Sounds like you're part of the anti-vaccination network. Letting people die of preventable diseases due to grossly exaggerated risks.

Shameful.

"The list of adverse effects following Gardasil is extensive with many of the side effects serious and long-lasting. They include...."

And how does the incidence rate of these conditions in people injected with Gardasil compare with the rate in those not injected? Because that's the real issue, isn't it? But by the way in which it's been carefully omitted from this article, I think I can guess the answer.

oh dear another fringe group shouting at the moon.

Hooray or a chorus of very loud cheering them on duck quacks for Renate and Helen.
Even a cursory Google search on the topic can provide support for their claims and cautions. Try Mercola and Gardasil for starters beginning with the Lew Rockwell item.
Of course some people will dismiss Mercola as a quack, but they are just promoting their own closed-minded prejudices. To me his informative newsletter provides a necessary questioning of how Big Pharma promotes and controls what is acceptable within the mega-billion bucks (to me made) USA sickness industry, and the way in which it promotes its hucksterism all over the world, including here in the land of Oz.

Part 1:
"In the U.S. the total number of adverse effects stands now at 30,000, with 138 deaths 5977 girls and young women whose health never recovered. Due to the lack of mandatory reporting, only between 1 per cent and 10 per cent of adverse reactions are ever recorded, so unfortunately we are really looking at much higher figures."

This anti-vaccine sleight of hand is becomming very tiresome. The authors' "30,000" is from raw, unverified figures that have not been subject to any follow up methodology to correct for other variables or to seek to recreate the subjective claim in strict conditions. The figure of 30,000 is from the same pool of VAERS self-reporting that accepted reports of patients turning into The Incredible Hulk and Wonder Woman. These two comical reports purposely intended to expose the unreliable bias of VAERS to which I'm alluding.

So what of the 1 - 10% under-reporting figure? The reality (unsurprisingly) is that health authorities need to know of every type of adverse reaction - no matter how seemingly insignificant. This improves the quality as well as quantity of known reactions. In fact the bulk of reactions constitute redness, temporary swelling, warmth, itching, soreness, a small lump at the injection site or other minor, temporary irritation.

Across the range of available vaccines, adverse reactions vary notably. Depending on the antigen, patients may experience raised temperature, nausea, dizziness, fatigue or other transient symptoms. In the case of the influenza vaccine, the recipient may experience short term 'flu-like symptoms as the vaccine successfully stimulates the immune system.

The reason these are under-reported is that they are very minor in nature or duration. Parents or patients may rarely give them much thought, and even less so, follow through with reporting as an Adverse Reaction. Tendency to report symptoms from adverse reaction is positively correlated to duration.
Cont...

Part 2:
Thus for health authorities, the problem is the trivial nature of the reaction precipitating a reluctance in patients to revisit/contact the vaccine administrator or go to the trouble of making a report. Within a few hours the minor irritation has passed in 90 - 99% of cases. It is this fact that yields the 1 - 10% reporting figure anti-vaccine lobbyists continue to promote.

When added to unverified, self reported "reactions" we have a strategy to mislead the public and falsely argue that 90% of serious reactions are not reported. The figures that should be consulted regarding adverse reactions are not raw, self-reported and unconfirmed, but those that emerge from properly designed reviews with robust methodology.

Despite citing DAEN, the authors have failed utterly to mention that loading the DAEN web page brings up this warning on causality.

http://i.imgur.com/RZ5nk.png

The first point is: "An adverse event does *not* mean that the medicine is the cause of the adverse event".

VAERS has a similar warning and also:

"The degree of underreporting varies widely. As an example, a great many of the millions of vaccinations administered each year by injection cause soreness, but relatively few of these episodes lead to a VAERS report. Physicians and patients understand that minor side effects of vaccinations often include this kind of discomfort, as well as low fevers. On the other hand, more serious and unexpected medical events are probably more likely to be reported than minor ones, especially when they occur soon after vaccination, even if they may be coincidental and related to other causes."

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index

As noted, the above reinforces that "a great many" vaccinations cause soreness but few lead to a report. Alternatively, serious and unexpected events tend to be reported even when not related to the vaccine. IE; a coincidence. This is the opposite to what the authors are arguing.

The rest of the article is peppered with similar deception. But for this well-worn point at least it should be clear how the authors (and many other anti-vaxxers) use DAEN and VAERS to deceive their readers.

It's all fun and games until it happens to your own child, whether that's a serious disease or a serious adverse reaction you'll permanently be on one side of this polarizing debate from that point onwards.

The top comment on this list immediately speaks out lambasting this post as being strictly anti-vaccination, which does a disservice to the reality of what has happened in Japan where they are no longer recommending HPV vaccination from Gardasil due to concerns over too many adverse reactions. Governments don't make these decisions lightly.

