Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Female Info Boards => Open Talk for Girl Discussion => Topic started by: ~flower~ on May 24, 2007, 06:55:28 AM
-
http://www.newswithviews.com/Tenpenny/sherri14.htm
GARDASIL DANGERS STARTING TO EMERGE
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, DO
May 24, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
Problems with the cervical cancer vaccine for girls as young as 9 starting
to emerge.
Five schoolgirls at Sacred Heart Girls' College in suburban Melbourne,
Australia, were confirmed to have taken ill after receiving an injection of
Gardasil, the newest vaccine to be mandated for young girls. Soon after the
vaccination, twenty-six girls were seen at the campus medical clinic; five
were admitted to the hospital after being injected. Two of the girls kept in
overnight in observation for dizziness; one had temporary paralysis and loss
of speech.[1]
In the U.S., symptoms similar to those experienced by the Australian girls
have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS.)
Since the approval of the vaccine in June, 2006, there have been 1261
adverse events reported. Here are a few examples directly from the VAERS
reporting pages:
Immediately after injection patient complained of severe pain at site. Fell
off table and fainted for approximately 10 - 15 seconds. Hyperventilating.
Complained of headache, blurry vision; vision test was normal. Vomiting x 1
in parking lot and speech was momentarily inarticulate. Sent to ER where her
neurological exam was normal except for word recall "coffee instead of
coughing" and said "Sired instead of tired."
A female patient was vaccinated with a first dose of HPV Vaccine.
Subsequently as the patient was leaving the examination room, the patient
fainted. The patient recovered shortly after fainting.
A 14 year old female was vaccinated with Gardasil. It was reported that the
patient was sitting on a bench. When the nurse left the room, the patient
apparently fainted and ended up falling off bench. It was reported that it
was unsure if the patient had broken her nose but there was blood. At the
time of this report, the outcome of the events were unknown.
VAERS is a passive surveillance system and depends upon voluntary reporting
by clinicians of serious health problems following vaccination. Reports can
also be filed by parents. Although VAERS reports do not prove causation,
they can provide a warning system that a vaccine may be causing health
problems.
It has been estimated that fewer than 10 percent, even as low as 1 to 4
percent, of adverse events from a prescription drug or a vaccine are ever
reported.[2] If only 1 percent of all adverse events associated with
Gardasil are being reported to VAERS, there could have been as many as
126,000 acute health problems from the vaccine in less than one year. The
long term neurological or immune system complications are completely
unknown. It is uncertain if any of these vaccinated children will go on to
develop fertility problems, cancer or damage to their genes, all of which
Merck admits in its product insert have not been studied.
John Iskander, from the Center for Disease Controls immunization safety
office has said, "There is absolutely no reason to think that there is
anything in this vaccine that's going to make people more likely to
faint.[3] Despite his assurances, there are ingredients in the vaccine that
can cause recipients to become dizzy and faint.
Histidine, an amino acid, readily converts into another amino acid,
histamine, when it enters the body. When released, histamine causes redness,
swelling, itching and allergic reactions leading to widening of capillaries,
decreased blood pressure people can faint. The vaccine also contains
Polysorbate 80, an agent used in creams, ointments, lotions, and multiple
medical preparations including vitamin oils, and anticancer agents.
Polysorbate 80 is a can cause potentially fatal reactions in including
anaphylaxis, characterized by a sharp drop in blood pressure, hives, and
breathing difficulties people can faint.[4]
Fainting spells after vaccination can have serious consequences. An article
published in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine (1997),
reviewed the 697 reports of syncope (fainting) that occurred after
vaccination and had been reported to VAERS between 1990 and 1995. More than
97 percent of the events have occurred within 30 minutes of a vaccine,
establishing a causal relationship. Of these, six patients sustained a
serious head injury, including skull fracture, cerebral bleeding and
cerebral contusion. Three of these patients required brain surgery and two
were left with substantial residual neurological deficits at six months to
two years after follow-up.[5] Dizziness and fainting after vaccination is
not something to be taken lightly.
As for the children in Australia, the vaccination program is scheduled to
continue next month. The college is confident that this program of
vaccination is safe to offer to students," says Christopher Dalton, the
school principal. "We will be working with the Department of Human Services
Victoria and the City of Monash Immunization Services in the planning
vaccination program."
The assumption is that illness and dizziness are normal reactions to a
vaccine. The overriding theme is that We've have a vaccine, and we will use
it.
Footnotes:
1. "Vaccine linked to sickness."
2. Braun M. Vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS): usefulness and
limitations. John's Hopkins Bloomburg School of Public Health
3. CDC Says Gardasil's Side Effects Minor, Additional Warning Labels
Unnecessary. Feb. 26, 2007
4. Coors, EA. Polysorbate 80 in medical products and nonimmunologic
anaphylactoid reactions. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2005 Dec;95(6):593-9.
PMID: 16400901
5. Braun MM, et al. Syncope after immunization. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med
1997;151:255-9.
© 2007 Sherri Tenpenny - All Rights Reserved
-
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/457/31/
Facts Behind Merck's Mandatory Vaccine Campaign to Help Pay forVioxx
Sunday, 04 February 2007
American preteen girls have been designated to pay the price by exposing their bodies to risks of harm.
Condoms remain the safest (and cheapest) method for preventing sexually
transmitted diseases. But the pharmaceutical / biomedical industry is Hell
bent on marketing more profitable invasive methods.
Merck has financed an aggressive lobbying campaign on behalf of its new
Gardasil vaccine for human papilloma virus (HPV), carried out by
professional lobbyists and by Women in Government, an organization of state
legislators.
Women in Government are trying to pass legislation in every state that would
force 11 year old girls to be vaccinated, or be prevented from going to
school.
But Merck went one step further: on Friday, Texas Republican governor Rick
Perry issued a MANDATORY executive order to force all Texas girls to be
vaccinated with Gardasil, completely bypassing Texas' legislative process,
overriding parental authority, and ignoring the ethical issues raised by a
vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease. Perry, of course, is a
recipient of Merck largesse.
If one looks beneath the surface, Merck's strong-arm marketing tactics are
really a "Do or Die" effort to finance its huge Vioxx litigation costs.
Thus, the mandatory HPV vaccine campaign is really a campaign to "Help Pay
for Vioxx" losses.
American preteen girls have been designated to pay the price by exposing
their bodies to risks of harm.
Below, Meryl Nass, MD,* whose medical expertise includes vaccine safety,
epidemiology and biological warfare, provides insight into the medical and
ethical concerns--and the unanswered scientific questions about Merck's
Gardasil vaccine.
Among the issues addressed by Dr. Nass:
1. Unlike infectious diseases that spread in schools--like polio and
measles--HPV is only transmitted sexually. Why, then, is Merck seeking
mandatory vaccine orders? Is it deliberately to usurp parental rights and
responsibilities?
2. Since boys transfer the HPV virus to girls, why don't boys get
vaccinated? Why are only girls being pushed to take the vaccine?
3. There are over 30 HPV viruses. Of these, 10 may cause cancer. Merck's
vaccine is effective for only 4 of these potentially cancerous viruses.
Therefore, PAP tests are still essential to detect cancer and save lives, as
well as condoms, which remain the safest, most effective method for
preventing HIV transfer and numerous sexually transmitted diseases.
4. The oversell of Gradasil is likely to mislead those vaccinated to think
that they are safe when they are not. This has the potential of increasing
both STDs and cancer.
Other questions remain about the clinical trials:
How many girls participated in pre-licensure clinical trials and for how
long were they followed up? What is the nature of the adverse event reports
received by the government Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)
since its approval in July 2006 and February 2007?
According to the National Vaccine Information Center, between July 2006 and
January 2007, there have been 82 reports of adverse events filed with VAERS
following receipt of GARDASIL by girls and boys ranging in age from 11 to 27
years. Reaction reports have come from 21 states, including Virginia and the
District of Columbia. All but three of the reports were for adverse events
that occurred within one week of vaccination, and more than 60 percent
occurred within 24 hours of vaccination.
See: National Vaccine Information Center
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=62176
The National Vaccine Information Center urges state legislatures to
investigate the safety and cost of mandating Merck's HPV vaccine--before any
policy is adopted. The Alliance for Human Research Protection joins NVIC in
asking for investigations into the vaccine's safety and cost.
*Dr. Nass is a board member of the Alliance for Human Research Protection.
See her vita at: http://www.anthraxvaccine.org/docs/CV121206.doc
Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
212-595-8974
veracare@ahrp.orgThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
Gardasil vaccine: Facts and Implications
Cervical cancer is caused by changes in the cells of the cervix caused by
human papilloma viruses (HPV). These viruses can also lead to cancer of the
vagina, vulva, anus, penis and scrotum. [1] The cancer-causing viruses are
sexually transmitted.
At least 50% of sexually active men and women acquire a genital HPV
infection during their lives. The CDC says that by age 50, at least 80% of
women will have developed a genital HPV infection.
There are over 30 different HPV viruses that are sexually transmitted.
About ten of these have the potential to cause cancer.
The HPV vaccine, Gardasil, contains antigens designed to protect against 4
of the ten dangerous strains of HPV. Three doses are given over six months
for protection against these four strains only.
It is estimated that these 4 viruses cause 70% of HPV-induced cancers. The
other HPV viruses, not protected by the vaccine, cause 30% of cervical
cancers.
The American Cancer Society estimates that 11,000 cases of cervical cancer
will be diagnosed in women this year, compared to 178,000 new cases of
breast cancer. [2] The Cancer Society says, "mortality rates for cervical
cancer have declined steadily over the past several decades due to
prevention and early detection as a result of screening." They also note,
"Importantly, HPV infections are common in healthy women and only rarely
result in cervical cancer" and "fortunately, most cervical precancers
develop slowly, so nearly all cases can be prevented if a woman is screened
regularly."
Because HPV viruses may live on skin around the genital area, condoms are
not 100% effective in prevention. However, condom use is associated with a
lower rate of cervical cancer.
What about men? About 1,500 new cases of penile cancer will be diagnosed in
men this year, and 1,900 cases of anal cancer, linked to HPV.
What does all this mean to me?
First, the vaccine is at best 70% effective, so you can still be infected
with HPV viruses that can lead to cervical and other cancers, even after
three doses of this vaccine. You can still get genital warts, but are at
lower risk. You will still need yearly PAP smears to protect against
cervical cancer. PAP tests are extremely effectively at preventing cervical
cancer.
Second, you really should be using condoms for all sexual activity to
prevent HIV infection and a number of other sexually transmitted diseases.
Don't get the wrong idea that this vaccine will allow you to safely avoid
the use of condoms.
Why don't boys get this vaccine? Good question, since they transfer the HPV
virus to girls, and they also can get cancer. If boys took the vaccine
instead of girls, you could prevent approximately the same number of
cancers.
How safe is the vaccine for me? Because it is a new vaccine and has only
been used in a few thousand people during clinical trials, the side effect
profile of the vaccine is still not known.
