“During June 2006–March 2014, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) received a total of 25,176 adverse event reports after HPV vaccination in the United States. Among these, HPV4 was cited in 99% of reports (22,867 and 2,196 reports among females and males, respectively); 92.4% of the HPV4 reports were classified as nonserious. Since October 2009, when HPV4 was licensed for males, the most commonly reported symptoms among males were similar to those among females, including injection site reactions, dizziness, syncope, nausea, and headache. Overall, reporting of adverse events to VAERS is consistent with prelicensure clinical trial data and consistent with the 2009 published summary of the first 2.5 years of postlicensure reporting to VAERS.”
Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Coverage Among Adolescents, 2007–2013, and Postlicensure Vaccine Safety Monitoring, 2006–2014 — United States
Anyway, the overwhelming majority of the HPV vaccine reports to VAERS haven’t been serious.
And those that are classified as serious weren’t to the point of being severe or anything…
“Among the 7.9% of HPV4-related VAERS reports classified as serious, headache, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, syncope, and generalized weakness were the most frequently reported symptoms.”
Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Coverage Among Adolescent Girls, 2007–2012, and Postlicensure Vaccine Safety Monitoring, 2006–2013 — United States
The Vaccine Extremists in the Modern Anti-Vaccine Movement
Before you dismiss the idea, let’s take a look at what they have been doing recently…
Calling for second amendment remedies? Is that a thing in the modern anti-vaccine movement?
“Then I can imagine those same conversations were happening in Nazi Germany amongst the Jewish people. Let’s not talk about it. I don’t want to bring it into my reality. It’s still 20 miles away. I’m still allowed in this theater and not that one. All I have to get is this little star. All I have to do is sign this little thing saying I accept that… that I’m not going to vaccinate because I think that they’re dangerous. And they are dangerous. I’m just going to sign this paper. I’m going to let them put me on a log.
At some point, we have gone too far.
Do you think that it’s a good idea to let the government own your baby’s body. And right behind it, your body. That is the end. To me.
Anyone who believes in the right to bear arms. To stand up against your government. I don’t know what you were saving that gun for then. I don’t know when you planned on using it if they were going to take control of your own body away.
It’s now. Now’s the time.”
To many of us, it seems very obvious that anti-vax folks have gone too far.
Not surprisingly, it seems that the denials come from the same folks who set out to ambush, stalk, and attack vaccine advocates.
Advocates who have done nothing except make sure kids get vaccinated and help protect us from the misinformation that is so often pushed on the Internet and on the signs they hold during their protests.
Yes, Senator Richard Pan, a pediatrician in California has been a big target in recent years.
He is not the only one though.
Paul Offit has been a common target.
Other pediatricians have also been attacked, with protestors showing up at their offices and harassing their patients.
But it is not just pediatricians and legislators who are getting harassed.
It should be clear that the anti-vaccine movement has “shifted its tactics” as they continue to try and scare parents away from vaccinating and protecting their kids.
“Upon close inspection, the anti-vaccination movement is not about vaccines. It’s an anti-government conspiracy theory. In order to believe the anti-vaccination line, you have to believe the government is working proactively to harm your children (by protecting them from deadly and debilitating diseases). It’s paranoid thinking, and a very small but vocal minority of Americans fervently embrace the irrational fear of immunization.”
The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board on Activism or Terrorism? Anti-vaccine movement must use facts, not violence, to argue
Why do anti-vax folks think that MRC-5 is the name of an electively aborted baby boy who is an ingredient in vaccines?
Is MRC-5 the Name of an Electively Aborted Baby Boy?
So what’s the real story?
MRC-5 is a line of human diploid cells that are used to make some vaccines.
“The second human cell line is MRC-5 (Medical Research Council 5) (human, lung, embryonic) (ATCC number CCL-171), with human lung fibroblasts coming from a 14 week male foetus aborted for “psychiatric reasons” from a 27 year old woman in the UK. MRC-5 was prepared and developed by J.P. Jacobs in 1966 (J.P. Jacobs et al, 1970).”
Vatican Statement on Vaccines Derived From Aborted Human Fetuses
The original MRC-5 cells aren’t even involved in making vaccines anymore. The cells used today have been copied, over and over again.
They are descendant cells, which is why a common way to explain all of this is to say that vaccines are said to have a “distant association with abortion.”
“It should be obvious that vaccine use in these cases does not contribute directly to the practice of abortion since the reasons for having an abortion are not related to vaccine preparation.”
The Question of Parental Rights and Mandated Vaccinations
And even then, the cells are removed before the final vaccine is produced.
“Many Catholic experts concur that cooperation today is not really possible in an event that was over and done with many years ago. Because the abortion occurred long ago, and for reasons completely unrelated to vaccines, it is untenable to conclude that vaccine recipients today somehow cooperate in the original abortive event.”
When you actually look at the petition that the vaccine choice in Maine used, it is easy to see that it is basically a list of anti-vaccine talking points that often scare and mislead parents away from vaccinating and protecting their kids, including that Maine’s new vaccine law:
Eliminates parents’ ability to decide what’s best for their children. – Vaccine mandates don’t force parents to vaccinate their kids. They still have a choice, even if they don’t like what their choices which no longer include sending their intentionally unvaccinated kids to school.
Will harm, not help, public health. – Getting more kids vaccinated and protected does not harm public health!
Strips parents of their right to religious freedom. – Which religions are against getting kids vaccinated and protected?
Prevents a minority group from receiving an education. – Since parents have a choice on whether or not to vaccinate their kids, it is not the schools or the state that is preventing intentionally unvaccinated kids from receiving an education.
Our childhood vaccination rates are high. – Fortunately, vaccination rates are generally high in most of the country, but that’s not the issue. It is the clusters of unvaccinated kids that are typically the problem. At the Maine Coast Waldorf School, for example, only 38% of kids had the recommended two doses of MMR!
Unvaccinated children are not a risk to the immunocompromised. – This is simply not true.
Vaccines DO cause injury. – Yes, but the risks from vaccines are small, unlike vaccine-preventable diseases, they very rarely cause severe injuries.
What are they doing in other states?
In New York, they have tried to equate their choice to not vaccinate their kids, which is what’s actually keeping those kids from going to school, with efforts to desegregate schools in the 1960s.
And while some kids are now being homeschooled, some parents continued to send their intentionally unvaccinated kids to school, right up until the deadline to get vaccinated and protected, hoping their lawsuits would succeed and keep their kids in school.