northernraven49 said:Posted on the Gender Forum
...
It’s quite sobering when you take a moment to look at the actual data. During the first 26 months following the FDA's approval of Gardasil in the US—which brings us up to August 2008—the agency received roughly 8,000 reports involving adverse events and deaths following vaccination. When you look at the list of reported side effects, it’s truly extensive. We aren't just talking about a sore arm; the reports include things like paralysis, seizures, muscle spasms, heart irregularities, kidney failure, vision issues, arthritis, breathing difficulties, severe rashes, and constant vomiting. There were also reports of miscarriages, menstrual irregularities, and reproductive system issues. Perhaps most ironic is that some recipients reported genital warts, vaginal sores, and HPV infections—which are the very things the vaccine is intended to prevent! And, most tragically, the reports even included instances of death. It really makes you stop and think about the full scope of these safety signals.
CBS News, CNN, and MSNBC.
(...)
It’s interesting to look at the actual breakdown of how things work. Based on what I've been reading, HPV types 16 and 18 are responsible for about 70% of cervical cancer cases, which is exactly what the Gardasil vaccine is designed to target. However, we have to keep in mind that the remaining 30% of cases are linked to other genotypes—specifically, there are 13 other types of the virus that can be causative agents. It is important to note that Gardasil doesn't provide protection against those other 13 genotypes. It's all about understanding those specific numbers!
The vaccination process typically happens in three separate doses, and when you add up the total cost... $1100 From what I can gather, we’re looking at how much of our hard-earned tax dollars are being funneled through the New York City budget to fund these programs. For instance, back in 2009, they set aside $600,000 specifically for this purpose. It’s important to remember that this vaccination isn't actually "free"—it’s being paid for by the taxpayers. When you look at the actual data, the cancer caused by this specific virus is quite rare, accounting for only about 3.3% of all female cancer cases. Because of that, I find it hard to see the logic behind certain local initiatives or county-wide pushes to mass-vaccinate girls at a specific age—usually around seventh grade. To me, it feels like there isn't a strong public health justification for it. We end up pouring massive amounts of money into these programs when the actual public health benefit is minimal, or perhaps even negligible, considering those low risk percentages.
Personally, I have to say I’m pretty much against articles like this one. To me, they feel incredibly biased, almost as if they're intentionally leading people—especially those who might be skimming rather than reading closely—toward the wrong conclusions. I've pulled out the specific snippets above that I believe are most important for spotting the logical traps being set here.
First off—it says that 8,000 cases were recorded, but those are just the ones noted *after* vaccination. If I recall correctly, one of the classic logical fallacies is the assumption that because one event precedes another, the first must be the cause of the second. That’s just not how logic works! A preceding event might be the culprit, but more often than not, it’s just a coincidence. So, out of those alleged 8,000 reports, maybe there are 1,000 actual issues, maybe 100, maybe even just 10—or perhaps none of them are actually side effects resulting from the shot. We simply don't know! To me, the even bigger manipulation in presenting this information (just like any other statistical data) is that they haven't mentioned the sample size. How many people were actually vaccinated? Is it 8,000? 800,000? 80,000,000? Every one of those numbers creates a completely different subjective sense of risk for me. Without knowing that number, my only thought is that this is a deliberate attempt to scare people by throwing around large, contextless figures.
Part two—the American media is reporting on this... though, if I’m being completely honest, I don't really care what they decide to broadcast. It isn't even about falling down a rabbit hole of conspiracy theories; it’s just my genuine feeling that they are far too obsessed with sensationalism. Everything is designed to sell ad space, and since ad revenue is driven by viewership, they go straight for the shock factor. Just think back to those endless, non-stop stories about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq... or all that intense coverage regarding the civil war in the North America. After everything we've seen, do you truly believe they have the actual time or the budget to commit to objective, deep-dive investigative journalism?
THIRD POINT — The argument that it "only" protects against 70% of cancer cases. Wait, hold on a second. How can anyone say "only"? For all you "smart" people who think 70% is a small number, why don't you just stop wearing seatbelts in your cars? Or better yet, don't bother putting your kids in car seats. Why bother? It won't provide 100% protection, right? So what’s the point? Isn't that exactly the kind of logic used in this "brilliant" passage? Not to mention the ridiculous idea that maybe if your car catches fire or plunges into a river, the seatbelt or the car seat might actually get in the way of your escape. My personal take is pretty simple: nothing provides 100% protection. Nothing! But there is such a thing as risk reduction. Any sane person would try to lower their risk whenever possible. In fact, most people are willing to accept a tiny bit of extra inconvenience—like being buckled in—if it significantly reduces the primary danger, like flying through the windshield because some idiot pulled out in front of you.
FOURTHLY—I find the hypocritical angle regarding cost quite telling. People argue it isn't truly "free" because it’s funded by taxpayers (which, let's be honest, applies to pretty much EVERYTHING labeled "free" in this country), while simultaneously pointing out that it protects against cancer types that account for "only" 3.3% of all cancer cases. It’s funny how that works. As soon as you need "free" coverage for an individual disease that is incomparably rarer than that 3.3%, suddenly everyone starts complaining about how unfair the system is because it doesn't prioritize rare cases. So, what is the logic here? We should fund treatments for one-in-a-million scenarios, but not for something much more common? I just don't see where the moral principle that every life matters went out the window.
To wrap things up—I’ll admit I don't know enough about the vaccine itself to be an expert, but I certainly know enough about this "reasoned" article against vaccination to believe it is intentionally misleading. I honestly cannot fathom how anyone could view this as serious, valid argumentation when they are making decisions about something that could potentially save their own child's LIFE!