What if I get pregnant after getting Gardasil vaccine? Clinical trials
showed that women who became pregnant within one month of vaccination had
more birth defects than women who received placebo vaccine and became
pregnant. After 30 days, this apparent risk disappeared.
What if you were vaccinated, then learned you were pregnant? It is not
known if this is a problem, but it might be. Therefore, Merck, the
manufacturer, maintains a pregnancy registry to track the outcomes of
pregnancies during which women were vaccinated: call (800) 986-8999 to
report any Gardasil vaccinations during pregnancy.
Okay, if I still need to use condoms and get yearly PAP smears, what's the
point of getting this vaccine?
* Women who don't get pap smears, who have more partners, or who for
other reasons are at higher risk of cervical cancer may benefit from this
vaccine.
* Women who are monogamous or are not sexually active have a low risk
of cervical cancer.
* Gay men are at higher than average risk of penis and anus cancers
and may desire this vaccine. It is not known why the vaccine was not
approved for men.
Therefore, you should be able to choose whether to receive the vaccine.
However, if you get yearly PAPs, and practice safe sex, your benefit from
this vaccine is greatly diminished, or nil.
Why are governors and legislatures considering forced Gardasil vaccinations
for eleven-year-old girls?
Cervical cancer is not spread by casual contact. State governments are not
mandating Gardasil to protect students from infectious diseases like polio
or measles that can spread in schools. Instead, they are usurping the
parental role of determining what is best for their children's health.
The retail cost of the 3 vaccine doses is $360, which will not be paid by
the lawmakers. Why not give free PAP smears to all interested women
instead, which would cost about the same amount?
Marketing is the answer. Merck developed this strategy to sell the largest
amount of vaccine: making every preteen girl get the shots. Year after
year, the vaccine market would be guaranteed, with Merck collecting
approximately 1 Billion dollars annually from US sales alone.
"At a Wall Street briefing last month, Peter Loescher, president of global
human health at Merck, said he emphasizes "speed, speed, speed" in a product
launch. Already, he noted, 80 percent of cities and states - including
Maryland - have ordered Gardasil to be distributed through Vaccines for
Children. The federally funded program provides free vaccines to doctors who
serve children with little or no insurance."[3]
Merck provides funding to the organization "Women in Government," a
bipartisan group of state legislators, to sponsor its campaign for statewide
vaccine mandates.[4]
Women in Government's work has included enacting legislation to require HPV
vaccine for school entry, obtaining medicaid coverage for HPV testing,
creating cervical cancer task forces at the state level, enacting cervical
cancer prevention legislation, and obtaining compulsory insurance
reimbursement for HPV testing and HPV vaccinations. Their website has a map
with each state tracked as to how far along it is toward enacting the
desired legislative mandates.
Bypassing the Texas Legislature altogether, the Republican Governor of
Texas, Rick Perry, issued an order Friday February 2, making Texas the first
state to require that schoolgirls get vaccinated against the sexually
transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.
Why did Merck emphasize speed in this product launch? They wanted to get
the vaccine mandates in place before the bad publicity started.
The Associated Press reports that one of Merck's three lobbyists in Texas is
Mike Toomey, Perry's former chief of staff. His current chief of staff's
mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state
director for Women in Government. The governor also received $6,000 from
Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign.
Instead of trying to prevent cancer, it is starting to look more and more
like the HPV vaccine really stands for "Help Pay for Vioxx" - Merck's failed
arthritis pain pill that is costing the company several billion in
settlements for adverse effects and deaths. Merck's strong-arm tactics for
marketing Gardasil are a "Do or Die" attempt to get the company back on a
secure financial footing. American preteen girls are to pay the price.
Yet it is not at all clear how long the vaccine will work. Boosters will
probably be needed after several years. Will new diseases crop up at higher
rates in those who were vaccinated?
The FDA is requiring Merck to gather more safety information: on autoimmune
conditions, cancer and possible birth defects.[5] FDA wants to find out how
long protection lasts, and whether non-vaccine strains of HPV will "take
over" from the vaccine strains, in effect nullifying vaccine benefit.
Unless an eleven year old will begin sexual experimentation in the next
couple of years, there is plenty of time to wait and see how this vaccine
pans out, once it has been used in larger populations for longer periods of
time. Then an informed decision can be made regarding its value for you.
Meryl Nass, MD
References:
1. CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/STD/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm#Whatis
2. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2007.20
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/STT/stt_0_2006.asp?sitearea=STT&level=1
3. Laura Smitherman. Drug firm pushes vaccine mandate. Baltimore Sun,
January 29, 2007.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-te.md.cervical29jan29,0,
2725203.story?page=2&coll=bal-mdpolitics-headlines
4. Women in Government's legislative toolkit:
http://www.womeningovernment.org/prevention/legislative_toolkit.asp
5. http://www.fda.gov/cber/approvltr/hpvmer060806L.htm
-
http://www.newsobserver.com/104/story/537896.html
Merck lobbies for vaccine laws
Money from the drug company is behind efforts to require young girls to receive its new vaccine against cervical cancer
Liz Austin Peterson, The Associated Press
AUSTIN, TEXAS - Merck & Co. is helping bankroll efforts to pass state laws requiring girls as young as 11 or 12 to receive the drug maker's new vaccine against the sexually transmitted cervical-cancer virus.
Some conservatives and parental-rights groups say such a requirement would encourage premarital sex and interfere with the way they raise their children, and they say Merck's push for such laws is underhanded. But the company said its lobbying efforts have been aboveboard.
With at least 18 states debating whether to require Merck's Gardasil vaccine for schoolgirls, Merck has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group of female state legislators.
An official from Merck's vaccine division sits on Women in Government's business council, and many of the bills around the country have been introduced by members of Women in Government.
"Cervical cancer is of particular interest to our members because it represents the first opportunity that we have to actually eliminate a cancer," said Susan Crosby, president of Women in Government.
Gardasil, approved by the federal government in June, protects girls and women against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, that are responsible for most cases of cervical cancer. A government advisory panel has recommended that all girls get the shots at 11 and 12, before they are likely to be sexually active.
But no state has yet to add Gardasil to the list of vaccinations youngsters must have under law to be enrolled in school.
Merck spokeswoman Janet Skidmore would not say how much the company is spending on lobbyists or how much it has donated to Women in Government. Crosby also declined to specify how much the drug company gave.
But Skidmore said: "We disclosed the fact that we provide funding to this organization. We're not in any way trying to obscure that."
The New Jersey drug company, which is building a vaccine plant in Durham, could generate billions in sales if Gardasil -- at $360 for the three-shot regimen -- were made mandatory across the country. Most insurance companies now cover the vaccine, which has been shown to have no serious side effects.
Proposals for mandates have popped up from California to Connecticut since the first piece of legislation was introduced in September in Michigan. Michigan's bill was narrowly defeated last month. Lawmakers said the requirement would intrude on families' privacy, even though, as in most states' proposals, parents could opt out.
Even with such opt-out provisions, mandates take away parents' rights to make medical decisions for their children, said Linda Klepacki of the Colorado evangelical organization Focus on the Family. The group contends the vaccine should be available for parents who want it, but not forced on those who don't.
But Texas Rep. Jessica Farrar said her proposal is aimed at protecting children whose parents are less informed about or less interested in preventive care.
-
yeah, I have a problem with this topic too. Either you're gonna get cancer or maybe you won't.
xL
If my mother had taken me to the Doctor at 9 or 11 or 13 or something for the BC pill or a jab for a sexually transmitted illness I would have seriously worried and would most probably have had a screwed up adolescence. Nowadays you've gotta take your child daughter at the age of 9 to get a vaccine for something you can prevent with a condom?
or perhaps it's genetic.
I need to get out more
-
Judicial Watch Uncovers Three Deaths Relating to HPV Vaccine
Event Reports Obtained from FDA Detail 1,637 Adverse Reactions to Gardasil
(Washington, DC) -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released documents obtained from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, detailing 1,637 reports of adverse reactions to the vaccination for human papillomavirus (HPV), Gardasil. Three deaths were related to the vaccine. One physician’s assistant reported that a female patient “died of a blood clot three hours after getting the Gardasil vaccine.” Two other reports, on girls 12 and 19, reported deaths relating to heart problems and/or blood clotting.
As of May 11, 2007, the 1,637 adverse vaccination reactions reported to the FDA via the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) included 371 serious reactions. Of the 42 women who received the vaccine while pregnant, 18 experienced side effects ranging from spontaneous abortion to fetal abnormities.
Side effects published by Merck & Co. warn the public about potential pain, fever, nausea, dizziness and itching after receiving the vaccine. Indeed, 77% of the adverse reactions reported are typical side effects to vaccinations. But other more serious side effects reported include paralysis, Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and seizures.
“The FDA adverse event reports on the HPV vaccine read like a catalog of horrors,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Any state or local government now beset by Merck’s lobbying campaigns to mandate this HPV vaccine for young girls ought to take a look at these adverse health reports. It looks as if an unproven vaccine with dangerous side effects is being pushed as a miracle drug.”
Judicial Watch filed its request on May 9, 2007, and received the adverse event reports from the FDA on May 15, 2007. Judicial Watch has posted the adverse event reports below.
(A recent study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, also questioned the general effectiveness of Gardasil.)
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-23-2007/0004595032&EDATE (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-23-2007/0004595032&EDATE)
Deaths as of 5/11/07:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/GardasilVAERSDeaths.pdf (http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/GardasilVAERSDeaths.pdf)
Adverse Reactions as of 5/11/07:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/GardasilVAERSReports.pdf (http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/GardasilVAERSReports.pdf)
-
>:( :'(
-
Forced consumption. Big Big Profits for the Pharma.
In this case, the religious right wingers did something good for once by stopping that vaccine from being implemented. Dont hold your breath waiting for a repeat.
By the way, a Attorney friend told me that the vaccine Pharmacy corp (I forget which) needs money to pay for the Viox settlement...
HPV stands for: Help Pay for Viox ;D
-
>:( :'(
this is why I am against ANY vaccines being mandatory. There is a risk, even if it is small, of death, or damage. The government should not be able to force something into ones body. It should be a choice, an INFORMED CHOICE. Information is not freely given to people. Dangers of both vaccinating and not vaccinating should be made easily available to people. Parents are not told that they can get exemptions, that they can chose to vaccinate some and not others, or not at all, or on a different schedule (spread farther apart) or even that there are single, instead of combination, vaccines available.
Your Body-Your Choice!! >:(
-
Your Body-Your Choice!! >:(
Unfortunately, in the USA, there is about ZERO respect for the above concept.
Hit your Political reps with letters. It does get response from some of them. They've turned the population into a herd of sheep here.
-
Gardasil Reactions and Deaths on the Rise
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/07/24/gardasil-reactions-and-deaths-on-the-rise.aspx
In May 2007, it was reported that over 1,600 adverse reactions,
including three deaths, had been linked to Gardasil, Merck's new
vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV).
Among those reactions, 371 were classified as serious, and, of the 42
women who received the vaccine while pregnant, 18 experienced side
effects including spontaneous abortion and fetal abnormalities.
