The Toronto Star recently published a report about the HPVvaccine Gardasil. The result was a firestorm from vax-apologists. The
vax-apologists would like the story to disappear. There are reports of people
cancelling their subscriptions to the Star.
Maybe the Star should reconsider the title of the story, and
the point. Let's suppose the Star had printed a different story. A different heading. But the same facts, minus the vaccine
references. The Star might have reported a story like this:
==============================================
Sixty girls and women in Canada have convulsed or developed
disabling joint and muscle pain and other debilitating conditions, and no-one
is investigating. In the cases discussed in this article, it is the opinion of
a patient, or doctor that they know the cause. Official documents have been
filed making that claim. But there are no investigations, no-one cares.
The girls, and their parents have nowhere to turn. Some of
the girls have, after several years, made partial recoveries and are trying to
live normal lives. Others are still bouncing from doctor to doctor, looking for
answers.
These numbers are from voluntary reports, and it is likely
that the true numbers are higher.
Although no cause has been clearly identified, and it
appears that there are similar circumstances. Some risk factors have been
identified, but no-one is analyzing the data. No one is investigating.
=============================================
That's the true story. It's not (yet) a story about
vaccines. It's a story about
irresponsible medical systems, that fail to investigate cases of illness and
death that have a common theme.
If you read this story, what would you think? You might
wonder: "if the parents, the girls, the women, or any of the doctors
believe they know the cause, why didn't the Star have the guts to print what
they said?"
Thousands of Canadians eat hamburgers, and pizza, with no
ill effects. But when someone is harmed,
when someone gets seriously sick from eating hamburgers, or pizza, an
investigation is warranted. If we found
that eating a particular company's hamburgers sometimes appeared to result in
disability or death, would we look further? Or would we cover it over with a
blanket, ignore those who are sick, and the families who lost members? Eating
hamburger is safe. Real safe. But when it becomes dangerous, we
investigate.
When someone's health is damaged, or a death occurs, after a
vaccination, investigation stops. And
that's shameful.
What's the difference? Maybe we understand how death and
disability can occur from eating tainted hamburger. Maybe we can test the hamburger to clearly
identify the cause. Maybe we can
investigate and learn how to prevent this from happening again.
With vaccine injury claims, we don't understand. We don't
know what to check. And we're not trying
to learn either. If we don't look for the cause, how can we expect to find
it? Is that scientific? Frankly, no, it is not. It's hiding our heads
in the sand, and hoping it doesn't strike our family next.
Who is investigating the health of these girls and
women? Certainly not the vax-apologists.
Seriously, we have 60 girls and women who appear to be suffering from similar
illnesses, possibly similar causes. Who is looking into this? Who should be looking into this? Did any of
the vax-apologists suggest that each case should be investigated? Not
likely. The only real course for the
girls, women, and their parents is ?what? If it was a hamburger, or a pizza,
they could take someone to court. But if
the cause is a vaccine. Nobody cares.
Actually, somebody cares - somebody doesn't want investigations.
Imagine you are a parent, or a girl, or a woman, going from
doctor to doctor, without any answers.
What is this disease? What is the
cause? What's the treatment? Nothing. Nobody knows and nobody cares. Dead bodies don't matter. If they're not dead, it's not
important.
Don't print it. That's the
response the Toronto Star received. For
shame.
================
Vax-apologists like their mantras "there is no
proof that..." and with regards to items in vaccine reporting systems
"correlation is not causation..."
That message is simply wrong, simply backwards. The vaccine reporting systems
collect "evidence" supported by medical professionals, and patients.
There is "no proof that the evidence is wrong." Nobody checked.
Saying "there is no proof that the evidence is right", is
irresponsible nonsense. If you care, truly care, about proof: check.
If you care, really care, about these young girls, check until you know
what happened.
In the situations reported by the Toronto Star, there is
"no proof that the vaccine caused the injury", because no-one
attempted to check. Proof starts with evidence, but it requires due diligence, not undue ignore-ance.
Medical Error: There is clear evidence of medical error. Anyone
can read the vaccine package insert for Gardasil, and see that it clearly says:
"------------------------------CONTRAINDICATIONS-------------------------------
• Hypersensitivity, including severe allergic reactions to yeast (a vaccine
component), or after a previous dose of GARDASIL. (4, 11)
----------------"
Some of the people reported in the Toronto Star story had
"Hypersensitivity, including severe allergic reaction to... or after a
previous does of GARDASIL", but the second injection, and sometimes a third injection, proceeded anyway.
Should we blame the vaccine? The medical
staff? The poorly written, message hidden in plain sight, in the 27 pages of vaccine packaging insert?
Unfortunately, for some of the subjects, the initial "hypersensativity" was so severe that no further doses were administered, but they have still not recovered completely, according to their testimony.
Unfortunately, for some of the subjects, the initial "hypersensativity" was so severe that no further doses were administered, but they have still not recovered completely, according to their testimony.
Did the Toronto Star fail? Or did they simply do a poor job
of reporting a very important set of events?
==============================
There are two more important things that the Toronto Star didn't say
about Gardasil, and the vax-apologists don't mention either.
First: Effectiveness. Vaccine effectiveness differs from
vaccine to vaccine. According to current
scientific research, the measles vaccine is very effective. The influenza vaccine, in comparison is not
very effective and is very ineffective for people over the age of 65 - one of
the target populations.
How effective is Gardasil?
We have no idea. We have no
science. We have scientific theories,
but no scientific studies that measure the science of Gardasil.
Why don't we know how effective Gardasil is? Because
Gardasil is a vaccine designed on the theory that reducing HPV infection will
reduce cancers later in life. Gardasil is being administered to teenage boys
and girls. The cancers resulting from
HPV infections typically occur 20 to 40 years later. The scientific results of
today's Gardasil immunizations will be available for study in about 30 years -
in 2145.
Everyone who takes a Gardasil vaccination, and anyone who
does not take a vaccination is 'essential data' for research studies in the
2140's that attempt to understand the results of today's vaccinations. In order
for those studies to make science based conclusions about Gardasil, we need
people who take the vaccine, and people who do not take the vaccine.
Second: Health. This
is a blog about health and healthicine. But no-one is studying the health
effects of vaccines. Many researchers
study the illness effects of vaccines, but no one can answer these questions:
Do vaccines make you healthier?
Do some vaccines make you healthier?
Do some vaccines make you less healthy?
No-one is studying these questions. Health is bigger than illness, health is a
super-set of illness, as healthicine is a super-set of medicine. But there are no 'health experts' and no
'health studies' that do not focus solely on illness.
==============================
Something needs to change.
And changes don't happen as a result of denial and apologies. They
happen as a result of investigation and understanding. Kudos to the Toronto
Star for their investigation. We need to
encourage them to look further.
.....disclosure...
I am not anti-vaccine.
In the past year, I have had two vaccinations, and refused an offer of a
third. I am pro-choice. This is, after all, a blog about health freedom.
to your health, tracy