 2008 FDA records indicate there were 28 deaths and 235 cases of permanent disability in young girls who received the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine, better known in advertisements as the Gardasil. Parents might consider this information when making vaccine decisions.

 

"Actually there have been 47 deaths in all, but they are apparently unsure about the cause of some of the deaths. The FDA documented 6,723 'adverse events' related to Gardasil in 2008, of which 1,061 were considered 'serious,' and 142 considered 'life threatening.'"

 

Gardasil Deaths

 

There are two things I will never do as nurse - participate in the circumcision of a baby and administer a vaccine, especially a vaccine going into the small body of a child. I can wipe butts all day and clean out green phlegm from a throat (my biggest gag issue) but I just can't knowingly participate in this kind of voo doo science.

 

First do no harm!!

 

And that's just how I feel.

I wouldn't do it to my kids and I just can't do it to anyone else's with a clear conscience.

I have friends who do vacc and circ- I do not argue with them, I respect their decisions - especially if they did any research AT ALL and made an informed decision. But for the most part - people just do what they are told and patients do NOT make INFORMED decisions.

[Perry]

Does anyone have a link to show how many of these vaccines were administered during this time frame? Thanks.

About 23 million doses. I don't know how many people that is, because 3 doses (per person) are recommended. I'd estimate about 10 million individuals. I'll find you a link after I finish making lunch.

[Perry]

I have to ask.

Are you saying that girls who don't get these shots just wake up one day and have the same disfiguring and paralyzing health issues as the girls who HAVE had the shots? Because I have never heard of this happening.

 

Yes. One of the health issues most frequently reported to VAERS is venous thromboses. The rate is no higher among girls receiving Gardasil compared to girls who don't. Most of the girls with thromboses have a known risk factor, such as taking oral contraceptives, whether receiving Gardasil or not.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Perry

[elizabeth]

The link, Judicial Watch, is a highly charged political, divisive link of the type prohibited by board rules. If anyone thinks this issue is not political I have some land to sell you...BTW there are other less inflammatory links with information that are qualified to speak on matters of scientific import. Try the Centers for Disease Control. Here is the link and read the area regarding Adverse events with regard to confusing concurrence in time with causation.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaers/gardasil.htm

For the record I will not be permitting dd to get the vaccine. Not nearly a long enough track record, and more importantly , it gives the illusion of protection from STD's . Barrier methods, namely condoms are certainly far better and broad based in protection from many other STD's. I am certainly conflicted about this vaccine as I remain conflicted about bc pills simply as a matter of safety for women. Having worked in a health care facility ,it was and is troubling to see how many women of all ages will use bcpills for years while smoking cigarettes . Unbelievable that they would shrug off the risk of blood clots and strokes.

[Crystal in VA]

The link, Judicial Watch, is a highly charged political, divisive link of the type prohibited by board rules. If anyone thinks this issue is not political I have some land to sell you...

 

I received this information through an email from our state homeschool organization. I have no idea about their (Judicial Watch) political affiliations or views.

 

This is not political for me. I've always had a problem with the idea of this vaccine...much for the same reasons as you. My pediatrician had similar feelings so we made the choice to not vaccinate my girls.

 

I just want other parents to be aware of the potential problem with this vaccine. From there they can do their own investigation and make the choice that is right for their family.

[Gretchen in NJ]

The link, Judicial Watch, is a highly charged political, divisive link of the type prohibited by board rules.

 

Since when? I haven't read anything where a link to Judicial Watch or Media Matters is prohibited by board rules.:001_huh:

[lionfamily1999]

I wonder if the vaccine will turn out to be this century's version of that drug taken by so many women in the mid-20th century (I've blanked out on the name of it) -- the one that rendered that rendered their daughters almost infertile, if not actually so. My cousin is one of those "daughters", and cannot have children as a result.

Or like the birth control that caused birth defects like webbing, was that in the 50s-60s...

 

Yeah, I stay far far far away from things like this. Hate to play the sex card, but it doesn't seem like women's health is taken as seriously as men's health. After all, since people have touted the protection against some HPVs, why no rush for a male version???

[melissel]

Or like the birth control that caused birth defects like webbing, was that in the 50s-60s...

 

Yeah, I stay far far far away from things like this. Hate to play the sex card, but it doesn't seem like women's health is taken as seriously as men's health. After all, since people have touted the protection against some HPVs, why no rush for a male version???

 

Because men don't get cervical cancer, I'd imagine. (But I wouldn't have my girls vaccinated with it either, and we do vax here.)

 

ETA: Sorry, that sounded snarkier than I intended, I think. I didn't intend it that way all. In general, I agree with you about women's health issues completely. In this case, Gardasil is touted as a miracle preventative for the BIG C, in spite of the small print. I think that's the reason for the hype.

Edited July 8, 2009 by melissel

[lionfamily1999]

Because men don't get cervical cancer, I'd imagine. (But I wouldn't have my girls vaccinated with it either, and we do vax here.)