It appears those reactions, and deaths, are steadily rising. A review
of the National Vaccine Information Center revealed the following
statistic about this vaccine: 2,207 adverse reactions to Gardasil
have been reported. Among them:
* 5 girls died
* 31 were considered life-threatening
* 1,385 required a visit to the emergency room
* 451 of the girls have not recovered as of July 2007
* 51 of the girls were disabled
Gardasil "may be more dangerous than consumers have been led to
believe," according to one public-interest group, and an editorial in
the New England Journal of Medicine has also raised questions about
the vaccine's effectiveness.
<http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21696>The Heartland
Institute August 1, 2007
-
I wont let my daughter take this. No Way!
-
I wont let my daughter take this. No Way!
They wanted to make it mandatory for girls in the 6th grade!!
It should be a choice for the parents to make, not the government. Or for the girl herself to make when she is old enough and is given ALL THE INFORMATION.
I think it would be wise for any parents considering this to hold off until more information is in. Teach your kids about safe sex instead!!!
-
This is all about Big Money for Big Pharma (Like they dont make enough w/ 10,000% markup)
Forced consumption. Be interesting where contributions by the pharma went.
-
This is all about Big Money for Big Pharma (Like they dont make enough w/ 10,000% markup)
Forced consumption. Be interesting where contributions by the pharma went.
If memory serves me correctly, I think there was a segment in Michael Moore's film 'Sicko' where he breaks down the financial contributions of Big Pharma by senators & congressman.
-
If memory serves me correctly, I think there was a segment in Michael Moore's film 'Sicko' where he breaks down the financial contributions of Big Pharma by senators & congressman.
Be cool to see what ones.
-
I dont think it should be mandatory untill they have more information, and perhaps a more robust vaccination... that being said, I got the shots myself even thought I am over the reccomended age..I tested negative for the strains of hpv it guards against so my gyn said I could take the vaccination.
-
It should NEVER be mandatory. It is not a health threat to the general public. It should be a parents decision, not the state's, and ultimately it should be the person receiving the vaccines decision to get it or not.
Vaccines can be harmful, making ANY vaccine, let alone one that does not pose a health risk to the general public, mandatory is a violation of oneself. Injecting a potentially harmful substance into your body should be a choice.
You could not pay me enough to be a guinea pig for that vaccine.
Dina - did you give informed consent before getting the vaccine? Was there full disclosure of deaths and adverse affects disclosed as well as being informed of the lack of effaciacy studies and long term affects being unknown? I'm curious as to what Dr's are telling people.
-
since I was outside the age group it was for, I had to sign forms etc waiving liability blah blah to be honest I dod not read everything in detail....
In the past I have had abnormal pap results and had to have a colposcopy.. so it was worth getting the vaccine done.
As far as vaccinations being mandatory.. dont some if them have to be like polio and small pox.. was not the way they eradicated them.. I have no idea.. perhaps you have more research on that..
-
since I was outside the age group it was for, I had to sign forms etc waiving liability blah blah to be honest I dod not read everything in detail....
In the past I have had abnormal pap results and had to have a colposcopy.. so it was worth getting the vaccine done.
As far as vaccinations being mandatory.. dont some if them have to be like polio and small pox.. was not the way they eradicated them.. I have no idea.. perhaps you have more research on that..
I have to question your saying it was worth getting it when you admit you did not read everything, and it doesn't sound like you were told everything? That is one of the big problems I have with vaccinations, people are only given part of the information, not all of it. How can someone make an informed decision without all the information, pro and cons?
Yes, some are mandatory like polio, MMR, ones that could be communicable in a general setting. You are not going to get HPV from a classmate (or anyone) unless you have sexual contact with them, so it should not be mandatory. Exemptions for all vaccines are allowed for both religious and personal beliefs in pretty much every state. Most people are not aware that they can choose to not vaccinate their kids for all or some of the vaccines and they can still go to school. They just keep adding more vaccines to the "mandatory" requirements and this one should never be on the list.
They are not sure if this vaccine, which only vaccinates for a few strains of HPV (and not even all of them that are the known cancer causing strains), will make the other strains easier to contract/turn cancerous, there are so many unknowns with this vaccine. It was rushed through for approval and basically the "studies" are being done now with people who elected to get the vaccine.
-
you don't have to tell me to stay away from gardasil !
-
you don't have to tell me to stay away from gardasil !
One other reason the mandatory requirement was bullshit was it only required females to be vaccinated. Males can get and pass on HPV yet only females were going to be req'd to get the vaccination?
Gardisil was pushed in the aftermath of the Vioxx lawsuits, and if it had been made mandatory they would of recouped all and then some of their losses most likely. "Interestingly" the Governor that was for mandatory vaccinating in Texas (the start of the campaign to make it mandatory) is a lobbyist for Merck and tried to bypass the state and put that into affect with an "executive order".
The asshole was shut down with the uproar that followed. ;D
-
The wall street joke is HPV stands for - Help Pay for Vioxx.
Big Pharma, big money, big corruption.
-
A very good friend of mine is a gynecologist.. not my personal doctor, and he and I talked about it extensively and he reccomended that I get the shots... and offered to give them to me for free... I decided to go to my Dr as it was closer to me
the vaccine only protects against a few strains, the ones that tend to lead to cervical cancer.
My gynecologist actually gave the shots to her two sons ... said she felt it would help them not pass it on even though they were at risk
I am not saying this is what everyone should do... this is just what I chose to do, and my experience.
-
Dina, I hope you live to 110.
I bet the fear is overdone, any shots/ meds kill a few ppl from reactions.
One thing I will say, is the healthcare workers tend to be "True Believers" who trust the Pharmas.
I'm a little more skeptical.
-
I think it is about personal choices and making the best decision for you. There are some great drugs and some terrible ones...
not sure I was to be around till 110..lol
-
Hard to say... The amount of women protected from cervical cancer compared to the number of deaths is the factor being ignored. There are 2 vaccines at the moment. At this time I probably wouldn't let my kids get the shot.
Dina... you put any weight on yet? :)
-
Hard to say... The amount of women protected from cervical cancer compared to the number of deaths is the factor being ignored. There are 2 vaccines at the moment. At this time I probably wouldn't let my kids get the shot.
Dina... you put any weight on yet? :)
It doesn't protect all the strains known to cause cancer and it is not known whether that will affect the strains it doesn't protect for becoming more prevalent. A lot of people get HPV and their body deals with and it doesn't become cancer. They are using a lot of scare tactics with this vaccine and with the number of adverse reactions (some deaths, some long term problems, etc, I posted the current VAERS list) it does not seem, IMO, that the benefits outweigh the risks from something you can protect yourself from without an injection (a condom). And to make grade school kids get the vaccine is an outrage. That should be the parents choice and the child's choice and not done in the 6th grade.
This vaccine and it's studies are so flawed and lacking it is pitiful. Another case of reading the goal, but not looking any deeper.
-
It doesn't protect all the strains known to cause cancer and it is not known whether that will affect the strains it doesn't protect for becoming more prevalent. A lot of people get HPV and their body deals with and it doesn't become cancer. They are using a lot of scare tactics with this vaccine and with the number of adverse reactions (some deaths, some long term problems, etc, I posted the current VAERS list) it does not seem, IMO, that the benefits outweigh the risks from something you can protect yourself from without an injection (a condom). And to make grade school kids get the vaccine is an outrage. That should be the parents choice and the child's choice and not done in the 6th grade.
This vaccine and it's studies are so flawed and lacking it is pitiful. Another case of reading the goal, but not looking any deeper.
Compared to other vaccines and most medicines it's relatively safe. A vaccine for all strains of HPV would be too expensive. One for the most pravalent strains seems pretty reasonable. The vaccine is a good tool for high risk people but everyone doesn't need it. It's america, LOL! You know someone will sue their gyno for not insisting on the shot if they get cervical cancer.
Tons of conditions would be prevented with condoms.
-
Compared to other vaccines and most medicines it's relatively safe. A vaccine for all strains of HPV would be too expensive. One for the most pravalent strains seems pretty reasonable. The vaccine is a good tool for high risk people but everyone doesn't need it. It's america, LOL! You know someone will sue their gyno for not insisting on the shot if they get cervical cancer.
Tons of conditions would be prevented with condoms.
Hmm... i guess the definition of relatively safe is different to everyone:
2,207 adverse reactions to Gardasil
have been reported. Among them:
* 5 girls died
* 31 were considered life-threatening
* 1,385 required a visit to the emergency room
* 451 of the girls have not recovered as of July 2007
* 51 of the girls were disabled
Gardasil "may be more dangerous than consumers have been led to
believe," according to one public-interest group, and an editorial in
the New England Journal of Medicine has also raised questions about
the vaccine's effectiveness.
yes, someone would sue their doctor for not recommending it, but good luck trying to get any compensation for vaccine induced problems!!!! What bullshit!!! >:(
-
There are about 120,000+ deaths/year due to hospital mistakes.
I agree with you that the drug is being pushed too much. My point is that there are far worse drugs on the market. The numbers just look worse because of Gardasil's popularity. In a nutshell: The statistics are higher because more people are taking the drug but it is relatively safe compared to other medical interventions.
Considering the problems reported with the vaccine this soon.. we can guess this is only the tip of the iceberg.
-
lol @ relatively safe
To me that is a crock of shit term that doctors use WAY too often while not being forthcoming with the unsafe part of vaccines and medications, vaccines being the bigger of the 2 where information is glossed over and flat out withheld.
Which is why it is so hard to "prove" damage caused by vaccines because most of the profession finds them "relatively safe", so nothing can be attributed to them. It is actually a brilliant strategy from the medical profession. ::)
-
lol @ relatively safe
To me that is a crock of shit term that doctors use WAY too often while not being forthcoming with the unsafe part of vaccines and medications, vaccines being the bigger of the 2 where information is glossed over and flat out withheld.
Which is why it is so hard to "prove" damage caused by vaccines because most of the profession finds them "relatively safe", so nothing can be attributed to them. It is actually a brilliant strategy from the medical proffession. ::)
LOL!
You couldn't be more wrong, especially considering I agreed with you.
'Relatively safe' means just that. If someone would rather risk cervical cancer than side effects from the vaccine it should be their choice. Only problem is the same person who gets cervical cancer will turn aound and sue the doctor for not trying harder to convince them on taking the vaccine. Taking the vaccine or not taking the vaccine.. people don't have any personal responsibility. Furthermore the vaccine company can't be sued so who's caught in the middle? Your doctor. :) Why? Because Gardasil rendered cervical cancer a preventable disease and its administration has become considered the new "standard of care" . Based on my understanding of medical malpractice a doctors chances of winning a suit are much better for administering a therapy within the standard of care than if someone got a preventable diseease.
Vaccine manufacturers are protected from most litigation by the govornment. I'm not sure if those administering vaccines are held harmless but that would be my best guess.
