MERCK'S GARDASIL VACCINE NOT PROVEN SAFE FOR LITTLE GIRLS

This is my response to a thread I started yesterday concerning mandatory Gardsil Vaccinations.

Yes, I have a six year old daughter....

Yes, I have a right to decide without pressure whether my daughter should have this vaccine...

No, I am not "wrong"....





Here is the previous thread....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3097787&mesg_id=3097787


No, I do not approve of this for several reasons:


#1. I don't trust Pharmaceutical companies

#2. I don't trust conservative politicians especially if they are from Texas

#3. Vaccinations Contributing to Rise in Autism?

http://www.autismwebsite.com/ari/vaccine/cnntranscript.htm

ANNOUNCER: Are vaccinations doing more harm than good? Tonight: how to protect your children.

ZAHN: Is autism on the rise and are childhood vaccination to blame? As for the first question, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest autism is on the rise. California reported a 273 percent increase in diagnosed cases over a recent 10-year period. But are vaccinations to blame for that?

We asked Rusty Dornin to tackle the controversy.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RUSTY DORNIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Picture perfect, a happy, healthy baby. Then at 15 months, just like every other baby, Russell Rollins got his measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination.

ROLLINS: He has a very physical reaction to those vaccines including a high-pitch scream and days of high-pitched crying and listlessness.

DORNIN: Ten years later, those problems continue. Russell Rollins is autistic. How do you describe what you go through as a parent of an autistic child?

ROLLINS: It's a living hell. It's a living hell for everyone involved. It's a living hell for my son who suffers terribly from this disorder.


#4. MERCK'S GARDASIL VACCINE NOT PROVEN SAFE FOR LITTLE GIRLS

Washington, D.C. - The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is calling on the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to just say "no" on June 29 to recommending "universal use" of Merck's Gardasil vaccine in all pre-adolescent girls. NVIC maintains that Merck's clinical trials did not prove the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine designed to prevent cervical cancer and genital warts is safe to give to young girls.

"Merck and the FDA have not been completely honest with the people about the pre-licensure clinical trials," said NVIC president Barbara Loe Fisher. "Merck's pre and post-licensure marketing strategy has positioned mass use of this vaccine by pre-teens as a morality play in order to avoid talking about the flawed science they used to get it licensed. This is not just about teenagers having sex, it is also about whether Gardasil has been proven safe and effective for little girls."

http://www.909shot.com/PressReleases/pr62706gardasil.htm

Gardasil, a vaccine that protects women from 75% of HPVs (human papilloma viruses) that lead to cervical cancer has been approved by the European Union. It will be launched by the end of October, 2006.

The vaccine was approved on June 8, 2006, by the US FDA. It will be marketed in Europe by Sanofi Pasteur MSD. Gardasil belongs to Merck & Co., Inc. It was approved within nine months of its submission in Europe - much faster than most other medications.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=52526

And regardless, the vaccine is not designed for young girls.

There absolutely needs to be careful monitoring of the product, but this vaccine has the potential to elminate most forms of viral caused cervical cancer. It should be praised.

The rise in autism, and asperger's, are mostly due to a more careful and understanding diagnosis.In the past, many individuals would have gone undiagnosed.

In particular, the US (as opposed to Europe) has seen a sharp rise probably due to better diagnosising and background pollution.

It's well documented...

Link please....?

Better diagnosing? Come on. ONE in a hundred and sixty six kids? Please. Ironically, a Merck scientist sounded one alarm...and MERCK IGNORED HIM...

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/07/01/autism_mercury_and_politics/

By Robert Kennedy Jr. | July 1, 2005

MOUNTING EVIDENCE suggests that Thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative in children's vaccines, may be responsible for the exponential growth of autism, attention deficit disorder, speech delays, and other childhood neurological disorders now epidemic in the United States.

Prior to 1989, American infants generally received three vaccinations (polio, measles-mumps-rubella, and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis). In the early 1990s, public health officials dramatically increased the number of Thimerosal-containing vaccinations without considering the cumulative impact of the mercury load on developing brains.

In a 1991 memo, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, one of the fathers of Merck's vaccination programs, warned his bosses that 6-month-old children administered the shots on schedule would suffer mercury exposures 87 times the government safety standards. He recommended that Thimerosal be discontinued and complained that the US Food and Drug Administration, which has a notoriously close relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, could not be counted on to take appropriate action as its European counterparts had. Merck ignored Hilleman's warning, and for eight years government officials added seven more shots for children containing Thimerosal.....

By way of background, I have a doctorate in MCH (maternal and child health) and I teach this stuff. I've read the original research. As such, I have the professional credentials to judge the research which RFKJr does not.

RFKJr is wrong, tragically and very sadly very wrong. There is no empirical evidence linking thimerosol and autism.

