Infertility after Gardasil?

[SaneVax: Teenage menopause is supposed to be a rare event. However, a quick search of the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) database reveals that there are 145 reports of amenorrhoea, infertility, or premature menopause after Gardasil.  Dr. Deirdre Little from Australia recently published the case history of one of her patients who experienced this problem after administration of Gardasil.  Is this simply one more potential side effect that the CDC claims is not happening. The FDA states that Gardasil is safe and effective.  No formal investigations? What is wrong with this picture?]

Teenage Girl Becomes Infertile after Gardasil Vaccination

By Steven Mosher and Elizabeth Crnkovich

Gardasil and Infertility?

Gardasil has been controversial from the beginning. While other vaccines protect against diseases spread by casual contact, Gardasil was developed to protect against a sexually transmitted disease called Human Papilloma Virus or HPV. Merck & Co., the manufacturer, has been very effective at lobbying governments around the world to make the vaccine mandatory for school attendance. Despite the frequent objections of doctors and parents, it has been administered to tens of millions of 11- and 12-year-old young girls around the world.

Now comes the case of a 16-year-old Australian girl who suffered “premature ovarian failure” after receiving Gardasil. Her ovaries have shut down, her eggs have been destroyed, and she will never be able to have children.

Dr. Deirdre Little, the Australian physician who treated the girl, has published a complete account in the British Medical Journal. (BMJ Case Reports 2012; doi:10.1136/bcr-2012-006879) Her report explains that the girl’s menstrual cycles were regular until she received the Gardasil vaccination in the Fall of 2008. By January 2009, her cycle had become irregular. Over the course of the next two years, her menses became increasingly scant and irregular, until by 2011, she had ceased menstruating altogether.

Early menopause is highly unusual.

Read the entire article here.

Access VAERS report here.