If it's that bad hopefully the vaccine is pulled off the market before too many people are affected. They're giving the shot like candy here in the carrib, cervical cancer and HPV are pretty common in this region.
-
You missed my point :P It is very hard to prove damage from vaccines because most doctors think they don't cause any, and unless it happens 10seconds after they gave you the shot it is unrelated and a coincidence.
-
You missed my point :P It is very hard to prove damage from vaccines because most doctors think they don't cause any, and unless it happens 10seconds after they gave you the shot it is unrelated and a coincidence.
I get your point but the doctor isn't really legally responsible unless he deviates from the standard of care. They can't deviate because they are the only one who has anything to lose when things go wrong. Before you get going, LOL! I'm not saying people who suffer side effects or die aren't losing something but the doctor is the only one on the hook from a financial point of view as the vaccine companies are pretty well insulated by the govt. There is a Govt. fund that pays some parents whose children die from bad vaccines but last time I found the topic interesting what they actually paid out was kept secret.
I won't get flu shots, LOL! The risk of guillian barre is pretty small but I'm not taking any chances.
At one time I went more than two years with no meds whatsoever and finally had to take an advil cold and sinus.
-
Just my personal opinion, but we're going to see a helluva increase in Alzheimer's Disease due to force vaccinations. And the toll won't show up for another 60 years. No one has stopped to even consider the effects of the aluminum in Gardasil, and where it goes after it facilitates the drugs absorption into the body. If we thought thalidomide was a nightmare, ...wait until we start seeing the senility and Alzheimer's produced by this one. I'm sure pretty soon we'll start to see Merck investing in for-profit palliative care facilities.
-
With the ever increasing number of vaccinations being "required" for school children it is even more important for parents and expecting parents to do research and decide which, if any, vaccinations they want their kids to get and to realize they can get EXEMPTIONS.
I think most people are unaware that they can say NO, and they can ask for single vaccines if they do not want combos and they can even spread the vaccination schedule out farther if they want.
I see more lawsuits in the future because FULL DISCLOSURE is not being given to people.
-
NVIC Analysis Shows Greater Risk of GBS Reports When HPV Vaccine Is Given
with Meningococcal and Other Vaccines
Washington, August 15, 2007 - The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)
today issued a new report on HPV vaccine (GardasilR) safety analyzing
adverse event reports to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System
(VAERS). The analysis gives evidence for a reported association in VAERS
between Gardasil and Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), with a statistically
significant increased risk of GBS and other serious adverse event reports
when Gardasil is co- administered with other vaccines, especially
meningococcal vaccine (MenactraR).
NVIC is calling on the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to issue an
Advisory and amend its March 12 policy by alerting the public that Gardasil
has been associated with 15 cases of GBS and an increased risk of GBS and
other serious adverse event reports made to VAERS when the vaccine is
administered simultaneously with Menactra and other vaccines. "The
precautionary principle dictates that good science should precede CDC
vaccine policy recommendations," said Barbara Loe Fisher, NVIC co-founder
and president. "Parents have a right to expect proof of safety and not
assumption of safety before new vaccines, like Gardasil, are given
simultaneously with other vaccines to their children.
GBS is a disorder in which the body's immune system attacks part of the
peripheral nervous system, and can cause total paralysis. "Our analysis of
Gardasil reports to VAERS indicates there was a two to 12 times greater
likelihood that serious adverse events, such as GBS, were reported when
Gardasil was given in combination with Menactra rather than given alone,"
said Vicky Debold, PhD, RN, NVIC director of patient safety. "Accepted
scientific standards indicate that these findings are statistically
significant and cannot be dismissed as coincidence. In particular, the
available VAERS data show there was a more than 1,000 percent increased risk
of GBS reports following Gardasil administration when Menactra was given at
the same time."
Reported GBS and Other Serious Adverse Events
NVIC found that, as of May 31, there have been 2,227 Gardasil adverse events
filed with VAERS, including 13 suspected or confirmed cases of GBS (two more
GBS reports were made in June for a total of 15) and 239 cases of syncope
(fainting with temporary loss of consciousness), many of which resulted in
head injuries and fractures. Seven deaths have been reported after receipt
of Gardasil. Nearly 10 percent of all Gardasil adverse event reports to
VAERS involved avoidable medical errors.
A total of 1,930 reported Gardasil adverse events involved administration of
Gardasil alone, and 135 adverse events involved co-administration of
Gardasil with Menactra. NVIC's comparative analysis of those two categories
of VAERS reports indicates that when Gardasil was given simultaneously with
Menactra rather than alone, there was a statistically significant increased
risk of reported adverse events:
-respiratory problem reports increased by 114 percent;
-cardiac problems reports increased by 118 percent;
-neuromuscular and coordination problem reports increased by 234 percent;
-convulsions and central nervous system problem reports increased by 301
percent;
-reports of injuries from falls after unconsciousness increased by 674
percent; and
-GBS reports increased by 1,130 percent.
On February 21, NVIC expressed concern about the safety of administering
Gardasil simultaneously with other vaccines because the manufacturer
(Merck), the FDA and the CDC had not provided evidence to the public that
co-administration was safe. (1) On March 12, the CDC published
recommendations for Gardasil use in MMWR that acknowledged there is a lack
of evidence that Gardasil can be safely administered with other vaccines,
while encouraging physicians to co- administer Menactra and other vaccines
with Gardasil based on assumption of safety. (2)
Adverse Event Reports to NVIC: Shannon Nelson
Nineteen Gardasil adverse event reports from 12 states have been made to
NVIC's Vaccine Reaction Registry involving unconsciousness and injury,
convulsions, numbness, weakness and other neuromuscular and coordination
problems and GBS.
Shannon Nelson, 18, a Chicago area athlete, musician and artist entering
college reported to NVIC that she received HPV vaccine (Gardasil),
meningococcal vaccine (Menactra) and chicken pox vaccine (Varivax R)
simultaneously on June 21. Symptoms of tingling, numbness and muscle
weakness began within a week and progressively got worse. By July 3 she
could barely walk or raise her arms. She was hospitalized, paralyzed with
GBS on July 5, and spent 22 days in the hospital.
"Before the shots, I ran six miles a day," said Nelson. "The doctors told me
that I might have been put on a respirator if I hadn't been in such good
shape," she said. "I am out of the hospital now and getting a lot of
physical therapy. I just want to go to college and do the things I did
before, like play the guitar and draw or even just be able to smile. My Mom
and I wish we had known about HPV vaccine risks, especially what could
happen if I got other vaccines at the same time."
To view a copy of NVIC's report on HPV vaccine (Gardasil) safety, go here
<http://www.nvic.org/Diseases/HPV/HPVHOME.htm>
To report a vaccine reaction, go here
<http://www.nvic.org/report/reaction.htm>
References:
1) Vaccine Safety Group Releases Gardasil Report
<http://www.nvic.org/Diseases/HPV/pr022107HPV.htm> : Calls on FDA and CDC to
Warn Doctors and Parents to Report to VAERS, February 21, 2007.
2) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Quadrivalent Human
Papillomavirus Vaccine: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on
Immunization Practices (ACIP). Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR)
Early Release 2007 <http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr56e312a1.htm>
; 56 March 12, 2007:1-24.
Learn more about vaccines, diseases and how to protect your informed consent rights at www.nvic.org <http://www.nvic.org/>
National Vaccine Information Center
204 Mill Street
Vienna, VA 22180
phone: 703-938-0342
-
At least I know what to tell people.
-
At least I know what to tell people.
???
-
???
When they ask I'll say condoms and limiting partners are far safer.
-
When they ask I'll say condoms and limiting partners are far safer.
ohhhhhhhhhhh ;)
-
interesting blog:
http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com/2007/05/gardasil-2.html (http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com/2007/05/gardasil-2.html)
1. There is a controversy surrounding Gardasil in Texas.
This story has gotten a lot of press coverage so we’re not going to rehash all of the details here, but here’s a quick timeline of what happened:
~In early February, Texas Governor Rick Perry issued an executive order making Gardasil mandatory for girls entering the sixth grade. In doing so, he bypassed the state legislature and a public outcry of opposition.
~After the order was issued, it came out that Governor Perry has some ties to Merck that some people found questionable. His former chief of staff is one of Merck’s lobbyists in Texas, and the mother-in-law of his current chief of staff is the state director of Women in Government, an advocacy group that has received funds from Merck and has been a major part of Merck’s lobbying campaign for Gardasil. Merck’s political action committee also contributed to Perry’s reelection campaign.
~The situation in Texas generated a lot of discussion, debate, protest, and media coverage, which most likely contributed to Merck’s announcement in late February that it was suspending its lobbying efforts in many states to have the vaccine made mandatory for students.
~On March 14th, the Texas House of Representatives voted to overturn Governor Perry’s executive order. The bill would keep Gardasil off of the list of required vaccines for students. A similar bill is being considered by the state Senate. The issue is not just the opposition to Gardasil, but also the fact that the governor bypassed the legislature and may have overstepped his authority by issuing a binding executive order. If the bill is passed, it could still be vetoed by the governor, so lawmakers are trying to get the bill to the governor’s desk as quickly as possible so that they will have time to override a potential veto before the legislative session ends in May.
~In late April, a revised version of the bill passed both the Texas House and Senate and was sent to the governor, who then had 10 days to either sign or veto it. The legislature has enough votes to override a veto. The bill prevents state officials from requiring the vaccine for school admittance, but the ban will expire after four years so that the vaccine can be reevaluated.
~On May 8th, Governor Perry announced that he would not veto the bill. He was extremely critical of the bill and the legislature, but said that a veto would be pointless since there were enough votes to override it.
In contrast to the Texas drama, New Hampshire has largely avoided controversy by choosing not to make Gardasil mandatory, but instead to make it available free of charge to girls ages 11 to 18 through a state program for immunization of minors. One of the stated reasons for making a vaccine (especially a very expensive one like Gardasil) mandatory is that it levels the playing field, allowing people at all income levels to have the same access to the treatment. The New Hampshire approach isn't perfect either--there are waiting lists and some reports of doctors running out of the vaccine and having to wait for more--but it does provide equal access while also allowing parents more freedom to decide if and when their children should be vaccinated.
2. A variety of adverse reactions to Gardasil have been reported.
Merck has released a list of the side effects that someone could experience from Gardasil: pain, swelling, itching and redness at the injection site, fever, nausea, and dizziness.
However, the list of adverse reactions from the first dose of Gardasil that has been reported so far is more extensive. It includes:
* loss of consciousness and syncope
* seizures
* dizziness, shakiness,"feeling faint"
* loss of vision, decrease in quality of vision, dryness of eyes
* abnormal speech
* nausea, vomiting
* headache
* pallor, purple coloration of the lips
* fever, chills
* dyskinesia (difficulty or distortion in performing voluntary movements)
* hypokinesia (slow or diminished movement of the body musculature)
* difficulty swallowing
* joint pain
* Guillain-Barre Syndrome (an immune disorder which effects the peripheral nervous system and in extreme cases can cause paralysis)
* hives, itching, rashes, blisters, vesicles, and skin ulcers
* swelling of the arms, swelling of the lower extremities, swelling of the lymph nodes
* severe pain at the site of injection.
