I agree -all this fuss about Gardasil.
A few dead women - that's the cost. Of course just so long as my daughter isn't one of the 'dead' statistics!
Medical researchers are infallible -that's why thalidomide babies don't exist; pregnant women didn't lose foetuses due to Debendox; Depo Provera didn't cause blindness, etc; high doses of the first contraceptives pills didn't cause thromboses & gall stones & HTR supplements didn't increase breast cancer rates.
Give us a break. Blokes have been pumping chemicals into women's bodies for years. Let's prevent this virus. Make Gardasil compulsory for every male! And teach them how to use condoms!

Shocking to hear of more side effects to Gardasil and this time in the form of pancreatitis but really it is time that this vaccine be stopped as you have written, Renate. It is simply not needed. We do not even know if the causation that HPV is the cause of cervical cancer is correct. The numbers of girls particularly in Australia who get this cancer are very low because most well fed Australians have healthy immune systems which deal very well with the virus HPV. Most sufferers of cervical cancer are old women. Why then are we vaccinating young girls? Obviously this is a win for big business as usual and it doesn't matter how many girls' immune systems are damaged along the way.

I think the author's agenda is not so much giving women control of their reproductive rights as trying to shove the sex genie back in the bottle.

The argument that the side effects from Gardasil are rare is simply not true. Gardasil fits the medical definition of a common reaction rate. Gardasil also has far more adverse reactions than other vaccines such as tetanus have.

The argument that some deaths are worth the lives Gardasil will save ignores the fact that Gardasil is not actually necessary in preventing cervical cancer - pap smears are. The large worldwide death rates from cervical cancer quoted in newspaper reports do not mention that the vast majority of these deaths occur in third world countries where pap smears are not available. Likewise, the majority of cervical cancer deaths in western countries are poor women who do not receive regular pap smears.

Pap smears will save cervical cancer deaths, but as Renate pointed out – there is no evidence yet that Gardasil has prevented a single cervical cancer death. In addition, no independent research exists yet which tests the efficacy of the vaccine (unlike the independent research that exists to prove the link between lung cancer and smoking)

It is good to have all this detail and references put together in the same place - a really useful article.

I didn't realise that it was not mandatory to report adverse reactions. I agree that all girls and women who have had the vaccine should be contacted - there is an urgent need for data and it is the only responsible thing to do. Unfortunately it seems too little too late - because these girls have unknowingly become the 'trials' that were not appropriately conducted. How unfair.

I also agree the vaccine should be halted until all this has been done. It is important that people can trust government vaccine programmes - experimenting with girls and women does not build trust.

Excellent article. Thanks, Renate, for daring to be one of the much-needed critics in Australia who as you point out 'are almost perceived as national traitors'. Your research is comprehensive and wide ranging and I agree, just on the precautionary principle alone, health minister, Nicola Roxon, should act immediately to halt this unproven experiment on young girls.

Caford

"I agree -all this fuss about Gardasil. A few dead women - that's the cost. Of course just so long as my daughter isn't one of the 'dead' statistics!"

Spot on! Your sarcasm becomes you! I agree with every word you posted and also the comments of bettymc, Manning and Gertrude.

billie

"I think the author's agenda is not so much giving women control of their reproductive rights as trying to shove the sex genie back in the bottle."

Are you for real, billie? I find this comment hard to fathom, especially coming as it does from a fellow female. Renate is clearly arguing the case for greater control and choice for women. She's arguing against pharmaceutical conglomerates seeking to profit through compromising young girls' long-term health. And she's raised the valid point as to why is it that only girls are being administered this vaccine when boys are just as likely to harbour the virus.

I challenge you to quote anything that Renate has said which could possibly support the absurd, damaging and unsubstantiated claim you have made against her.