« THE DIRT ON CANCER AND INFECTIONS | Main | LIFE IMITATES TV »
The New York Times ran a piece on Sunday titled: Vaccinating Boys for Girls' Sake?"
Parents are becoming skeptical of the plethora of vaccines as evidenced by the quote from this mom: Madeline Cattell, an interior design consultant in Beverly, Mass., and the mother of two boys, ages 8 and 12, never paid much attention to Gardasil, assuming it was a gender-specific vaccine for a gender-specific disease. She was surprised that her boys might be offered it one day.
“You don’t want to say it’s just the girls’ problem,” Mrs. Cattell said hesitantly. “But my sons won’t contract cervical cancer. And genital warts are treatable. I’m very skeptical. What risks will I expose them to?”
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8357f3f2969e200e5508824b78834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference GARDASIL AND CHIVALRY: A KNIGHTMARE FOR BOYS?:
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Jaimie,
Just for you, I tried using the VAERS database for the first time this morning. Being new, I ran into a few glitches, but I was able to get a report of 25 deaths so far (worldwide) and a somewhat higher number of reported cases of paralysis. Some of these are permanent.
I believe we've already reported a slightly higher number of deaths here at AOA, and I dare say the true number is always higher than reported, but I am rushed this morning and cannot take time to find that other article here at Age of Autism, about a beautiful young girl, just about your age (in fact, she might have been 17)--one of the faces behind the statistics.
I wouldn't get this shot, or let either of my daughters get this shot, if you paid me a million dollars.
It's a new shot, it offers very, very little protection (if any) from just *some* of the viruses that can *possibly* cause cervical cancer. . .it's snake oil, Jayme. . .it's a scam, but then, I've been studying vaccines for a while, since 2 of my 3 kids were hurt by them, so that's where I'm coming from.
Most people who come here looking for answers. . .we never hear from them again.
Jaimie, I hope we *do* hear from you again, and even if we don't. . .I hope you won't fall for this.
Good luck.
Thanks for stopping by.
Terri Lewis
Posted by: Terri Lewis | October 15, 2008 at 09:08 AM
hi
im lookig at getting gardisal as its free,but i heard it can have nasty side effect so i did some research..does anybody have hard evidence that it has,or any at all i cant find any...ps im 17 and a healthy girl
Posted by: jaimie | October 14, 2008 at 11:32 PM
I wrote to the NYT about this article, and Jan Hoffman wrote back suggesting that I post a comment at http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/a-vaccine-for-boys-to-help-girls/
There is a lengthy dialogue going on at this site, with almost all posters completely oblivious to vaccine safety concerns. The discussion is primarily focussed on whether boys should get the vaccine and whether abstinence would be better. I posted three comments (#58, 60, & 100) which appear to have been ignored. One person posted a link to NVIC, a couple mentioned that the vaccine only addresses a few out of many of these HP viruses, and finally one other addressed safety concerns. A guy who says he is a infectious disease MD, Michael (#78 & 99) says things like "it is attacked by the “anti-vaccine” crowd, who (for the most part) incorrectly connect vaccinations with a variety of “side-effects”, most notably autism" and "The people arguing against widespread vaccinations (as a public health measure) are simply acting selfishly and taking our current wellness for granted."
Just mentioning this in case any of you would like to take this opportunity to share your knowledge & experiences with some NYT folks -- maybe nobody will listening, but hey posting is free!
Posted by: Twyla | February 27, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Besides the viruses in the Gardasil they stick in aluminum as well....nice!!!! I wouldn't be surprised that down the road lots of those vaccinated will get cancer, unfortunately.
Here is the junk they are putting in the Gardasil vaccine........
Ingredients of Gardasil:
GARDASIL* is a non-infectious recombinant, quadrivalent vaccine prepared from the highly purified virus-like particles (VLPs) of the major capsid (L1) protein of HPV Types 6, 11, 16, and 18. The L1 proteins are produced by separate fermentations in recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae and self-assembled into VLPs. The fermentation process involves growth of S. cerevisiae on chemically-defined fermentation media which include vitamins, amino acids, mineral salts, and carbohydrates. The VLPs are released from the yeast cells by cell disruption and purified by a series of chemical and physical methods. The purified VLPs are adsorbed on preformed aluminum-containing adjuvant (amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate). The quadrivalent HPV VLP vaccine is a sterile liquid suspension that is prepared by combining the adsorbed VLPs of each HPV type and additional amounts of the aluminum-containing adjuvant and the final purification buffer.
GARDASIL is a sterile preparation for intramuscular administration. Each 0.5-mL dose contains approximately 20 mcg of HPV 6 L1 protein, 40 mcg of HPV 11 L1 protein, 40 mcg of HPV 16 L1 protein, and 20 mcg of HPV 18 L1 protein.
Each 0.5-mL dose of the vaccine contains approximately 225 mcg of aluminum (as amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate adjuvant), 9.56 mg of sodium chloride, 0.78 mg of L-histidine, 50 mcg of polysorbate 80, 35 mcg of sodium borate, and water for injection. The product does not contain a preservative or antibiotics.
After thorough agitation, GARDASIL is a white, cloudy liquid.
http://mygardasil.com/ingredientsforgardasil.html
Posted by: Raymond Gallup | February 25, 2008 at 08:32 PM
I was wondering whether the CDC had done any further testing to identify the high risk categories for the vaccine after all those deaths from the Gardisil. Wouldn't it make sense to see *who* is at risk before this is recommended for boys? Everyone knows that boys are even more susceptible than girls to vaccine injury as evidenced by the 4 to 1 ratio of boys to girls for autism spectrum disorders. I am wondering how many will have the opportunity to be chivalrous after this spate of vaccine assault. I am guessing the number of deaths will likely be 4 fold don't you think?
Posted by: Hannah | February 25, 2008 at 12:32 PM
"Of course, many parents will automatically dismiss Gardasil. They view Big Pharma in general and new vaccines in particular with suspicion. Barbara Goodstein, a Manhattan insurance executive, who has a daughter, 10, and a son, 12, plans to refuse the vaccine for both. “I wouldn’t give children that young a shot without multiple generations of research,” she said."
Is there anybody out there listening to this woman? It seems as though common sense is beginning to percolate to the masses. Nearly everyone is capable of recognizing when too much is TOO much. They say when you stack too much on a house of cards it will always come crashing down. Sooner rather than later. Waiting for that to happen with eager anticipation.
Posted by: Sandy | February 25, 2008 at 10:10 AM
The NYT article sure leaves out a lot of useful information. For example, they talk about how unpleasant genital warts can be, but they don't mention that the vaccine only works against four of the viruses. What hasn't been determined is whether other viruses will increase if four are knocked out of the game. Seems like a possibility. So the nice guy who says to a girl: "I've been vaxed, you don't need to worry about catching HPV from me" could very well be fibbing. I also noticed the huge money already coming in for Merck from this vaccine.
Posted by: Deborah | February 25, 2008 at 09:03 AM