The information on these reactions comes from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is a program co-sponsored by the FDA and the CDC.
The National Vaccine Information Center has released two reports analyzing the reactions that have been reported so far: 1st Report, 2nd Report. Just to clarify—the National Vaccine Information Center is a nonprofit organization that advocates “the institution of vaccine safety and informed consent protections in the mass vaccination system”. So they’re not an objective source and their agenda has to be taken into consideration when you read their reports. But they are drawing their information on negative reactions straight from the VAERS database, which as we said above is an FDA/CDC program, making it a part of the federal Department of Health and Human Services.
One of the interesting things about this information is that quite a few of the negative reactions that were reported, including most of the cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome, occurred in patients that had received another vaccine at the same time as Gardasil. (The meningococcal vaccine Menactra, which appears in several of the Gardasil reports, has been previously associated with Guillain-Barre warnings) As we mentioned in our first Ten Things, Gardasil was only tested for safety when administered at the same time as the Hepatitis B vaccine. No other combinations of vaccines were tested, so it is difficult to say if some of these negative reactions were caused by Gardasil, by the other vaccine involved, by the combination of the two vaccines, or by some other factors.
3. Anyone who is allergic to the ingredients of Gardasil should not receive the vaccine.
Gardasil is fermented in giant vats of yeast paste, which means that anyone with a yeast allergy should not get the vaccine. The CDC’s Vaccine Information Statement lists yeast allergy as a reason to avoid the vaccine, but the Patient Product Information on gardasil.com does not specifically mention yeast.
The listed ingredients are: “purified inactive proteins that come from HPV Types 6, 11, 16, and 18…amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate, sodium chloride, L-histidine, polysorbate 80, sodium borate, and water for injection.”
If you or your child have ever had even a mild negative reaction to a vaccine, or you have any allergies at all, even ones that you may not think could possibly be relevant, you should talk to your doctor and make sure you're aware of any potential complications. (Merck also recommends that you tell your doctor if you or your child have any type of bleeding disorder that would make injections difficult, a weakened immune system, a fever or other mild illness, or are taking any prescription or over-the-counter medications.)
Maybe in some circles it's common knowledge that yeast is sometimes used to develop vaccines, but we didn't know it and many of our friends didn't either. You may have a condition like a yeast allergy and not be aware of it, or your doctor may not be aware of it, and it could cause a negative reaction that you never even knew you should be looking out for. So seek out as much information as you can and talk everything through with your doctor until you feel comfortable. It's your health, so be as cautious as you want to be.
4. Women who may be pregnant, women who are breast-feeding, and women who have already been exposed to HPV should approach Gardasil with caution.
Women who may be pregnant and women who are breast-feeding should be cautious, because there are some questions about whether Gardasil could potentially affect fertility or cause harm to a fetus or a nursing infant. Full information about the testing that was conducted on pregnant and breast-feeding women can be found on the FDA's website, but we have pulled out some of the relevant quotes.
“…it is not known whether GARDASIL can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or if it can affect reproductive capacity. GARDASIL should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed.”
“The effect of GARDASIL on male fertility has not been studied.”
“Overall, the proportions of pregnancies with an adverse outcome were comparable in subjects who received GARDASIL and subjects who received placebo.” (One note here—both Gardasil and the placebo contained aluminum, so if you are concerned about the potential harmful effects of aluminum, it’s not possible to tell whether aluminum could have been a factor in any of the complications that were experienced).
“It is not known whether vaccine antigens or antibodies induced by the vaccine are excreted in human milk. Because many drugs are excreted in human milk, caution should be exercised when GARDASIL is administered to a nursing woman.”
Also, a small number of women who used the vaccine near the time of conception gave birth to children suffering from birth defects, although there is no specific evidence that Gardasil was the cause.
Merck claims that Gardasil may still be beneficial for women who have already been exposed to HPV, since the vaccine protects against four HPV strains and it is unlikely that a woman would be exposed to all four, so the vaccine could still provide protection against the remaining strains. But it is worth noting that after reviewing the clinical trials of Gardasil last summer, the FDA did raise a concern about the potential for the vaccine to lead to "an increased number of cases of a cancer precursor" among patients already infected with one of the strains of HPV affected by Gardasil. It's important to remember that most cases of HPV show no symptoms at all and that the virus can remain in your body for months or even years.
So if you're considering Gardasil but think there's a chance you may have HPV, you may want to consider your HPV testing options before you go ahead with the vaccine.
5. A new study published by JAMA shows that only about 3.4% of women have one of the four strains of HPV that Gardasil protects against.
A study published in the February 28th issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association has found that about 26% of women aged 14 to 59 in the U.S. have HPV. According to the study, HPV is most prevalent among women aged 20-24. About two percent have types 16 or 18, which are the types believed to cause about 70% of cervical cancer cases, and are two of the strains of HPV that Gardasil protects against. When HPV types 6 and 11 are included, it brings the number up to 3.4% of women infected with one of the four strains of HPV that Gardasil targets. Of course, this isn’t a total number of women who will ever be affected by one of these four strains, since the study included a wide age range of women and it is possible that some of the younger women will be exposed to more strains of HPV over their lifetimes. But the numbers still help to provide some perspective about the prevalence of these particular strains versus the prevalence of HPV overall.
With all of the statistics being thrown around in the media about how common HPV is and how many millions of people will get it in their lifetimes, that perspective is important. There are dozens of strains of HPV. A few of them are linked to genital warts and a few of them are linked to cervical cancer. The majority of cases of HPV will eventually clear on their own. Getting HPV does not mean you will get cancer. Gardasil protects against four specific strains of HPV. Getting vaccinated with Gardasil does not mean that you’ll never get HPV, or that you’ll never be at risk for genital warts or cervical cancer. Your risk will be greatly reduced, but not eliminated.
6. Questions have been raised about several of the ingredients in Gardasil.
Gardasil is made with genetically engineered materials. Being genetically engineered doesn't automatically make Gardasil evil and harmful, but it's interesting that while many people say that the idea of genetically engineered food seems unnatural and makes them uncomfortable, a lot of those same people are putting a genetically engineered vaccine into their (or their children's) bodies without a second thought. Products made with genetically modified organisms are still controversial, and many people feel that such products should be studied more thoroughly, labeled more clearly, or even banned altogether, while others believe that they are safe and that the potential benefits of genetically engineered products outweigh the potential risks. [Nutrition Action HealthLetter] [ScienceDaily] [Greenpeace] [BBC News]
Polysorbate-80, another Gardasil ingredient, has also been linked to possible negative effects. There are some claims that polysorbate is potentially carcinogenic, and polysorbate-80 has also been linked to infertility in mice, although the amount of polysorbate in the three doses of Gardasil is thought to be too low to cause harm in humans.
Here is what the medical encyclopedia of the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the NIH has to say about sodium borate, another ingredient in Gardasil:
Sodium borate is the main ingredient in boric acid. (Powdered boric acid is often used to kill cockroaches.)
Sodium borate poisoning can be acute or chronic. Acute, accidental sodium borate poisoning usually occurs when someone swallows powdered roach-killing products that contain the chemical.
Poisoning may also occur in those who are repeatedly exposed to sodium borate. In the past, boric acid was used to disinfect and treat wounds. Patients who received such treatment over and over again got sick, and some died. Because boric acid is now known to be a dangerous poison, it is no longer commonly used in medical preparations. However, boric acid is contained in some vaginal suppositories used for yeast infections, although this is NOT a standard treatment.
Some of the symptoms listed for sodium borate poisoning are similar to those that have been reported by patients who have suffered negative effects from Gardasil.
Of course, we're not saying that every single claim about any of these ingredients being harmful is automatically 100% accurate. And we're not claiming that Gardasil equals certain doom because there are concerns. We don't think it's impossible for the benefits to outweigh the risks in some cases. We just think it's important for people to have as much information as possible about what those risks and benefits are so that they can make good decisions, and that they have the freedom to make those decisions for themselves and their families.
7. A researcher who participated in studies of Gardasil has expressed her concerns about making the vaccine mandatory.
Researcher blasts HPV marketing BY CINDY BEVINGTON Wednesday, March 14, 2007
LEBANON, N.H. - A lead researcher who spent 20 years developing the vaccine for humanpapilloma virus says the HPV vaccine is not for younger girls, and that it is "silly" for states to be mandating it for them.
Not only that, she says it's not been tested for effectiveness in younger girls, and administering the vaccine to girls as young as 9 may not even protect them at all. And, in the worst-case scenario, instead of serving to reduce the numbers of cervical cancers within 25 years, such a vaccination crusade actually could cause the numbers to go up.
"Giving it to 11-year-olds is a great big public health experiment," said Diane M. Harper, who is a scientist, physician, professor and the director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth Medical School in New Hampshire. "It is silly to mandate vaccination of 11- to 12-year-old girls There also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue."
Internationally recognized as a pioneer in the field, Harper has been studying HPV and a possible vaccine for several of the more than 100 strains of HPV for 20 years - most of her adult life. All of her trials have been with subjects ages 15 to 25. In her own practice, Harper believes the ideal way of administering the new vaccine is to offer it to women ages 18 and up. At the time of their first inoculation, they should be tested for the presence of HPV in their system. If the test comes back negative, then schedule the follow-up series of the three-part shots. But if it comes back positive? "Then we don't know squat, because medically we don't know how to respond to that," Harper said.
Harper is an independent researcher whose vaccine work is funded through Dartmouth in part by both Merck & Co. and GlaxoSmithKline, which means she is an employee of the university, not the drug companies. Merck's vaccine, Gardasil, protects against four strains of HPV, two of which cause genital warts, Nos. 6 and 11. The other two, HPV 16 and 18, are cancer-causing viruses.
Merck's vaccine was approved last year by the Food and Drug Administration, and recommended in June for females ages 9 to 26 by the Centers for Disease Control's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Glaxo has stated publicly that its vaccine, Cervarix, which protects against the two cancer-causing strains, should be on the market by 2008.
-
As the director of an international clinical trial for these vaccines, and as author of lead articles about the vaccines' effectiveness, Harper has been quoted widely as saying this vaccine could have enormous potential to eradicate the great majority of cervical cancers. Picking up on this, but before the trials were even completed, major news media and women's advocacy groups began trumpeting the vaccine as an answer to cancer of the cervix.
Once it was approved by the FDA and ACIP, Women In Government (WIG), a non-profit organization comprised of female state and federal legislators, began championing Merck's vaccine in their home states, with many of the ladies introducing legislation that would mandate the vaccine for 11- and 12-year-olds. In Indiana, Sen. Connie Lawson, R-Danville, introduced such a bill in this year's General Assembly, but in the face of strong opposition, it was reduced to an education/information-only bill that requires data collection on any Hoosier girls who do get the vaccine. The bill is now awaiting a hearing in the Indiana House. So far at least 26 states are reported to be considering some form of legislation requiring the new vaccine for younger girls. In February, Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry bypassed his legislature and mandated it for all 11- and 12-year-old girls in his state. Monday, The Associated Press reported that New Mexico's governor, Democratic presidential contender Bill Richardson, is set to sign a bill requiring sixth grade girls in his state to get the vaccine.
