What I want to do is say that the numbers that I reported on in previous articles about the Gardasil vaccine were not accurate. I based those numbers on the actual reports in the VAERS data base. What I found today when I was checking on new reports I found reports stating multiple patients. This is what I found after reading 15 pages and 144 reported events.
There are 57 reports in the data base that state multiple patients with adverse reactions. What this means is that the reported number is greater than first thought. The total that I came up with is staggering.
But first I am going to give you an update.
What I reported on November 11, 2007 taken from the NationalVaccineInformationCenter.
4031 reported incidents 59 were considered life threatening 134 were hospitalized 694 had not recovered at the time of the report 81 are disabled at the time of the report 8 have died
These numbers have increased as I knew they would.
As of today, December 10, 2007 this is what has been reported. I added together HPV and HPV4.
4306 reported incidents + 2141 (newly found) = 6447 (see chart below) 71 were considered life threatening 173 were hospitalized 730 had not recovered at the time of the report 93 are disabled at the time of the report 10 have died
One of the things that happened since my last report is that I received an email from an organization in Norway that is putting up a good fight against allowing the children of Norway to receive the dangerous vaccine Gardasil. They do not want their children to suffer the effects of this vaccine like we are allowing our children to suffer. It seems that they put the health of their children before profit. My hat goes off to Norway. If I ever get the chance I would love to visit Norway and get to know the people and the culture.
Now to the scary part. What I have done is created a graph that will give you a base number for the 57 reports. Some of the numbers are going to be estimates based on what is presented in the report.
What we have are an additional 2198 cases reported according to this graph. If we take out the 57 reports that I mentioned earlier that number goes down to 2141. What this does is bring the number of reported cases up from 4306 to 6447 reported adverse effects from Gardasil. I recommend that you go to the VAERS site and under symptoms put in the word patients or females. That will bring up 144 events but go through them to find the 57. It is not something for the faint of heart.
Also in the reports I found one that was of special interest. It was received from a company representative. What they reported was on a literature article concerning females who were vaccinated. This is what they said, “According to the article, there have been ‘injuries’ when the vaccine is given concomitantly with ‘vaccines other than Recombivax HB. The article indicated that ‘1/3 of the ‘adverse events’ occurred in girls who were 16 years old or younger who were given Gardasil concomitantly’ with other vaccines. According to the representative, the article also stated that Gardasil can ‘enhance cancer when given to a woman who is already infected with one of the strains of the virus included in the vaccine,’ although in this instance, the representative did not indicate a specific patient was involved.”
What this has just told me is that the chances of getting cancer have just increased because of this vaccine. It also means that before any female starting at the age of 9 decides to get this dangerous vaccine they need to get a pap smear to rule out HPV first. If you do not you have just increased your risk of cancer and I do not want to see any woman go through that horror.
This goes out to all the parents out their considering this vaccine for their daughters. What do you think your 9 year old daughter is going to feel like after she gets her first pap smear? My opinion is that she will feel rather violated by her trusted medical professional.
In this report to the FDA it does state that a female who has the HPV virus when getting the vaccine increases their chance by 44.6% of getting precancerous lesions. If you scroll to page 9, document page 8 you will find this statement.
History of the HPV DNA Nested PCR Application
On October 30, 2006, the undersigned, Sin Hang Lee, M.D., a practicing pathologist wrote a letter  to Dr. Steven I. Gutman, Director, Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and Safety (OIVD), Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), FDA, enclosing the manuscript of a scientific report titled “Human Papillomavirus Genotyping by DNA Sequencing-The Gold Standard HPV Test for Patient Care”  which was submitted to a professional journal to be considered for publication. The purpose of the letter was to inform the FDA that a more sensitive and more specific device is being introduced for detection of HPV in clinical samples and for preparation of materials for HPV genotyping and to request advice and guidance from the agency for making this device available to hospital laboratories at the point of care . With this letter and manuscript, the FDA was informed of the need for a new generation of HPV testing based on new information available because :
1) A sensitive HPV detection device that can provide accurate genotyping information is needed for following patients with persistent infection that is now recognized to be the tumor promoter in cancer induction.
2) A PCR-based HPV detection device with provision for accurate HPV genotyping is more urgently needed now because vaccination with GardasilTM of the women who are already sero-positive and PCR-positive for vaccine-relevant genotypes of HPV has been found to increase the risk of developing high-grade precancerous lesions by 44.6%, according to an FDA VRBPAC Background Document: GardasilTM HPV Quadrivalent Vaccine . May 18, 2006 VRBPAC Meeting. www.fda.izov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4222B3 .
This I found on page 11, document page 10.
The introduction of the type-specific GardasilTM HPV vaccines among the sexually active women also requires genotype monitoring of the HPV infections before and after immunization to develop prevention strategy for the individual patients. Based on a ‘Background Document” submitted to the FDA by Merck & Co., Inc. , injection of HPV vaccines into women who have concurrent vaccine-relevant HPV type infections may increase the risk, by 44 .6%, of developing high-grade precancerous lesions in the cervix. Therefore, it would be prudent to perform a sensitive HPV detection assay with accurate genotype determination on the patients to be vaccinated if prior HPV infection is suspected.
I hope my calculations are not correct but if we have an increase of 44.6% we have the very real chance of increasing how many females die from cervical cancer to 5206 from 3600. That is an increase of 1606 families without mothers, daughters, grandmothers or step-mothers. In my opinion the increase in women dying from cervical cancer is just not worth the devastation that it will cause to all these families every year.
With all this said, do you really think that the FDA and Merck are looking out for the best interests of our children and young adults? With what I read today every man, woman and child should contact their representative and tell them “NO GARDASIL FOR ME AND MY FAMILY.”
Cynthia Janak is a freelance journalist, mother of three, foster mother of one, grandmother of five, business owner, Chamber of Commerce member. Her expertise is as an administrative professional. Her specialties are adoptee and genealogy research and research journalism. Hobbies: Writing prose, crocheting, Conservative Studies, and rehabbing houses. You can contact Cynthia Janak at [email protected] ameritech.net
Disclaimer: The recommendations in this e-zine are based on research and personal experiences of the author. Because we are all different, readers are strongly urged to check with qualified health professionals before implementing any suggestions made in this e-zine.
There is always a possibility of risk where matters of health are concerned; therefore, readers should not use this e-zine unless willing to assume that risk. It is a sign of wisdom to seek second, or third, opinions when making important decisions regarding health.