Personal and I'm Concerned

This post is personal and if you're uncomfortable talking about women's issues I don't suggest reading this post. I'm posting this here because I want to know outside opinions and see what others are experiencing. And I want to warn you.

Again, this post is personal and might be embarrassing.

I go to my doctor yearly for my wellness exam. I have a physical and all the standard tests are taken. They check my blood, my weight, everything. I am a perfectly healthy 26 year old woman, and there is never anything of consequence from these exams. But they are covered under my policy, and I go because it's important at this time in my life to remain healthy and aware.

My previous physician had left the organization. So instead of following her further away from my home, I stayed at the offices and saw the physicians assistant this year, who was very nice.

Except...

Gardasil. Gardasil is recommended for girls between the ages of 9 and 26. After 26 it's no longer covered under most insurance policies. The PA recommended that I get this vaccine.

Gardasil is the new vaccine that the FDA approved for use in June 2006. Just one year ago. This is the same vaccine that Governor Rick Perry (Texas) tried to mandate for all 6th grade girls. After conflicts of interests were discovered, he dropped the mandate. Gardasil protects women from developing cervical cancer as it relates to HPV. An STD.

As a married woman who is tested once a year for abnormalities, I knew that I did not have this particular disease. The PA persisted, and said that I could still contract it.

How? Well they are assuming that I will either stray from my marital vows or that my husband will. Instantly I'm offended, and refuse the drug. She persists telling me how it can save me from cervical cancer. Well no, I say, it won't save me from cervical cancer, it will only save me from cervical cancer that is caused by HPV. If I never contract HPV, I have no need for the vaccine. Which, to my knowledge, was poorly researched and tested and that not all side effects for the drug are known.

We ended at a stale mate. She told me to consider it and I had two months to change my mind.

Two weeks after my exam, the nurse calls me to report my results. I'm not going to go into personal details here ... but everything was normal except for some elevated anti-bodies that can be related to HPV.

So, automatically the lab tests for HPV. Which I do not have. The elevated antibodies could be very normal, as the body changes all the time and it's not that unusual for a test result to come back like this. It could have even been lab or testing error. These things do happen. However, they tested for HPV, and it came back negative.

The nurse proceeds to tell me I need to come in for the Gardasil vaccine. At this point I'm now irritated. First of all, she just told me (without explanation) that my test came back showing something and I needed to come back in to retest. I had to ask for an explanation.

I had to get up and leave my desk (I was at work) to continue the conversation. I'm going to relate it to you because I think it shows the level to which some medical "professionals" are going to push this "miracle drug" onto the unknowning public.

I told her that if I do not have HPV, and my husband does not have HPV, then there is no chance of me getting HPV and I have no need to take a vaccine that guards against HPV. She said that that wasn't necessarily true. I said, I can contract HPV through another method than intimacy? She said yes.

As far as all my internet research has discovered, this is a bold faced lie. HPV is only contracted through intimate relations. And it is most common in women with multiple partners. The woman lied to me in order to scare me into taking this vaccine. WHY? I still don't know. Lewis says that they are getting some sort of perk or kick back from Merck sales representatives. My mother think it's become a feminist issue and they are pushing it on women to "protect those that don't know enough to protect themselves."

I am sickened. And I wanted to just let you know of my concerns before you too, are asked to take the vaccine.

First, when presenting me with this option, no literature was given to me. No explanation of why I, a healthy, married woman should be more at risk and would need this vaccine. I was under the impression that the vaccine was most effective to those that were not sexually active. As a married woman, the vaccine could be just a waste.

The time has passed when doctor's words will be accepted without question. In the age of the internet I can fact check almost everything they tell me. I will not ever accept a drug without explanation of what it's side effects may be.

Second, they argued. HARD. Which immediately made me suspicious. They did not like accepting no for an answer. It was I guess unusual for a person to disagree with their logic. And to have facts. I told them ... as I understood it this drug had not been properly tested with other drugs. They didn't know how it would react with say, birth control or even a tetanus shot. They said it was still in my best interest to take it.

I said that it only protected against 70% of known strands of cervical cancer that occur due to 4 types HPV (there are over 40 types of HPV). It would not protect me against cervical cancer from any other cause.

My third and largest reason for not wanting to take it ... they don't know all the side effects. Here at the national vaccine information center there is a lot of information. Some of the reported side effects have been death due to blood clots. There were 3 reported deaths. One just three hours after recieving the vaccine. Some women also had pregnancy trouble.

Which is my numero uno reason for not wanting this vaccine. What if the side effect is infertility? I'm not prepared to take that risk. Upon reading more about cervical cancer and HPV ... it is said that with yearly exams cervical cancer can be detected and treated with 100% effectiveness. It is not that I'm opposed to new vaccines (or that I want cancer). I'm opposed to new, poorly tested vaccines. And don't think I'm forgetting that Merck is the creator of Vioxx. Vioxx which caused heart attacks, stroke and death in its users. And Merck knew of those side effects months before they said anything. Unless they fired everyone that worked there, did a moral check and found God ... those same unethical individuals are the ones pushing this vaccine.

And vaccines are exempt from lawsuits. Convenient. And let's not forget this important fact ...

Gardasil, on the market for nearly a year, is the potential blockbuster that helped the New Jersey-based Merck pull out of its Vioxx withdrawal blues. Since the Food and Drug Administration approved Gardasil last June, Merck's stock has surged 57 percent, outperforming S&P gains of 21 percent.
...

"Merck showed that you can make quite a bit of money with vaccines, and I
think that got a lot of people's attention," said Funtleyder.

In the end it's about money.

Here is the fact list from the CDC. It's pretty favorable toward the vaccine and downplays risks. This is my favorite part:

Women would have had to be followed for a longer time to see the full benefit of
the vaccine.

By this logic, wouldn't the women need to have been followed longer to see the full consequences of this vaccine?

Even Canada, who stated earlier this year they were going to vaccinate all women between the ages of 9 and 26 has held that plan up pending a medical report due out later this year.

I'm not trying to dictate what anyone else do. I'm just saying that if your doctor is pushing this "miracle drug" on you ... please do a little research before agreeing to it. And for the love of Pete ... think for yourself and don't let them make the decision for you.

Because look at this:

"The human papilloma virus that is blamed for causing most cases of cervical
cancer is sexually-transmitted, so the vaccine provides the best protection in
girls or women who have never had sex."

I'm married ... so I'm thinking it may not provide "the best protection" for me. If this is true ... why would my doctor push this on me except for the money or some agenda? Like ... "this office vaccinated 100,000 women this year against cancer." Status. Feminism. Whatever their agenda is. Also, everyone in the office I go to is a woman. There is not one man. I had not noticed this until my mother mentioned that Gardasil and HPV has become a feminist issue.

Look at this too:

"After talking to a friend whose 18-year-old daughter had a seizure following
the second of the series of three vaccinations, I started doing more research.
My friend's daughter now suffers from memory loss among other lingering side
effects."

There is more. Read this very long, very indepth article written by Judith Siers-Poisson from PR Watch. It talks about how Merck has said to have backed off their lobbying for the state mandates of the drug, but Women in Government is the one spear heading that movement anyway. Just read it.

All the pressure and the tone of this "You must take this cancer preventing drug" makes me very suspicious. And I'm usually an early adopter to new technology. But I have a little intuition, and it's telling me not to take this vaccine. So I'm not going to. Maybe in later years when more is known I'll consider talking to my daughters about it. But for now ... I'm going to wait on more research, continue getting screened yearly for breast cancer and cervical cancer...

And change doctors.