The idea is to inoculate them before they become sexually active, since HPV can be spread through sexual intercourse. But that idea, no matter how good the intentions behind it, is not the right thinking, Harper said. The zealousness to inoculate all these younger girls may very well backfire at the very time they need protection most, she said.
"This vaccine should not be mandated for 11-year-old girls," she reiterated. "It's not been tested in little girls for efficacy. At 11, these girls don't get cervical cancer - they won't know for 25 years if they will get cervical cancer.
"Also, the public needs to know that with vaccinated women and women who still get Pap smears (which test for abnormal cells that can lead to cancer), some of them will still get cervical cancer."
The reason, she said, is because the vaccine does not protect against all HPV viruses that cause cancer - it's only effective against two that cause about 70 percent of cervical cancers.
For months, Harper said, she's been trying to convince major television and print media to listen to her and tell the facts about the usefulness and effectiveness of this vaccine. "But no one will print it," she said.
According to Harper, the facts about the HPV vaccine are:
* It is not a cancer vaccine or cure. It is a prophylactic - preventative -vaccine for a virus that can cause cancer. "Merck has proven it has zero percent effectiveness for curing cancer," Harper said. "But it is a very, very good vaccine that prevents types of HPV responsible for half of the high-grade cervical lesions that cause about 70 percent of cervical cancers. For the U.S. what that means is the vaccine will prevent about half of high-grade precursors of cancer but half will still occur, so hundreds of thousands of women who are vaccinated with Gardasil and get yearly Pap testing will still get a high-grade dysplasia (cell abnormality)."
* It is not 100 percent effective against all HPVs. It is 100 percent effective against two types that cause 70 percent of cervical cancers.
* The vaccine only works if the woman/girl does not have a current vaccine type related infection (in other words, the vaccine only works when the woman/girl does not have HPV 6, 11, 16 or 18 - the viruses that Gardasil targets when she receives her first vaccine shot).
* The vaccine doesn't care if the girl/woman has been sexually active, Harper said. "HPV is a skin-to-skin infection. Although the only way to get cervical dysplasia is through an HPV infection, and HPV is most often associated with sexual activity, HPV is not just spread through sex. We have multiple papers where that's documented. We know that 3-year-olds, 5-year-olds, 10-year-olds, and women who have never had sex have been found to be positive for the cancer-causing HPV types."
* Therefore, for example, if a girl is positive for HPV 16 when she is inoculated with the vaccine at any age, she will not be protected against it later, Harper said. "That means it's a failure and those people are at risk for getting the HPV 16 and 18 cancers later."
* The only way to test for the presence of HPV is through a vaginal swab -which is inappropriate for young girls, she said.
* So what happens if the girls are vaccinated anyway, not knowing whether they were carrying the virus at the time of their inoculation? "They will not be protected if they were positive for the virus at the time they are vaccinated," Harper said.
* That is why it is important to note that the vaccine has not been tested for efficacy (effectiveness) in younger girls, she said. Instead, the effectiveness was "bridged" from the older girls to the younger ones -meaning that Merck assumed that because it proved effective in the older girls, it also would be effective in the younger ones. The actual tests on the younger girls, ages 9 to 15, were only for safety and immune response, Harper said, and then only as a shot by itself, or in combination with only one other vaccine, Hepatitis B. It has not been tested in conjunction with any other shots a girl receives at about age 11, Harper said.
* So far more than 40 cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome - a dangerous immune disorder that causes tingling, numbness and even paralysis of the muscles have been reported in girls who have received the HPV vaccine in combination with the meningitis vaccine. Scientists already know that sometimes a vaccine can trigger the syndrome in a subject. "With the HPV vaccine, it is a small number but higher than is expected, and we don't know if it's the combination of the two, or the meningitis alone," Harper said.
* In the end, inoculating young girls may backfire because it will give them a false sense of protection. And, for both young girls and women, because the vaccine's purpose has been so misinterpreted - and mis-marketed - Harper feels that too many girls and women who have had the vaccine will develop a false sense of security, believing they are immune to cancer when they are not, and failing to continue with their annual Pap exams, are crucial to diagnosing dysplasia before it can develop into cancer.
The message to consumers, Harper said, is don't stop getting Pap smears just because you've gotten the HPV vaccine. "This vaccine is good, and it will save a huge number of lives around the world," Harper said. "But an important point is that, if women get the vaccine and then not get their Pap smears, or decide to get them infrequently, what will happen in the U.S. is that we will have an increase in cervical cancer, because the Pap screening does a very good job.
"That's my main diatribe. We don't need mandatory vaccinations for little girls. What we do need to ask, though, is how long does it last, and when do you need a booster?"
For the governors of the states in this country, Harper has another message. One has to do with the fact that vaccinating little girls now is not going to protect them later. Since it can take a decade or more to even manifest itself as dysplasia, the HPVs against which this vaccine works may infect a little girl at the age she needs the vaccine most - meaning she will have to have a booster at the right point in time or she will not be protected. And, remember, it won't work at all if she was positive for the virus when she was inoculated in the first place.
Merck knows this, Harper said. "To mandate now is simply to Merck's benefit, and only to Merck's benefit," she said. Merck was required to put together a database on the efficacy in children before Gardasil was approved, Harper said. But instead, the company put together four study sites that "are not necessarily representative, and may not even have enough numbers to determine what they need to know."
Since she doesn't personally have access to the money Merck and GlaxoSmithKline pay for her HPV vaccine research, Harper doesn't know exactly how much either has paid Dartmouth for her work. The trials are expensive, between $4,000 and $5,000 for each patient, she said. With over 100 patients in her study, some big bucks could be in the balance, should Merck or Glaxo become upset with her for making these comments.
Why, then, would she risk speaking out like this - at a time when her words very well could influence legislation across the country, and prompt legislators to drop the mandates? Isn't she afraid of losing her funding?
"I want to be able to sleep with myself when I go to bed at night," Harper said. "My concern is still, let's get women's health better. It is still a good vaccine. But let's be honest. Don't over-promise."
8. Men are increasingly seeking out information about HPV and Gardasil, especially in the gay community.
In our first 10 Things we wrote about the fact that Gardasil was initially approved only for women (in the U.S.), and that most of the initial testing focused on women and girls and was only expanded later to begin to include more boys and men. We found this a little concerning considering that men can get and give HPV just like women can, and men can also (to a lesser degree than women) be at risk for genital warts and certain types of cancer as a result of HPV infection.
One of the biggest problems is the fact that there is no FDA-approved HPV test for men (and the CDC claims that such a test is unnecessary, which we ranted on in our first top ten), and there have been fewer studies done on HPV in men than there have been with women. So even if a man wanted to be as responsible as possible about STD testing, his options are limited where HPV is concerned. Many men probably don't even realize that even though they are getting tested for other STDs regularly, they are still at risk for HPV and may be putting their partners at risk as well.
Some research being done now has shown that HPV may be more prevalent in men than in women, and little is known about whether transmission rates differ from men to women, women to men, men to other men, etc. This information could be critical in determining who really should be getting the vaccine, what the cost benefits are, and what the best methods of preventing HPV infection are in general.
HPV is of particular concern to gay men, because rates of anal cancer have been rising.
While rates of anal cancer are low in the general population -- and more women than men get anal cancer every year -- they're disproportionately high among gay men and people who are HIV-positive or have other immune-suppressive conditions. Part of the explanation for increased cases of anal cancer is better reporting of the disease, but Bay Area doctors say it also could be tied to HIV rates.
Studies have shown rates of anal cancer as high as 35 cases for every 100,000 people among gay men -- a figure comparable to rates of cervical cancer in women before Pap tests were introduced as a screening tool 60 years ago. Since then, rates of cervical cancer have fallen 70 percent.
Some doctors are recommending anal Pap tests for gay men as a way of catching precancerous lesions before they become anal cancer, similar to the screening process for cervical cancer. And a growing number of men are choosing to go ahead and be vaccinated with Gardasil now as a way to potentially protect themselves and their partners from any strains of HPV that they have not already been exposed to. This is an "off license" use for Gardasil since the FDA has yet to approve it for adult men, but many men and some doctors feel that the potential benefits make it worthwhile.
We don't understand why Merck hasn't incorporated this angle into their marketing campaigns. We can't think of anything that would get the conservative abstinence-only crowd on board with mandatory vaccination faster than saying ''hey, guess what? the two groups of people who benefit most from our vaccine are your precious young daughters and...gay men!'' This must have simply been an oversight that we're sure Merck is working to remedy. Expect the PSA featuring Hilary Duff and Lance Bass any day now.
9. There is a product called carrageenan that may be effective at preventing HPV infection.
Some early research has shown that carrageenan, a thickening agent derived from algae, is a powerful HPV inhibitor.
In laboratory tests, carrageenan, a compound derived from red algae, prevented HPV infection by both genital wart and cancer-causing types. "We were floored by how much better it worked than anything else we have tested. It's effective at 100-fold lower concentration than the next best inhibitor we've found," said Dr. John Schiller, senior investigator at the National Cancer Institute.
Normally, HPV attacks cells by attaching to proteins on their surface and then chemically manipulating access to the cells. Carrageenan thwarts this process by attaching to HPV and preventing its entry into cells. [Medical News Today][CBS News]
Carrageenan has also been studied for its ability to prevent herpes and HIV transmission, but it was found to be much more powerful at inhibiting HPV transmission. Carrageenan is used in a variety of commercial products, including some sexual lubricants and lubricated condoms.
Clinical trials could determine whether carrageenan could be successfully and safely used as a topical microbicide to prevent the spread of HPV. Since carageenan is already used in a variety of food, cosmetics, and sex-related products, it seems possible that a product like this could be developed. If so, it would be a powerful and relatively inexpensive tool in the fight against HPV, which would be especially beneficial in lower income countries around the world where women have limited access to health care and cervical cancer is a significant problem.
10. There is another HPV vaccine in development, which works differently than Gardasil.
GlaxoSmithKline is currently in the final stages of testing its own HPV vaccine, called Cervarix, which could be on the market as early as the end of the year. Like Gardasil, Cervarix protects against HPV types 16 and 18, which are said to cause most cases of cervical cancer. Unlike Gardasil, Cervarix does not protect against the types of HPV that cause most cases of genital warts.
Based on the information that has been released so far and the testing that is currently being done, it seems that Glaxo will try to market Cervarix as being better than Gardasil for two reasons. First, it may also protect against HPV types 45 and 31, which have also been linked to cervical cancer. Tests are underway now to determine whether this is definitely the case. And second, because Glaxo is using a special type of adjuvant that is different from the basic aluminum adjuvant used in Gardasil, they are claiming that Cervarix will provide better and longer-lasting immunity to HPV than Gardasil does, especially among girls aged 10-14.