Yes, but the big thing they've been cheering about around here, is that it protects you from certain HPVs, which boys DO get... and whatever happened to herd protection or whatever it is that always gets thrown around in the immunization posts.

 

It just irks the heck out of me that they want to experiment on my daughter, whose reproductive "stuff" is in there and not being renewed constantly, versus my boys (not that I would let THEM get these shots) whose reproductive "stuff" would, in the future, be replaced with fresh "stuff" on a regular basis. It's the principle of the thing! :glare:

 

 

Ok, so I have a streak of angry feminist........ ETA, saw your ETA and a lot of this is sort of tongue in cheek... this vaccine DOES tick me off and imo, it DOES stink of, eh try it on the girls first... but I'm not really trying to be ticked at you..... ok, so clear as mud...... let's try this, lol, it's not you, it's me.

[melissel]

Yes, but the big thing they've been cheering about around here, is that it protects you from certain HPVs, which boys DO get... and whatever happened to herd protection or whatever it is that always gets thrown around in the immunization posts.

 

It just irks the heck out of me that they want to experiment on my daughter, whose reproductive "stuff" is in there and not being renewed constantly, versus my boys (not that I would let THEM get these shots) whose reproductive "stuff" would, in the future, be replaced with fresh "stuff" on a regular basis. It's the principle of the thing! :glare:

 

 

Ok, so I have a streak of angry feminist........ ETA, saw your ETA and a lot of this is sort of tongue in cheek... this vaccine DOES tick me off and imo, it DOES stink of, eh try it on the girls first... but I'm not really trying to be ticked at you..... ok, so clear as mud...... let's try this, lol, it's not you, it's me.

 

:lol: I know it. And certainly, women have a history as guinea pigs for all sorts of things that were supposed to be "good for humanity." I'm sick of it too. We are woman, hear us roar! :lol:

[Tree House Academy]

Sadly, I am not surprised. :(

[elizabeth]

Since when? I haven't read anything where a link to Judicial Watch or Media Matters is prohibited by board rules.:001_huh:

 

There is a thread stickied at the top of the general board section titled restrictions on political discussions avatars and signiatures. Point 2 of same list makes clear what types of outside links are acceptable when having a political discussion. I am of the opinion that Gardasil is political when the OP admitted it came from her homeschooling board and then links to judicial watch. It reminds me of the HLSDA having links about gay marriage. Not relevant to home schooling but highly relevant to political goals shared by conservatives who are more likely than not to home educate. Nonetheless, your perspective on whether it is a political issue might bring you to a different conclusion. For discussions about science I try to provide links to resources that are based on science, not political issues.

[wildflower]

Since when? I haven't read anything where a link to Judicial Watch or Media Matters is prohibited by board rules.:001_huh:

 

I don;'t see this as a political issue (not from the OP point of view anyway).... but when you have a community of intelligent people with strong opinions (or why else would we HS?) anything can turn political i guess. ANYWAY-

I would never have known this if I hadn't stumbled upon it just today (still finding my way around here). It is from SWB, and she must have been MAD when she wrote it. Hope I don;t make anyone else mad quoting it here.....

HTH.

 

 

 

 

"Restrictions on political discussions, avatars, and signatures

Avatars and signatures that make political statements are not permitted. If the moderators judge avatars and signatures to be in violation of this rule, you will be asked to change them. You don't have to agree with us. You just have to do it if you intend to remain an active board member.

 

Discussion of political issues is allowed under the following conditions:

 

1. The discussion must remain nonpartisan. You may discuss specific issues, policies, and politicians. Sweeping statements about Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, etc. will be deleted.

 

2. Links to outside sites, except for those to federal or state government web resources, will be deleted.

 

3. Discussions which devolve into abuse will be deleted. Not closed, deleted. Don't email us asking why a thread has been deleted. You can safely assume that the discussion went off track.

 

If you're unsure what qualifies as "abuse," here is a brief and noncomprehensive guide; your post will probably be deleted if it

 

Calls another poster's opinion "dumb," "ignorant," "stupid," "ridiculous," "asinine," or any synonym.

 

Contains the words, "Any idiot can see that..."

 

Contains the phrase "foil hats"

 

Calls another poster "irrational" or begins, "You're clearly not able to follow a logical argument"

 

 

Four final things:

 

I don't want political threads to swallow the board. Please post to an existing thread if possible, and exert some self-control in posting new threads. If the board gets too political I will close/delete threads for that reason alone.

 

Please consider avoiding the words "clearly" and "obviously." Oh, and you could deep-six "conspiracy" too.

 

If you choose to post on political topics, man (or woman) up. Discussion will get heated. And if you break the rules, you're going to get temporarily banned. Don't email us as soon as your ban is lifted to complain how unfair the ban was. You were the one who stepped into the arena. And if you post a THREAD about the rules, it will GO AWAY. I'm really, really, really, really sick and tired of discussing this.

