Let me first say that as a pastor I have worked closely with Emmet County Public health and am very thankful for all they do in our community. We simply are going to disagree on this topic. Thank you to the Daily News for providing a forum for this debate.
In my previous letter I argued against the use of Gardasil on a moral basis. That argument alone, I believe, is enough to make the decision against its use. However, there are some proposing a "physical health vs. moral health" debate on this topic. I don't believe that we should have to make an "either/or" choice in this matter. However, In order to make sure that we are debating on the same grounds I submit this letter against the use of Gardasil on the premise that it is physically unhealthy.
Simple research on this drug reveals a very shady history at best. Many who have written about it suggest that Gardasil and its producer The Merck Corporation has much less to do with helping the general public's health and much more to do with making huge profits at the expense of our health. In fact, Judicial Watch suggests that the quick production and speedy desire to push this drug into the main stream public is a "large scale public health experiment."
Consider this, Gardasil vaccine ingredients include amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate, sodium chloride, L-histidine, polysorbate 80, sodium borate, (roach killer), and water for injection. Polysorbate 80 injected into prepubescent rats caused a rapid growth of reproductive organs, but growth was abnormal and the rats were sterile, unable to have children. This is hardly the result we are looking for. In fact if this is the case we could be looking at losing an entire generation due to infertility. When used intravenously with vitamins it has been known to cause anaphylactic shock. According to the Polysorbate 80 MSDS, it may be a carcinogenic, (cause cancer), as well as a mutagenic, (birth defects). www.associatedcontent.com/article/921099/gardasil_vaccine_ingredients_roach.html
I understand and realize that most vaccines include ingredients that we would rather not have injected into our bloodstream but we hope that the potential benefit outweighs the potential detriment. In the case of Gardasil it's pretty clear that the potential detriment far outweighs any potential benefit.
Consider the words of Gynecologist Christine Northup M.D., who appeared on the Oprah show to tell viewers, "I would not advocate vaccinating my daughters, and I believe that medical dollars would be better spent elsewhere
As of 2010, VAERS, a website for reporting problems with vaccines, reported that there were 8,864 cases of side effects reported with 38 cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome including 18 deaths eleven of which came within one week of receiving the vaccine.
Diane Harper M.D., a principal chief investigator in clinical HPV trials was quoted to say, "The side effects that have been reported are real and they cannot be brushed aside." In addition to this, a survey of 1,122 physicians in Texas showed that about one half of them do not always recommend Gardasil to parents of 11&12 year old girls even though the CDC recommends it.
Moreover, The Center for Disease Control informs us that there are over forty types of HPV most of which are never actually detected because they are naturally defeated. In fact, the CDC tells us that the healthy human body can destroy 90 percent of all HPV. So we want to give this drug to 100 percent of our children for a 10 percent chance that it may help? I don't think those are good enough numbers.
As you can see, it is very easy to make an educated decision against the use of Gardasil based purely on the fact that the potential danger of using this drug far outweighs any potential benefits for you or your children's physical health. Choose against the use of Gardasil on a physical basis and you are making a great moral decision as well.
Pastor Jason Olson, B.A. M.Div,