Cervarix has also been tested on women as old as 55, which seems to indicate that Glaxo will target a wider market of women than Merck has with Gardasil. Earlier this year, Glaxo launched a study designed to directly compare the effectiveness of Cervarix and Gardasil and it will be interesting to see what the results are. Cervarix was also just recently approved for women ages 10-45 in Australia. We’ll keep researching and writing about Cervarix as it gets closer to approval in the U.S.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Our conclusion now is still the same as it was when we wrote our first 10 Things. This is a complicated issue but it also comes down to a personal choice, and everyone should be able to make that choice for themselves or for their children with as much research and information and as little guilt and manipulation as possible.
As always, we'd love to know what you think, so keep the comments and emails coming.
-
I dont like the way they tried to force it on the public.
I never want myself or my family to be the first public users of ANY new drug.
BUT, That said - People can refuse to have their child vaccinated with it.
As far as the long list of side effect and adverse reactions, thats similar for many/ most drugs.
But -Flower, Your blowing the risks of this drug WAY out of proportion.
As Doc pointed out, theres a lot of Meds w/ bad side effects.
The Pharma Corps and all connected, including Politicians thought that they had scored a big fat barrel of MONEY! Well I hope they didnt count it before they got it, because its not going to play out the way they hoped.
I suspect the drug is safer for most. As safe as anything else that makes it thru the FDA approvals.
-
I didn't make up those adverse affects. The drug has not been proven that it will cut down on cervical cancer or what long term affects are.
They have downplayed the side affects and overblown what they THINK it will do.
If you just saw an ad on TV you would think it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. This is just information that you have to look for yourself to find, which is not the way it should be. People are not being given all the information, the ads are very deceptive IMO.
-
Eliminating HPV is the bigger picture.
Those who fell were pharmaceutical heros ::)
-
I didn't make up those adverse affects. The drug has not been proven that it will cut down on cervical cancer or what long term affects are.
They have downplayed the side affects and overblown what they THINK it will do.
If you just saw an ad on TV you would think it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
I know you didnt make them up, but EVERY drug in PDR or Phy Gen Rx has a similar long list of various bad side-effects.
All drugs have sides and they also vary person to person.
Of course they Promote their product to the hilt, everone does.
-
it's no secret I am not a fan of vaccines in general, this one is no exception
I see nothing wrong with putting info out there for people to read or not (you don't read my posts anyways 8) )
-
it's no secret I am not a fan of vaccines in general, this one is no exception
I see nothing wrong with putting info out there for people to read or not (you don't read my posts anyways 8) )
I read your posts about Humans, I'm surprised you are worried about Humans at all? ???
After all they are the destructor's of the Planet. Lets turn it over to the Rats and Roaches and let them live in peace... ;D
But, regardless, No Way my Daughter gets that shot till its been used many years. I never use ANY new medications.
I refuse them. Im not their test subject.
-
http://www.newstarget.com/021999.html (http://www.newstarget.com/021999.html)
Absurd vaccine marketing calls for cervical cancer vaccinations for young boys!
by Mike Adams
The headline for this story is not a typo. The push to sell more vaccines and pharmaceuticals has now reached a level of absurdity that should astonish any intelligent person. The mainstream media is now reporting -- and I'm not kidding -- that young boys should be vaccinated with Gardasil (the drug now being pushed onto teenage girls to supposedly prevent cervical cancer) based on the idea that if they have oral sex with girls who carry HPV, they might get throat cancer!
This is an incredible stretch of scientific credibility, and it's such a preposterous marketing campaign that only Big Pharma could have come up with it. It's obviously nothing more than a massive scare campaign to try to dream up some way to market this high-profit vaccine to a whole new group of customers who don't need it: teenage boys!
Even the idea of mandatory vaccinations for teenage girls is little more than desperate disease mongering designed to sell vaccines. Carrying HPV doesn't automatically lead to cervical cancer any more than carrying chicken pox turns you into a walking biological weapon. Most people who carry the virus show no symptoms at all, and girls with healthy immune systems and healthy lifestyles (diet, nutrition, etc.) have a near-zero risk of ever developing cervical cancer, even if they're exposed to HPV on a repeated basis. The virus isn't the disease: It's the terrain of the person carrying the virus! If they're unhealthy and vulnerable, then of course they're not going to be able to keep the virus in check.
We don't live in a sterile world, after all. There are more bacteria cells in your body right now than human cells, and we're surrounded by viruses, fungi and other germs. The whole idea of vaccinating against one particular strain that might someday, possibly, perhaps cause a problem if you have sex is just medical nonsense.
But vaccinating young boys is an even dumber idea. It's so stupid that I can't find the words to even describe how low on the IQ chart these drug marketing "experts" must be to come up with this one. They must think the public is so gullible that they can just make up any sex-related story and use it to sell drugs. Next, we'll be hearing about young boys giving themselves HPV through masturbation! And the cries for vaccinating all young boys will be something along the lines of, "If you masturbate, VACCINATE!"
Sadly, most consumers are so ignorant about reproductive health and germs in general that they'd probably buy into it. And if that campaign is successful, they'll go for the ultimate stupid scare tactic: The Doorknob Campaign (keep reading, if you dare...).
Warning: Doorknobs can give you cancer
Here's how this campaign works. (Warning: This contains some graphic language, but it's the only way I can accurately describe just how stupid these vaccination scare tactics have become. If you're offended by certain words, you probably shouldn't be reading anything on this website in the first place...) To pull this off, the drug companies start floating scare stories about how anyone can get cancer by touching doorknobs. How? Because you never know when some HPV carrying person might have touched a doorknob after touching themselves. Therefore, doorknobs can give you sexually transmitted diseases, and if you happen to touch yourself after touching the doorknob, then -- watch out! -- suddenly you're going to die from cervical cancer, throat cancer, crotch cancer or whatever other fear mongering diseases they can dream up. Doorknobs are dangerous, didn't you know?
The only way to protect yourself from these germified doorknobs is to get a vaccine. And since doorknobs are everywhere, everybody should get the vaccine! This includes children, teens, adults and senior citizens. It's a brilliant way to sell hundreds of millions of doses of a dangerous injected substance that nobody actually needs, and it's all made possible by the doorknob scare campaign! (And if doorknobs aren't convincing enough, they can start scare stories about public toilet seats instead.)
Drug companies have turned the United States into a nation of hypochondriacs
If they can convince parents that their male children need to be vaccinated against a virus linked to cervical cancer, I suppose they can sell just about anything to anyone. What's next? Are they going to demand that all girls be vaccinated against prostate cancer just in case they engage in oral sex with men who have enlarged prostate glands? Yes, this sounds stupid. It IS stupid. And yet it's not too stupid to be embraced by Big Pharma.
Remember, Big Pharma is the same industry that has essentially declared womanhood to be a disease. They have a pill that stops all menstruation -- for life, and the marketing materials imply that a woman having a monthly period is some sort of disorder that needs to be halted to live a normal, happy life. It won't be long before they've got women scared half to death about simply being a woman! (Notice, too, that conventional medicine is dominated by males who all too easily declare various female experiences to be "diseases" or "disorders.")
Big Pharma's primary weapon in promoting these silly scare stories is the mainstream media. All they have to do is start floating stories about how dangerous oral sex can be, and then once everybody is scared half to death of oral sex, they can float the "solution" as yet another vaccine.
Inventing the problem, then marketing the "solution"
Did you ever notice how the press never even talked about Restless Legs Syndrome until the drug companies had a new pharmaceutical for sale that claimed to treat the condition? The press sets up the fear campaigns for one fictitious disease after another, and then Big Pharma just happens to introduce a new high-profit chemical that treats the disease. In this latest example, the press has been floating stories about the dangers of oral sex for several days, and then -- whammo! -- a story magically appears about vaccinating young boys to protect them from the dangers of oral sex.
You have to understand that almost nothing appears in the mainstream media without an agenda. The news isn't news, it's a way of shaping public perception in order to market something: War, drugs, products, paradigms, etc. The U.S. press is a vehicle of shaping the belief systems of the public. It invents and promotes cultural fears, beliefs and perceptions. It has nothing whatsoever to do with bringing people useful news and information. Instead, it is almost entirely focused on getting people to believe what the folks in charge want them to believe.
The current news about the housing bubble, for example, is all designed to delay the coming collapse of both the global real estate market and the U.S. stock market (not to mention the U.S. dollar). By shaping public perception and telling people it's only a temporary downturn in the market, they can convince enough people that we should all keep on paying sky-high prices for houses and thereby delay the inevitable real estate market collapse for a little longer.
Similarly, virtually every story you read about health is designed to shape your beliefs about nutrition, pharmaceuticals, health care and the (false) causes of diseases. Stories about the genetic causes of disease, for example, are designed to strip away your power and get you to believe that you have no control over your own health. Stories about the dangers of nutritional supplements are designed to convince you to fear nutrition and trust only in pharmaceuticals. Stories about oral sex, as we've seen here, are designed to rally the nation into a state of irrational fear out of which they will react by calling for mandatory vaccinations of teenage boys.
David Icke describes this as "Problem - Reaction - Solution." First, they set up the fictitious problem and scare everybody, then they wait for the public reaction (which is quite predictable and actually planned out from the beginning). Finally, they introduce the "solution" which is war, or martial law, or forced vaccinations or whatever was on their agenda in the first place. It's the way all power brokers have ever managed to get things done in a society that pretends to be free. If you want to sell useless pharmaceuticals to hundreds of millions of people who don't need them, you can't just march in and force people to buy them. That would never fly. Instead, you have to convince the people to demand the vaccinations themselves! And you do that by propagandizing scare stories like this one on the dangers of oral sex. If you scare the people enough, they'll demand that you take action, and then your "solution" looks like you're just responding to the needs of the people.
Modern medicine is a hoax. It mostly comes down to brainwashing doctors, playing mind games with the public and controlling the media. Disease mongering is rampant, and drug companies are now resorting to the most absurd, ridiculous leaps of the imagination to try to convince people they need more vaccines and medications. Just five years ago, the idea that teenage boys needed to be vaccinated against a cervical cancer virus would have been considered lunacy, but today, the Big Pharma propaganda machine is pushing it with a straight facing, hoping that within a year or two, the population will be so utterly frightened over oral sex viruses that every sexually active person in the country will line up and fork over cash for their "sex vaccines."
And it is in this way that Big Pharma has now managed to turn oral sex into a disease requiring chemical treatment. Regardless of whether there's any actual sex taking place, there's one thing for certain: Consumers are getting royally screwed.
-
* * * * * * * *Begin Forward* * * * * * * *
I encourage you all to watch the following You Tube video by Mike Adams:
Kudos to Mr. Adams for his excellent research, documenting with the medical
mafia's own publications the FACT that the FDA truly does stand for "Fatal
Drugs Allowed", as they have unleashed another vaccine on the public for a
fraudulent reason (to PROTECT against cervical cancer). In fact, NO vaccine has ever been tested to see if it CAUSES cancer (because the drug companies that make vaccines know that they all DO cause cancer, based on the corruption in the immune system caused by injecting viruses directly into the body, bypassing secretory IgA, as explained in "Inoculations: the True Weapons of Mass Destruction" posted on www.drcarley.com).
