Glad we passed on the Gardasil vaccine

[Geoff_M]

I have no idea what people taking Advil are doing. I do know that it is a fact that girls are dying from Gardasil.

I'm assuming you haven't read the whole thread. See this post thread from earlier. It uses the same sort of raw adverse reporting data from the FDA's system (AERS) about Advil that you posted regarding Gardasil.

 

[robinb]

The reason that I posted it was because it show the actual deaths that have occured. I don't find that funny.

Thar article was SO biased, so plagiarized and so NUTTY that I would not believe a single thing that "Steve" wrote. Don't bring up that kind of article and pretend it's the "truth". Especially when "Steve" won't even give his whole name in a byline.

 

[rie'smom]

Look, some of us will never have our kids vaccinated with Gardisil and we feel strongly about it. Others feel just as strongly that everyone should vaccinate their daughters. How about we agree to disagree? Neither side will convince those with the opposite viewpoint to think the way we do.
There's no sense getting ugly or being sarcastic towards other DIS members over something that is such a personal decision.

 

[Geoff_M]

The VAERS database is fine, they make it very clear what sorts of things are included. I've read through and found some serious trends, anyone can do the same. Your OTC comparison was a poor choice.

Please explain why... The data in the FDA's AERS system is also quite "clear".

 

[robinb]

Look, some of us will never have our kids vaccinated with Gardisil and we feel strongly about it. Others feel just as strongly that everyone should vaccinate their daughters. How about we agree to disagree? Neither side will convince those with the opposite viewpoint to think the way we do.
There's no sense getting ugly or being sarcastic towards other DIS members over something that is such a personal decision.

For the record, I didn't mean that Pennykay was delusional. "Steve" who she quoted is the delusional one and AFAIK "Steve" does not post on the DIS. My apologies to Pennykay if she thought I was talking about her. I don't make personal attacks.

 

[Pennykay]

I'm assuming you haven't read the whole thread. See this post thread from earlier. It uses the same sort of raw adverse reporting data from the FDA's system (AERS) about Advil that you posted regarding Gardasil.

No, I have read the whole thread. I have done quite a bit of research on Gardasil, and none on Advil, so I really don't feel comfortable commenting on something I am not well versed on.

 

[rie'smom]

For the record, I didn't mean that Pennykay was delusional. "Steve" who she quoted is the delusional one and AFAIK "Steve" does not post on the DIS. My apologies to Pennykay if she thought I was talking about her. I don't make personal attacks.

My post was not directed towards you. I can see in what direction this thread is heading-the direction that most controversial thread go. Basically, I meant for everyone to take a breath and realize that we feel strongly about our positions and should respect those with the opposite view.

 

[Pennykay]

Thar article was SO biased, so plagiarized and so NUTTY that I would not believe a single thing that "Steve" wrote. Don't bring up that kind of article and pretend it's the "truth". Especially when "Steve" won't even give his whole name in a byline.

Ok, that is fine. Have you went to the Vaers sight yourself to research deaths and vaccine injuries from Gardasil?

 

[Pennykay]

For the record, I didn't mean that Pennykay was delusional. "Steve" who she quoted is the delusional one and AFAIK "Steve" does not post on the DIS. My apologies to Pennykay if she thought I was talking about her. I don't make personal attacks.

No problem, I didn't feel attacked.

 

[Pennykay]

For the record, I don't look down on anyone who chooses the vaccine. We are all just mothers trying to make the best choices for our children. I am just trying to share the dangers as I feel that alot of the time we are not given this information before we make the choice.

 

[Geoff_M]

Yes, I am saying that educating doctors is a bad thing when it is the pharmaceutical companies paying for it. It is a conflict as the company paying for the education will be "educating" the doctors that their drug is the best drug for the job.

Also, as sited below, doctors are still taking "kickbacks".


Crackdown on Doctors Who Take Kickbacks


By Gardiner Harris
March 3, 2009


Washington — Federal health officials and prosecutors, frustrated that they have been unable to stop illegal kickbacks to doctors from drug and device companies, are investigating doctors who take money for using these products.

First of all, please note the liberal use of the word "illegal" in the article. These problems are the exception when they used to be the norm. The other cases mentioned in the article don't (to my knowledge) involve payments to doctors, but instead focused on "off-label" marketing of the products by the manufacturers... which is similarly illegal.

As for the sponsoring of the continuing eduction of doctors mentioned in the article, I think you're reading too much into it. Here are the industry regulations (from the prior link) that show the limitations in place to keep the education from being solely about a company's products and prohibits the sponsor for dictating the material to be taught:

Pharmaceutical Company Support for Continuing Medical Education

Continuing medical education (CME), also known as independent medical education (IME), helps physicians and other medical professionals to obtain information and insights that can contribute to the improvement of patient care, and therefore, financial support from companies is appropriate. Such financial support for CME is intended to support education on a full range of treatment options and not to promote a particular medicine. Accordingly, a company should separate its CME grant-making functions from its sales and marketing departments. In addition, a company should develop objective criteria for making CME grant decisions to ensure that the program funded by the company is a bona fide educational program and that the financial support is not an inducement to prescribe or recommend a particular medicine or course of treatment.

