Babyblue
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 12,187
- Reaction score
- 5
Thanks, Babyblue. I didn't bother to provide a link, as the FDA website is so easy to access a link is almost redundant.
Verbiosity does not a discussion win. You are beginning to go in circles. Doesn't do much for credibility.
Actually, there wasn't a circle in there. Not having anything to say in reply and avoiding all the points I made doesn't do much for credibility either.
Maria.
You obviously have no clue what is being discussed here.
Yes, I have. I read them since the first post.
So best to educated yourself before spewing out nonsense.
Ridiculous ? How do you know ?
so i guess this means we should avoid all medications because of the *possibility* that they may be unsafe?
I did my homework. Gardisil is a vaccine made from a dead virus. It's mechanism is to prevent cancer. A girl isn't going to be sterilized by the vaccine itself. She could be severely affected by HPV or a cancer in adulthood. Like someone suggested above, you really need to educate yourself about Human Papilloma Virus and Gardisil before you post. You really know very little about both.
Maria
That is not proof. That is like taking my post and posting it in another forum or thread to use as proof.
Yet again another unreliable source.
Well, that's what I do. Except for thyroxine which I've been taking since I was 18 months old.
But I avoid taking anything else.
I still have up's and downs but I haven't been suicidal for years. Apart from the first time when I was about 12 all my suicidal attempts have been while I was medicated. Then several years ago I decided to avoid all unneccessary medicine as far as I could and I've been ok.
I did my homework. Gardisil is a vaccine made from a dead virus. It's mechanism is to prevent cancer. A girl isn't going to be sterilized by the vaccine itself. She could be severely affected by HPV or a cancer in adulthood. Like someone suggested above, you really need to educate yourself about Human Papilloma Virus and Gardisil before you post. You really know very little about both.
If, you want to let them to experiment on your daughter with HPV, then you are on your own risk. Good luck!
I have no further to discuss on this matter.
I'm not trying to argue for Maria, but if you're going to tell others to educate themselves, you might want to do the same.
I'm not trying to argue for Maria, but if you're going to tell others to educate themselves, you might want to do the same. Gardasil is not at all made from a dead virus.
This is why I think it's important for people to have access to more information than just what is distributed by Merck and the FDA, so that they have all the information they would need to form educated conclusions.
VIS Human papillomavirus vaccineHPV vaccine. is an inactivated (not live) vaccine. which protects against 4 major types of HPV. ... the vaccine does. not protect against all HPV types that ... Immunization Action Coalition
Keeping educating. Read on my friends
VIS Human papillomavirus vaccineHPV vaccine. is an inactivated (not live) vaccine. which protects against 4 major types of HPV. ... the vaccine does. not protect against all HPV types that ... Immunization Action Coalition
Keeping educating. Read on my friends
But that's not what Gardasil is. It's a VLP. GARDASIL , SPC from the eMC
Again, this is exactly why I worry about where people get their information, and how easy it is to just be force-fed something and not even question it. Those pdf's and fliers scare me, because they can put whatever they want on them. Look, if you want to take the vaccine, that's up to you. I just worry about people making decisions without accurate information.
Right now, I don't think there has been enough time to study the actual long-term effects of the drug, and I think that the reasoning they are using might be dangerous since they are focusing on statistical correlations, not the actual pathology or mechanism any more. As I said before, go back and read the actual literature on it. Is HPV maybe involved in leading to precancerous conditions? Sure. But is it enough to say, "It's there a lot, therefore it's the cause"? I would feel better if instead of simply jumping to conclusions and trying to get a drug on the market as quickly as possible (and even trying to make it mandatory before they've adequately studied it!), they spent more time looking into what that mechanism might entail, other factors, an actual pathological process, and many other things. They're luring people in with a false sense of security, which is taking the emphasis off of further studies and testing.
But as always, if you think you are fully educated on the subject, there's not much I can say that will change your mind.