As for the straight numbers - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22480925

Potential overestimation of HPV vaccine impact due to unmasking of non-vaccine types: quantification using a multi-type mathematical model.

RESULTS: There could be an apparent maximum increase of 3-10% in long-term cervical cancer incidence due to non-vaccine HPV types following vaccination.

The vaccine could be causing an INCREASE in cervical cancers due to unmasking the many other HPV strains the vaccine does not target. Do your own research, don't just bleat what the mainstream media is telling you to bleat. The best way to avoid cervical cancer is not trusting on a vaccine, but by getting regular checkups and keeping your home and diet as free as possible of carcinogenics. If you're not sure what all those ingredients in your bath products are, look some of them up at the Environmental Working Group's database. Get educated, it's your health, not your government's health.

Australia is quickly becoming known around the globe as one of the most tyrannical countries where vaccination is concerned, pretty soon passing the USA.

What a load of rubbish this article is.
Just a week ago I went to a seminar on gynaecological cancers, where a number of Gynae medical specialists, including chemotherapy and radiotherapy doctors gave presentations.

They put up Australian health department stats and graphs showing the dramatic decline in cervical cancers, and resulting deaths, since the introduction of gardasil injections for young teenagers and young women.
All the other gynaecological cancers have continued to rise in number.

These are the medical people that treat only these sorts of cancer, so I tend to go with what they say than any other would-be 'experts'.

My daughter had her vaccination at the age of 13, with not a trace of side effects, and neither did any of the hundreds of girls at her school.

I would certainly rather she took her chances with a proven vaccine than with cervical cancer.
Her cousin died of cervical cancer at the age of 22, ten years ago...

More anti-vaccine silliness. The cherry picking of source material (I mean whale.to of all places), the failure to make proper comparisons, the same old debunked claims returning like zombies. It reminds me a lot of the efforts of climate change deniers.

This bit “In the U.S. the total number of adverse effects stands now at 30,000, with 138 deaths…”

The VAERS database contains mainly self-reported adverse events following vaccination. Most are trivial: 94% are for dizziness, nausea, headache, fainting and pain at the injection site. Klein and Lobato fail to mention this.

It is the serious adverse effects that should be looked at. Even here, most are unrelated to the vaccine, but just happened to occur shortly after the vaccination occurred. Klein and Lobato carry on about the 138 deaths, but even then they are not being honest about what is going on. In the database, causes of death have included: diabetes, genetically inherited amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, illicit drug use, abortion, meningoencephalitis, and influenza – deaths totally unrelated to the vaccine, but Klein and Lobato want people to think these deaths were caused by the vaccine.

There is some good analysis of the VAERS adverse effects from HPV here http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=184421

We then get a couple of anecdotes, but without adequate medical history to make useful sense of them.

RichidsCoulter chimes in with a research paper they have failed to read properly. The research paper can be found here http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X12004574

What the research is actually saying is that the number of cancers attributed to non-vaccine strains of HPV in the future could increase by 3 to 10% due to over-estimates of the number of cancers attributed to the vaccine strains of HPV now. This would not be a real increase in cancer at all.

Suseonline, this bit from your post surprised me: "Australian health department stats and graphs showing the dramatic decline in cervical cancers, and resulting deaths, since the introduction of gardasil injections for young teenagers and young women." I would have thought that Gardisil hadn't been around long enough to have had a measurable impact on cancer figures yet, given the lead time for cancers to develop. Did anyone question that?

My daughter was one of the first wave to have the Gardasil Vaccine. I was so keen that I payed full price for the vaccine, not wanting to wait until it was on the PBS. She delayed sexual activity until after the protocol was complete.

Now 24, I have just attended her first Colposcopy. She has NEVER had a normal pap smear. Her risk was low...she is not promiscuous, she is a non smoker, she has ZERO family history and she lives a healthy lifestyle.

There are apparently 4 HPV types that Gardasil protects against. To my surprise the doctor revealed that AT NO TIME, is the type of HPV that causes lesions of any type investigated in the pathology process. This means that no-one is checking whether the vaccine is preventing those 4 types of HPV. NO-ONE!

My daughter has been poisoned by a vaccine that has no place in a health system. She will suffer because I believed that the vaccine worked. I guarantee, there are many more cases like hers on the horizon...an avalanche in fact.

The AUSTRALIAN HEALTH SYSTEM IS BROKEN. BAN THIS VACCINE!

Hi AussieMum,
I am very sorry to hear about your experience with Gardasil and wish your daughter a speedy recovery. As one of the authors of this article I wonder if you would contact me
via my email
questiongardasil@gmail.com