Since the giving of any subsidy directly to a healthcare professional by a company may be viewed as an inappropriate cash gift, any financial support should be given to the CME provider, which, in turn, can use the money to reduce the overall CME registration fee for all participants. The company should respect the independent judgment of the CME provider and should follow standards for commercial support established by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) or other entity that may accredit the CME. When companies underwrite CME, responsibility for and control over the selection of content, faculty, educational methods, materials, and venue belongs to the organizers of the conferences or meetings in accordance with their guidelines. The company should not provide any advice or guidance to the CME provider, even if asked by the provider, regarding the content or faculty for a particular CME program funded by the company.

Financial support should not be offered for the costs of travel, lodging, or other personal expenses of non-faculty healthcare professionals attending CME, either directly to the individuals participating in the event or indirectly to the event’s sponsor (except as set out in Section 9 below). Similarly, funding should not be offered to compensate for the time spent by healthcare professionals participating in the CME event.

A company should not provide meals directly at CME events, except that a CME provider at its own discretion may apply the financial support provided by a company for a CME event to provide meals for all participants.

 

[Geoff_M]

So maybe it is harder to get away with golf outings at luxury resorts nowadays, but there are still plenty of doctors on the take and plenty of drug companies ready and willing to do whatever it takes to get their product out there. Do you honestly believe that this doesn't take place anymore just because they outlawed it?

The new rules about gifts given at the offices were only put in place about a year ago, IIRC. And while I'm sure that some reps and doctors will violate the rules, I think it will continue to be the exception instead of the rule. I likewise don't think that most politicians take bribes even though one is occasionally found to have a freezer full of wrapped up $100 bills.

 

[dismom2]

All I have to say is I KNEW a certain PP had to have some ties to the pharma industry! So, those of you talking about people being 'biased', think long and hard before you automatically take the side of someone who is directly affiliated with a drug company. Someone who works "in the industry" is never going to allow anyone to believe anything negative about their drugs or company (except for the occasional whistle blower).
You can try to make me out to be some emotional mother who is against vacs, but it's simply not true. I take medication, and I've had shots. Doesn't mean I believe everything I am told about them. I'm not anti-everything---I'm simply cautious about certain things, and I would be foolish if I weren't. You can't buy everyone's opinions. And, let's not be naive again--- kickbacks are 'alive and well'. Do you really believe that doctors don't participate in illegal practices? Who are you trying to fool?

 

[dismom2]

The new rules about gifts given at the offices were only put in place about a year ago, IIRC. And while I'm sure that some reps and doctors will violate the rules, I think it will continue to be the exception instead of the rule. I likewise don't think that most politicians take bribes even though one is occasionally found to have a freezer full of wrapped up $100 bills.

Oh-boy-- now most politicians are honest? This just keeps getting better.

 

[robinb]

For the record, I don't look down on anyone who chooses the vaccine. We are all just mothers trying to make the best choices for our children. I am just trying to share the dangers as I feel that alot of the time we are not given this information before we make the choice.

And I don't look down on people who choose not to use Gardasil. However, people like "Steve" who think that Gardasil is a "gateway drug" to other STD and pregnancy drugs so the "proponents of sexual liberation" can have their pleasure and their health too ... yeah ... I look down on them. I point and laugh while I'm at it.

 

[Geoff_M]

All I have to say is I KNEW a certain PP had to have some ties to the pharma industry!

Well, seeing as how I've said so on the board in the last week, it shouldn't come as too big of a surprise.

Someone who works "in the industry" is never going to allow anyone to believe anything negative about their drugs or company (except for the occasionaly whistle blower).

First of all, we're not talking about "my" drugs. I don't have a dog in this particular fight and my income isn't dependent on this particular topic. And I'll be more than happy to talk about certain actions of Pharma companies in a critical manner. Vioxx? Merck screwed up. Off-label marketing of Bextra mentioned elsewhere here... it was stupid. "Kick-backs" to docs... wrong, wrong, wrong.

And, let's not be naive again--- kick-backs are 'alive and well'. Do you really believe that doctors don't participate in illegal practices? Who are you trying to fool?

And I suppose all politicians take bribes too.

 

[LisaR]

The new rules about gifts given at the offices were only put in place about a year ago, IIRC. And while I'm sure that some reps and doctors will violate the rules, I think it will continue to be the exception instead of the rule. I likewise don't think that most politicians take bribes even though one is occasionally found to have a freezer full of wrapped up $100 bills.

But there was a very obvious problem if they had to put a law in place, right? Nobody would deny that, would they? So what does that say about all the drugs and vaccines that came out before this law started a year ago and the doctors that pushed them?

And most immoral people don't stop being immoral just because a law is in place.

Most politicians are honest?

I truly believe that most people that have power will abuse it eventually. Here is the article I just got done reading. Nothing shocking at all about it because it is a daily occurrence in our society.

http://www.clickorlando.com/education/21479695/detail.html

 

[Geoff_M]

Most politicians are honest?

You're right all politicians take bribes... my bad.

 

[Ppufi]

Sometimes I wonder if this shot triggered my relapse.

 

[LisaR]

You're right all politicians take bribes... my bad.

Yes, that is exactly what I said.

You believe most are honest and I believe most aren't. Problem?