One of my clients recently sent me the package insert from the Gardasil
vaccine, and under "Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis and Impairment of Fertility" it
states the following:
"Gardasil has NOT been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity
(i.e., to cause cancer) or genotoxicity (i.e., to be toxic to the genome, which
means cause GENETIC MUTATIONS).
Thus, we have a vaccine which allegedly protects against cancer that has not
been tested to see if it causes the very cancer it allegedly protects against.
Worse yet, the genetic mutations which the injection of foreign DNA is
causing (as evidenced by so many thoroughbred animals having genetic diseases of different sorts) has the potential of causing the EXTINCTION OF HUMANITY.
As Mr. Adams states in his video, it is time for us to STAND UP against these
genocidal vaccines. Please forward this to everyone on your list...for once
a critical mass of people know the truth, the whole house of cards upon which
the pharma cartels are built will come tumbling down, and an epidemic of
health will be the result!
Additionally, if you want to know the true history of MediSIN, I strongly
suggest you order the DVD "The Trial of the Century" by nutritionist True OTT,
PhD by calling 866-989-9876. Dr. Ott will be a guest on "What's Ailing
America?" the first 3 weeks in January, and if you see his DVD before then you will be prepared to ask him questions about what his research has exposed....
Namaste,
Dr Carley
--
Dr. Rebecca Carley
http://www.drcarley.com
*** Dr. Carley's information is not intended to diagnose, treat or cure any
diseases. Rather, it is for educational purposes only. ***
-
bump for drkock ;)
HPV: THE FIRST CANCER VACCINE
- Dr Tim O'Shea
- excerpted from The Sanctity of Human Blood, 11th edition)
It was inevitable. In the post 9/11 marketing frenzy questing for more and more bugs and diseases to make vaccines against, what could be a more promising candidate than the second highest cause of death in the US?
Cancer of the cervix has been on a gradual upswing during the past 3 decades, now affecting some 13,000 American women, 4,000 of whom die. In the 1970s, herpes simplex virus was proposed as a possible cause, but that hypothesis was soon
abandoned after epidemiological studies proved inconclusive. In the 1980s the next candidate suggested as the missing link was human papilloma virus. [345]
Before we continue, a word about epidemiological studies. Epidemiological studies , also called population studies, are the poor cousin of true clinical trials. They are not controlled studies done under set scientific conditions, but rather attempts at verifying a hypothesis just by counting the incidence of a certain disease or condition within a certain population. The problem is that results from epidemiological studies are subject to widespread interpretation, depending on who’s doing the counting, who decides the criteria for what gets counted, who publishes the results, etc. For this reason, epidemiological studies can be used to “prove” two completely divergent hypotheses.
In the exploding vaccine industry today, epidemiological studies are quickly becoming the standard to validate our need for more vaccines, because they’re faster, cheaper, and capable of supporting practically any required outcome.
So, once herpes was ruled impossible, the new population studies then proposed human papilloma virus as a cause of cervical cancer. The first problem is that there are over 100 strains of HPV, only 30 of which are even theoretically linked with cervical cancer. [344] In addition, HPV is present in at least half the normal population, [345] almost never causing any disease or problems whatsoever. Indeed, HPV has never been proven as a pathogen for any disease.
HPV AND CANCER
Now in any cancer, we’re talking about a normal cell that mutated and then began to make copies of itself, unchecked.
The creators of the HVP/ cancer myth are pretending that the HPV came along and attacked some normal cells and mutated those cells and caused them to begin replicating themselves out of control – cancer. And that this is happening on a mass scale even though we just discovered it. And worse, that a vaccine can neutralize that type of attack on normal cervix cells.
Scientifically, what they’re proposing is ludicrous.
Few scientists have a better grasp of the proposed virus/cancer model than Berkeley’s Peter Duesberg PhD. In his scholarly paper tracing the history of the HPV/ cervical cancer story, Duesberg explains why HPV is such an unlikely cause of any cancer:
“no set of viral genes is consistently present or expressed in human cervical cancers. [345] … HPV does not replicate in the cancer cells. “
So if the mutated cervical cancer cells are not mutating because of abnormal viral genes being spliced into a normal cell, how else could HPV be causing this cancer? Duesberg again:
“the "hit-and-run" mechanism of viral carcinogenesis was proposed. It holds that neither the complete [virus], nor even a part of it, needs to be present in the tumor. Obviously, this is an unfalsifiable, but also an unprovable, hypothesis."
[345]
All that has ever been shown is that HPV is sometimes present in cervical cancer tissue, but as we know it’s also present in half the normal population.
There is a total lack of evidence that cervical cancer appears in women with HPV more often than in women without it. [345] And yet this will be the focus of the vaccine: to pretend to eliminate this ubiquitous virus from the body.
THE NEW HPV VACCINE
The original phrase used by Merck to link HPV with cervical cancer was “there is a strong connection.” ([260] p 1964)
How that phrase got transformed to ‘is the cause of’ in the past two years is more a matter of marketing than of science.
The HPV vaccine had been in the Merck pipeline for years, finally getting FDA approval in 2006. [4] Merck’s HPV vaccine is called Gardasil. It has no competition.
What’s in it? According to Merck’s own data, the vaccine is made from “virus-like particles” from four strains of HPV: Types 5, 11, 16, and 18. ([1] p 1984.) With no clinical studies proving it, Type 16 and 18 are now cited by Merck in the Physicians Desk Reference as the cause of “over 70%” of cervical cancer cases.
The theory is that these virus-like particles will trigger the body to make antibodies that will be able to prevent the full-on natural strains of HPV from getting a foothold. For five years, anyway. That’s what Merck is claiming.
The Merck insert for Gardasil makes this unproven flat statement: “HPV causes squamous cell cervical cancer.”
We ‘ve already learned above that such is not the case.
The market that Merck decided on was 12 year old girls, the thinking being that since HPV is sexually transmissible, might as well get it at the start.
Now before we get too ebullient about this newest fad, let’s consider objectively what we’re being sold here.
EXTRAVAGANT DEMANDS ON CREDIBILITY
With other vaccines for viral diseases, such as MMR, hepatitis B, and polio, what has never made sense scientifically is that the vaccines do not contain the original wild virus that occurs in nature and supposedly causes the disease. Instead the vaccine contains a manmade mutation of the natural virus that is then claimed to be able to confer immunity by triggering the body to produce antibodies to the original disease. So that was bad enough. But what they’re asking us to believe about HPV is going too far.
All physiology and immunology textbooks describe the triggering of immunoglobulin production as an extremely specific sequence, resulting in extremely specific antibodies. [167] They don’t talk about cousins of viruses or particles from viruses able to trigger the precise antibodies to the virus itself. Such a claim is brand new. How could any real immunity come from vaccines like these, even if the viruses were the causative agents of disease?
The second enormous impediment to credibility is that the average age for cervical cancer is 50 years. ( Merck Manual p 1964 [260]) But the plan is to mandate Gardasil to 12 years olds. And the manufacturer is only claiming efficacy for 5 years. So using their own statistics, this makes the vaccine worthless in the long run, because by the time most females need immunity, it will have worn off long ago.
A risk factor in cervical cancer that has been clearly established is the lifetime number of sexual partners: the more partners, the more likely the disease. ([260] p 1964) So who has more, 12 year olds or 50 year olds? Even if the vaccine worked, statistically it should be given to women in their mid 40s. Why don’t they do that? Here’s the reason:
The vaccine’s “safety and efficacy not been evaluated over 26” years of age. ([1] p 1987)
Oh, OK. Well, guess we better give it to the young girls then…
Are there any side effects of this new vaccine? Here are some of those cited by the manufacturer:
* fever
* nausea
* pharyngitis
* dizziness
* NVD
* upper respiratory infection
* gastroenteritis
* appendicitis
* PID
* bronchospasm
Physicians Desk Reference [1] p 1987
Other side effects discovered later include loss of consciousness, loss of vision and seizures. [ 3]
There’s a bargain – real side effects in return for unreal immunity.
CARCINOGENICITY
Can the vaccine itself cause cancer? That’s a fair question – we’re talking about a vaccine that they’re claiming prevents cancer by imitating a pathogen that itself causes cancer, right? So wouldn’t we want to be fairly secure that this vaccine wouldn’t cause cancer? Here’s what the manufacturer states:
Gardasil .. “… not been evaluated for carcinogenicity or
impairment of fertility. ([1] p1986 )
Wonderful. They want to vaccinate all American 12 year olds with a vaccine for cancer and they don’t even know for sure whether or not it causes cancer, or makes the recipients infertile. Yeah, sign my kid up for that one.
Curiously, the HPV vaccine is not recommended for pregnancy because of its effects on the fetus [1], but menarche is no problem…?
THE TEXAS TWO-STEP
The HPV controversy sank to new levels with the Feb 2007 decision by Texas Governor Rick Perry to “require” the HPV vaccine for all 12 year old girls in Texas. [2] In an unprecedented unilateral move, with no input from either the state legislature or the Texas Medical Board, with no scientific credentials, Perry brashly made this sweeping invasion into the privileged area of parental authority, and then lamely tried to defend his position. Ignoring the utter lack of science behind the vaccine, with complete disregard for vaccine exemption laws that are found in every state, and acting entirely outside the scope of gubernatorial jurisdiction, Perry plays king.
THE LOVE OF MONEY
Perry must have had the inside track; the vaccine was quietly added to the Mandated Schedule just after Perry’s edict. That brought the number of vaccines for American schoolkids to an unprecedented 68.
Even so, such unilateral imprudence and reckless disregard for the normal operation of state government in a public official rings the Follow the Money bell.
Gardasil is a 3 shot series at $360. [2] Perry’s financial ties to Merck are a matter of public record. [2]
East Coasters might think, well what can you expect from Texas… But 17 other states prepared to follow suit and initiate similar mandates, even before it was added to the Schedule. [3]
Projected profits from future HPV vaccine sales?
“The vaccine is expected to reach $1 billion in sales next year, … could make Gardasil …within five years, sales of more than $4 billion , according to Wall Street analysts.” [4]
FINAL QUESTION
Again, the whole story of HPV vaccine is much more twisted than we’re representing here. The reader is invited to follow up on the above cited sources. Never before has such a calculated, systematic misrepresentation of fact been attempted in which data is so obviously manipulated, issues so deliberately obscured, and financial interests so obsequiously served.
Reflecting on the section above, with the uncertainty about the safety and efficacy of the HPV vaccine, the certainty of the side effects, the prodigious economic upside to global dissemination irrespective of its scientific merits, the absence of long-term studies, and the ludicrous “religious /ethical” media controversy smokescreen designed to distract us from the underlying scientific issues, is this really a vaccine you want to try out on your little girl?