Comments

  1. .INEFFICACY OF THE HPV VACCINE SEEN BY DOCTOR OF DEEP PERÚ

    From its inception until the appearance of cervical carcinoma (UCC), takes on average 25 to 30 years, the research of this vaccine have begun in 2000, it is evident that the scientific efficacy of this new vaccine will be determined the years 2025 – 2030.
    HPV not causes definitely the (CCU); at the onset of this disease involves multiple risk factors, including the suspected HPV, but scientificaly is proven by epidemiology and statistics that the sex is what generates this disease .: Mix in 130.000 nuns found not any UCC.
    http://www.portalesmedicos.com/publicaciones/articles/1832/1/Epidemiologia-del-carcinoma-del-cuello-uterino.html
    To accept that a virus or a bacteria causes a infection disease must unfailingly fulfill the five Koch’s postulate
    http://www.xatakaciencia.com/salud/los-postulados-de-koch
    1 – The agent must be present in every case of the disease and absent from healthy.
    2 – The agent must not appear in other diseases.
    3 – The agent to be isolated in pure culture from disease lesions.
    4 – The agent of causing disease in a susceptible animal being inoculated.
    5 – The agent must again be isolated lesions in experimental animals.
    http://es.scribd.com/doc/44558220/MICROBIOLOGIA-1
    Consequently, HPV not fulfill not any principle of Koch’s postulate. by not meeting this postulate, that is accepted as dogma in medicine, scientifically we must be ensure that the HPV is not the causative agent to the UCC..
    Until August 2012 this vaccine produced only in the United States: 265.640 adverse events ( 264,162 females, 9490 males and 5290 unknow sex); permnent disability 8910( 8890 females, 90 males and 110 unknow sex), 1220 deaths (1011 females, 70 males and 140 unknow sex), abnormal PAP 4930, cervical dysplasia 1970 and cervical cancer 570
    http://holyhormones.com/vaccinations/hpv-vaccine/hpv-vaccine-adverse-events-reported-to-vaers-as-of-july-13-2012/
    http://therefusers.com/?s=cervarix
    The Vaccine efects advers reactions (VAERS) ensures that only complaint between 1% to 10% of the adverse effects produced by this evil vaccine;this figures shown are calculated according to the statements of the VAERS: to 10%.
    http://www.noticiero.enkoria.com/2011/diez-menores-que-sufrieron-reaccion-adversa-a-la-vacuna-vph-d
    http://www.pop.org/content/merck-researcher-admits-gardasil-guards-against-almost-nothing-985
    Dr. Harper, who contributed to the development of the vaccine by Merck, reports that the vaccine was not investigated in children under 15 years and the vaccine given to children under 11 years is a big public experiment.
    http://offtheradar.co.nz/vaccines/53-researcher-diane-harper-blasts-gardasil-hpv-marketing.html
    The vaccine was approved to give girls uncontaminated with HPV, Dr. Howenstinc ensures that the women are vaccinated with HPV contaminated, have the possibility to acquire a 44.6% CCU
    http://www.newswithviews.com / Howenstine/james170.htm.
    Merck did not disclose that the vaccine was transgenic, the Sane Vax has discovered, which is transgenic because it has been found that the vaccine is contaminated with DNA recombinant vaccine Gardasil (DNArPVH) and has raised its concerns to the president of the FDA Margaret Hamburg. The FDA replied that the vaccine will not cause any damage transgenic
    http://real-agenda.com/2011/09/16/vacuna-gardasil-contaminada-con-adn-recombinante-de-vph/
    http://bolsonweb.com.ar/diariobolson/detalle.php?id_noticia=26075
    A vaccinated child was ill with rheumatoid arthritis, which is an autoimmune disease. 24 hours after vaccination and found that the aluminum adhered to DNArPVH, two years after vaccination and in autopsy 6 months after death in a New Zeland girl Jazmine Renata which had recibed this deadly vaccines
    http://www.mecfsforums.com/index.php?topic=9331.0
    Management time to get market approval of a drug the FDA is at least three years, it is a drug for cancer 15 years, but the authorization Merck had only six months and the European Medicines Agency (EMA in English) only 9 months: To introduce the vaccine are using the marketing of fear
    http://mujeresenaccion.over-blog.es/article-vph-la-vacuna-del-marketing-del-miedo-67210961.ht http://mujeresenaccion.over-blog.es/article-vph-la-vacuna -of-marketing-of-fear-67210961.ht
    HPV is ubiquitous; lives in wild and domestic animals, pollute us from birth, is on the doorknobs, on towels, on nails, on fomites, in gloves and specula of gynecologists,. sexual intercourse is not the only means of contamination.
    http://spa.myhealthygood.com/cancer-cervical-vacuna-contra-el-vph/investigadores-descubren-el-v
    HPV also lives in the 400 nm outermost of our skin and mucous membranes. ,
    If you live in our skin, our immune system produces cellular and humoral immunity is acquired or that our body is self vaccinatinge by PVHs living on our skin and mucous ..
    http://www.conganat.org/seap/bibliografia/HPVToday/HPVToday007SEAP.pdf
    The PVHs is not distributed uniformly worldwide. It has been found that in Canada HPV 18 only reaches 3%; is more often HPV 31, in my country Peru no studies have determined that HPV types predominate; Gardasil contains 225 mcg. aluminum and Cervarix 500 mcg, that produce the Alzheimer, Parkinson and autism, produce too neurotoxic and immune system disorders (Blaylock 2012) and Polisorbato 80, a powerful contraceptive, that in experimental animals produces sterility, atrophy of the testicles and disturbance organic and funtional of the organs of the reproduction; is carcinogenic and mutagenic; also contains sodium borate considered poison unused in medicinal preparations (NLM)
    http://www.telefonica.net/web2/paramahamsa/vacunaninosalerta.html http://detenganlavacuna.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/gardasil-cervarix/
    Have been discovered to date 200 types of HPV; HPV is not infectious, contagious; the intercourse is not only that the persons is contaminated
    http://www.asbmb.org/Webforms.aspx?ekfrm=46
    http://quimicaclinicauv.blogspot.com/2006/08/virus-del-papiloma-humano.html http://www-lab.biomedicas.unam.mx/smpv/queeshpv.htm
    On 22-11-2010 FDA approved Gardasil for males aged 9 to 26 to prevent warts and cancer to the anus, is overkill
    http://real-agenda.com/2011/09/16/vacuna-gardasil-contaminada-con-adn-recombinante-de-vph/
    http://salud.aollatino.com/2011/02/02/aprueba-fda-nueva-indicacion-vacuna-tetravalente-vph-eeuu/
    For this reasons from deep Peru Huancayo, I believe that this vaccine is a fraud?, robbery?, swindle?, rough joke?.
    The HPV is not scientifically proved for the moment that produce the UCC its effectiveness shall be verified just the years of 2025-2030.
    Dr. Godofredo Arauzo
    E mail: godo.ara@ gmail.com

  2. William Jamison says:

    Because these events occur with equal frequency in both vaccinated and un-vaccinated populations, it is incorrect (and fraudulent) to attribute the development of such symptoms to receiving this vaccine.

    • Documentation, please? Unless references are provided, people cannot accurately evaluate your position statement. in the future, please refrain from the use of potentially slanderous statements (fraudulent?). SaneVax is a place for open, honest debate. Name-calling and allegations will not be tolerated.