 

If you see a breach of rules, please report the offense. But don't begin your email to the moderators with, "Why are you allowing such and such an avatar/thread/signature to remain? Clearly you don't enforce your rules evenly." We can't actually read every thread, let alone check all nine thousand avatars and signatures on a daily basis. We rely on the community to help maintain these standards."

[lionfamily1999]

:lol: I know it. And certainly, women have a history as guinea pigs for all sorts of things that were supposed to be "good for humanity." I'm sick of it too. We are woman, hear us roar! :lol:

No kidding, this is one of those things that makes me want to burn bras and stop shaving my pits :lol:

[wildflower]

No kidding, this is one of those things that makes me want to burn bras and stop shaving my pits :lol:

 

we need a hairy pit smiley for our posts!

ROAR!:lol:

[lionfamily1999]

LOL!

 

Oh, man

 

Oh yeah

 

-:>:tongue_smilie:<:-

 

best I could come up with

[wildflower]

lol!

 

Oh, man

 

oh yeah

 

-:>:tongue_smilie:<:-

 

best i could come up with

 

that's great

[Gretchen in NJ]

There is a thread stickied at the top of the general board section titled restrictions on political discussions avatars and signiatures. Point 2 of same list makes clear what types of outside links are acceptable when having a political discussion. I am of the opinion that Gardasil is political when the OP admitted it came from her homeschooling board and then links to judicial watch. It reminds me of the HLSDA having links about gay marriage. Not relevant to home schooling but highly relevant to political goals shared by conservatives who are more likely than not to home educate. Nonetheless, your perspective on whether it is a political issue might bring you to a different conclusion. For discussions about science I try to provide links to resources that are based on science, not political issues.

 

I think this comes under science/health issues which are covered in the above discription of the forum. Is the science in the Judicial Watch link incorrect? If it is, please point it out. I hope not, scine they are quoting FDA records.:001_huh:

 

I do wonder though why you didn't point out about the outside polically divisive links to Media Matters in the Glen Beck thread.;)

[Perry]

Is the science in the Judicial Watch link incorrect? If it is, please point it out.

 

It is very misleading. However, I have decided not to get into this discussion.

[Alice]

FDA Records Indicate 28 Deaths in 2008 Related to HPV Vaccine

The 2008 FDA records indicate there were 28 deaths and 235 cases of permanent disability in young girls who received the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine, better known in advertisements as the Gardasil. Parents might consider this information when making vaccine decisions.

 

"Actually there have been 47 deaths in all, but they are apparently unsure about the cause of some of the deaths. The FDA documented 6,723 'adverse events' related to Gardasil in 2008, of which 1,061 were considered 'serious,' and 142 considered 'life threatening.'"

 

Gardasil Deaths

 

I got the same link this morning from likely the same homeschool group (HEAV?). I clicked on the link and also on the link at Judicial Watch to the reports they obtained. The reports are from VAERS. One thing about VAERS is that there is no need to prove causation at all. It's problematic in that side effects may be under-reported but anything that is reported is listed in VAERS. So the "47 deaths" are not in any way proven to be caused by Gardisil.

 

For example one death is listed as occuring 58 days later from Influenza. One death is 115 days after Gardisil from meningitis. One is 240 days later from "cause unknown" (that doesn't mean that noone knows the cause only that it wasn't reported to VAERS). 11 deaths are "Unknown time after Gardisil and unknown cause of death."

 

Clearly all those deaths are tragic. I'm not arguing that any number of deaths from a vaccine is ok or necessarily pushing for Gardisil. But I think the evidence here is not at all convincing that Gardisil caused these deaths.

 

I did find the way this was passed on in the HEAV newsletter annoying. The way it was phrased there and in Judidical Watch seemed to apply that all the cases of death and disability are absolutely determined to be caused by Gardisil. I do think people should read and think about the information for themselves, and don't have a problem with them making this info public. But I think it's presented without any discussion of the data and more as a scare tactic. I think very few people go further to review the data themselves but just see X number of deaths and assume those are proven.

 

(I don't mean to imply that the OP is posting this as a scare tactic. I know you are just trying to pass on info that you got. )

[elizabeth]

I think this comes under science/health issues which are covered in the above discription of the forum. Is the science in the Judicial Watch link incorrect? If it is, please point it out. I hope not, scine they are quoting FDA records.:001_huh:

 

I do wonder though why you didn't point out about the outside polically divisive links to Media Matters in the Glen Beck thread.;)

 

The Judicial Watch report is not written by physicians or researchers.It is partisan and not appropriate. The links beneath that entitled Uncovered Reports are from Merck. Actually there are only a few links from the FDA and frankly the CDC is a far better resource. You are correct with regard to the links to Media Matters. Definitely partisan . I would not post those links.