Thursday, December 3, 2009

On The "Gardasil® Girls" Article, In The Cape Cod Times


While the overall proportion of thousands (perhaps over 3,000) of potentially Gardasil®-related adverse events, compared to a total of 26 million doses delivered likely still reflects a tolerable risk-to-benefit ratio, it is my growing opinion that the Gardasil vaccine should not be as automatic a decision for otherwise abstinent, healthy young girls in the United States as some might suggest. This decision certainly deserves careful consideration, and a long and reflective discussion with one's health care providers, I think.

Do go read the entire, longish article published online this morning, and consider this snippet, from the Cape Cod Times:

. . . .A growing number of young women are joining the ranks of "Gardasil Girls," young women who believe they have been injured by the Merck vaccine that was approved in 2006 and has been heavily marketed as a preventive for cervical cancer.

On Oct. 15, the Cape Cod Times ran a story about three teens, all of whom developed a rash and other symptoms — in one case, partial paralysis — after their vaccinations.

One of O'Brien's neighbors, knowing she was frustrated about Annie's rash and Brianna's lingering health issues, showed her the article, O'Brien says.

Barbara Loe Fisher of the nonprofit National Vaccine Information Center says there are enough adverse reactions to the Gardasil vaccine to warrant a federal investigation.

Fisher, who is a founder of the vaccine watchdog group, has asked Congress and federal health agencies to look into VAERS reports that more than 3,000 young women have been harmed by the vaccine and 48 have died.

So far, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FDA say the vaccine — given in three separate shots — is safe and effective, with side effects including pain at the injection site, risk of fainting and blood clots.

A CDC vaccine report, last updated Nov. 5, says 26 million doses of Gardasil were distributed in the United States as of Sept. 1. The agency says that, based on its reporting systems, it continues to recommend Gardasil vaccination. . . .

Food for thought, no doubt.

No comments: