START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

To Vaccinate Your Teenager, Or Not?

  • 1 of 3
To Vaccinate Your Teenager, Or Not?

As soon as a teenage girl walks into her pediatricianís office, he will suggest another vaccination, to be delivered through a series of shots spaced out over six months.† This time the vaccine is Gardasil, intended to protect her from being infected by the human papilloma virus, HPV, which might cause cervical cancer later in life.

On balance, is this series of vaccinations a good idea?† Is it safe; is it worth the possible side effects?

Gardasil is manufactured by Merck Vaccines.† It was fast-tracked for approval in June 2006 by the Food & Drug Administration after only two years and limited studies of only 1,200 girls for only two years.† Like all pharmaceutical products, as well as the chemicals used in all manufactured products, from skin cream to formaldehyde, the manufacturer is in charge of the studies.

When, after the two-year study, the CDC recommended that Gardasil routinely be given to all 11- to 12-year-old girls, the head of the CDC was Julie Gerberding.† With the change of administrations, she left for a job as president of Merck Vaccines.† (Just one more typical example of the revolving door between industry and the folks who are supposed to protect our health.)

Merck is the company that had known for nearly a decade before it became public knowledge that infants getting the federally-mandated multiple vaccinations were thus getting an elevated dose of mercury from the preservative in those vaccines (a dose up to 87 times higher than guidelines for the maximum daily consumption of mercury from fish), but did not disclose this information.† Gardasil is preserved with aluminum, like mercury, a toxin.

It is not clear that Gardasil is truly effective nor worth the risk.

  • 1 of 3

Read more: Children, General Health, Health, Love, Poisoned for Profit, Sex, Women's Health, , ,

have you shared this story yet?

go ahead, give it a little love

Alice Shabecoff

Alice Shabecoff is a freelance journalist focusing on family and consumer topics, and co-author of the recently published book Poisoned for Profit (Chelsea Green). Her work has appeared in The New York Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, and International Herald Tribune, among other publications. She was executive director of the National Consumers League, the countryís oldest consumer organization, and executive director of the national nonprofit Community Information Exchange.

213 comments

+ add your own
12:36PM PDT on Mar 18, 2011

Thanks, still questioning.

8:56AM PST on Feb 9, 2011

Mit,
I did like your last comment, "Science works, whether you do it for profit or not. etc.,etc..
i still do believe the vaccines are questionable as to whether they work efficiently, and are safe.
And the last part of your comment is spot on. "What's not science would be suppressing or distorting data and findings for profit or any other motive." This what myself, Jewels, Chris, and many others have been inferring in our comments.
You have put it into words very nicely.
Thank you

6:46PM PST on Feb 8, 2011

Jewel S. Science works, whether you do it for profit or not. The MMR, diptheria and other vacccines work no less and no more if they were developed for profit or not. What's not science would be suppressing or distorting data and findings for profit or any other motive.

6:38PM PST on Feb 8, 2011

Science would be more credible if it was non profit but it is not. Period. Not a lot of words needed. It is simple but some of you want to be right (or what you think is right) instead of healthy.

6:37PM PST on Feb 8, 2011

Keith, the article a refered only states that homeopathics misinterpreted the significance of Montagnier's work. The hypothesis that water alone could somehow continue to hold casts of whatever molecule that used to be there can't well, hold water. First of all, the pattern would be 3 dimensional, surrounding the molecules of interest. If the molecule is removed, then you must crack open this cast (and, hence, destroy it) to get at it in the first place. So, if such casts did actually form, they would have to travel with the molecules they encase.

Second, lets say these casts or patterns do form. You'll only get one around each molecule. As you dilute the solution to 1/2^100. of what it is, you have only a few to none of both molecules and casts. In contrast, 18 grams of water contains 6.02214179×10^23 molecules of H2O (i.e. 1 mole). You can see that'll take quite of bit of the diluted solution to gather just one of either the actual molecule or one of its casts, or patterns.

6:18PM PST on Feb 8, 2011

Jewel S. wrote:

"science is not the end all be all of information. Some things science discovered years ago has been found to be wrong...."

Science is a method in which to discover facts and laws in the natural world. It is a human endeaver and as such is subjet to human failings. But the method itself is sound. You make observations. You then make a hypthesis to explain the observations. You test the hypothesis by making predictions about future events and then collect the data and see how successful your predictions were. When possible, you have a control. I.e., your control predicts the sought after effect will not occur if the conditions of your hypothesis are not met. Your hypothesis have value if your predictions come true in a statistical significant way and, if you have a control, the predictions do not come true in a statistical significant way. But your job is never done. As time goes by and more data and greater scope of data comes in, your hypothesis (or theory) continually comes under scrutiny. That continual refinement and, yes, sometimes replacement, of theories, may be what you call wrong today. But, that is the essence of progress. No change, no this turns out to be more right than what came before or we discovered mistakes in our past methodology, would mean no progress, no improvement.

But it this isn't random replacement of theories. If a theory worked before in a certain domain, the new theory would still have to explain that.

10:42AM PST on Feb 8, 2011

So, you're saying that one of your medical scientists who received the Nobel prize for medicine is a crackpot, thus bringing the establishment into disrepute?
Seems that no matter who they are, if they get out of line, they put them through the wringer. (similar to Wakefield)
I assume you could apply this to many medical tests being carried out, and rushed through for Big pharma.
Homeopathy-200 years of 'getting away with it'? Seems a long time for that.

5:11AM PST on Feb 8, 2011

And the poo-hooing of, "Big Homeo", continues...

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2081

11:48PM PST on Feb 7, 2011

Mit.
I maybe should have said, "We have to dismiss some, or a majority of claims.............
I stated it that way, assuming you realised we don't entirely go along with the germ theory.
Medical science has made some very useful finds, and develops some amazing techniques. So they are not all bad. :-)

Cooked food, raw food. The main difference I see is that you need the raw food for healing,regenerating the body. I really don't think an all cooked food diet could do that.
Just my opinion. :-)
Cheers.

11:35PM PST on Feb 7, 2011

I seem to remember someone poo hooing homeopathy.
Well here's one of many in the medical world that embraces it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/luc-montagnier-homeopathy-taken-seriously_b_814619.html

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

people are talking

Why should these magnificent animals pay the price of misery for the sake of these ignorant fools. …

Thanks for new recipes.

My Name is John Richmond,I never believed in Love Spells or Magics until I met this special spell …

Story idea? Want to blog? Contact the editors!



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.