  3. William Jamison says:

    CDC continually monitors adverse event reports and examines frequencies of such events in vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations.

    Unless there is a significant (statistically speaking) rise in events in the vaccinated group over the number of similar events occurring in a similarly sized unvaccinated group, the event cannot be attributed to receiving the vaccine.

    It’s a simple and reliable method of monitoring adverse events. People who are opposed to vaccination on specific grounds and/or general principles typically tend to overlook this basic fact so as to “strengthen” their argument. Sadly, with minor scrutiny, their claims are shown to be fallacious.

    My use of the term “fraudulent” refers to the latter point above. I believe the use of that term in this discussion is appropriate, rather than slanderous.

    • Unless you are privileged to some information that the general public is not allowed access to, there have been no studies conducted on vaccinated versus unvaccinated. Please provide a reference for the ‘study’ you claim exists.

  4. William Jamison says:

    The “study”, as you put it, consists of the CDC’s continuous monitoring of reported adverse events

    By comparing the frequency of any such event with the frequency with which the same condition occurs in the general population, it is possible to determine whether or not a putative causal event may be responsible for the occurrence of that event in the treated group.

    If there truly is an association between vaccination with Gardasil and the development of amenorrhoea, it will appear more frequently in vaccinated individuals than it does in the general population.

    If that is the case, the CDC will report that finding. Since it has not reported any such findings, it is unlikely that vaccination with Gardasil is a risk factor for the development of amenorrhoea.

    I hope this serves to clarify this issue.

  5. William Jamison says:

    Having reviewed the paper in question (your link, which I appreciate) I find that the authors have attempted to make a tenuous connection between Gardasil vaccination and the development of amenorrhoea in three young females.

    I use the term tenuous because it appears that two of the three females in this study are sisters, suggesting a possible familial component, and the third had reported irregular periods beginning roughly 3 months after the last dose of Gardasil was administered.

    The incidence of primary ovary failure is roughly 1 in 1000 in young women prior to the age of 30. Thus, it is a relatively rare condition but not so rare that it is difficult to find cases. Interestingly, these vaccines have now been administered in carefully controlled clinical studies to many thousands of young females with absolutely no evidence of a significant rise in the number of cases of amenorrhoea among the vaccine recipients.

    To the objective observer the current claim that this vaccine has caused this disease is more than stretch of interpretation.

    To the less objective observer it will of course suggest that there’s been some sort of coverup. However, if a significant increase in the number of cases of amenorrhoea in the vaccinated group over the number seen in un-vaccinated individuals had been observed, I can assure you that the dedicated clinicians involved in vaccine testing and evaluation would pursue careful follow-up to either verify or disprove such a possible connection. This has not happened.

    • Investigations are taking place by dedicated clinicians, medical professionals and scientific researchers. For example, here is the biography of one of the co-authors of the peer-reviewed scientific paper referenced in the above article – They may not be the same clinicians as those involved with vaccine testing and evaluation because those people concentrate more on antibody level production and regulatory compliance.

      The entire point of this article is NOT to say HPV vaccines caused, or didn’t cause, premature ovarian failure. The point is: raise the question, begin open debate and scientific investigation to either prove cause or eliminate the possibility of HPV vaccine involvement. It does not matter which way the investigations turn out – medical consumers need to know if there is a risk, or be assured by scientific investigation that there is no risk.

      You have obviously read the article, checked the references, done your research and come to your own independent conclusion. I am sure other medical consumers will do the same. Thank you for illustrating so well that this article accomplished exactly what was intended.

      • William Jamison says:

        I appreciate the thoughtful equanimity of your replies.

        My overriding concern in reviewing this and other controversies being raised over vaccine safety has to do with the underlying current of skepticism regarding the integrity and probity of clinicians involved in vaccine development and oversight of vaccine safety.

        More often than not, it seems, there is a tendency to ascribe bad intent to such individuals. I personally know many of these dedicated men and women of science and medicine, and I can assure you that the vast majority have the highest integrity and are guided by the understanding that vaccine safety is paramount.

        Again, I appreciate your reasoned responses to my comments.

        • Thank you for the kind words. It is not our intent to smear anyone’s reputation. Our sole purpose is to bring about open and honest scientific debate and investigation. Vaccine injuries do occur. We need to discover the mechanisms of action, why certain individuals seem pre-disposed to adverse reactions, and cures for those unfortunate enough to have experienced them. That can only be done by bringing some sanity into discussions about vaccines. Protecting the public health should not involve sacrificing anyone’s quality of life.

Speak Your Mind

*


*

Current ye@r *