Indeed, rates of autism ARE likely the result in changing criteria. For the most definitive work on the epidemiology of autism, I would encourage you to read the work of Eric Fombonne of McGill University in Montreal. He's considered the world's leading expert in the epi of autism. Some example publications:

Fombonne, E. (2003). Epidemiological surveys of autism and other pervasive developmental disorders: An update. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33 (4), 365-382.

Fombonne, E., Zakarian, R., & Bennett, A., Meng, L., & McLean-Heywood D. (2006). Pervasive developmental disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: prevalence and links with immunizations. Pediatrics,118(1):e139-50.

And lastly, let me leave you with this piece of information. International comparisons regarding rising rates of autism indicate that rates are increasing just as fast in countries which have NEVER had thimerosol in their vaccines. If thimerosol was the culprit, how do you explain this contradictory information?

I think there is a genetic component, there's a toxic insult (thimerosal) component, and there's a vitamin B uptake/gastrointestinal component. Put those together, in a perfect storm, and you get an autistic kid.

http://www.podango.com/podcast_episode/245/12818/Autism_One_Conference_2006/Richard_Deth_PhD__Methionine_Synthase_A_Methyl_B12Dependent_Redox_Sensor_in_Neuronal_Cells

Not everyone agrees with Eric Fombonne, either--they find his methodology very flawed: http://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/pres_releases/Fombonne-6-30-06.pdf

The NAA agrees with the concept that there might not just be a single cause. They've got some good information on the subject as well: http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/
http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/causes.php

:eyes:

Thanks for sharing. :hi:

http://myprofile.cos.com/weiljw79

I posted snips below.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7395411/deadly_immunity/

It was only after reading the Simpsonwood transcripts, studying the leading scientific research and talking with many of the nation's pre-eminent authorities on mercury that I became convinced that the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real. Five of my own children are members of the Thimerosal Generation -- those born between 1989 and 2003 -- who received heavy doses of mercury from vaccines. "The elementary grades are overwhelmed with children who have symptoms of neurological or immune-system damage," Patti White, a school nurse, told the House Government Reform Committee in 1999. "Vaccines are supposed to be making us healthier; however, in twenty-five years of nursing I have never seen so many damaged, sick kids. Something very, very wrong is happening to our children."

...

"You couldn't even construct a study that shows thimerosal is safe," says Haley, who heads the chemistry department at the University of Kentucky. "It's just too darn toxic. If you inject thimerosal into an animal, its brain will sicken. If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it in a petri dish, the culture dies. Knowing these things, it would be shocking if one could inject it into an infant without causing damage."

...

Internal documents reveal that Eli Lilly, which first developed thimerosal, knew from the start that its product could cause damage -- and even death -- in both animals and humans. In 1930, the company tested thimerosal by administering it to twenty-two patients with terminal meningitis, all of whom died within weeks of being injected -- a fact Lilly didn't bother to report in its study declaring thimerosal safe. In 1935, researchers at another vaccine manufacturer, Pittman-Moore, warned Lilly that its claims about thimerosal's safety "did not check with ours." Half the dogs Pittman injected with thimerosal-based vaccines became sick, leading researchers there to declare the preservative "unsatisfactory as a serum intended for use on dogs."

...

The same year that the CDC approved the new vaccines, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, one of the fathers of Merck's vaccine programs, warned the company that six-month-olds who were administered the shots would suffer dangerous exposure to mercury. He recommended that thimerosal be discontinued, "especially when used on infants and children," noting that the industry knew of nontoxic alternatives. "The best way to go," he added, "is to switch to dispensing the actual vaccines without adding preservatives."

Why have countries that have discontinued use is Thimerosal containing vaccines for some time now not shown a drmatic decrease in autism cases?


And this is a prime example of bad science

"
In April, reporter Dan Olmsted of UPI undertook one of the more interesting studies himself. Searching for children who had not been exposed to mercury in vaccines -- the kind of population that scientists typically use as a "control" in experiments -- Olmsted scoured the Amish of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, who refuse to immunize their infants. Given the national rate of autism, Olmsted calculated that there should be 130 autistics among the Amish. He found only four. One had been exposed to high levels of mercury from a power plant. The other three -- including one child adopted from outside the Amish community -- had received their vaccines."

I think there are a multitude of reasons for autism cases rising including better diagnosis and toxic factors. Researchers have shown that TV viewing at very young ages could contribute to autism. I am sure the mercury in the fish we eat does not help.


I will also note that he got quite a few facts wrong according to the post-publishing edits.

Impossible? And of course, the CDC would have NO interest in debunking the connection, would they?

The Autism Association seems to think otherwise: http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/thimerosal.php

...A growing number of scientists and researchers believe that a relationship between the increase in neurodevelopmental disorders of autism, attention deficit hyperactive disorder, and speech or language delay, and the increased use of thimerosal in vaccines is plausible and deserves more scrutiny. In 2001, the Institute of Medicine determined that such a relationship is biologically plausible, but that not enough evidence exists to support or reject this hypothesis. Recent studies have confirmed the association between the use of thimerosal and autism has moved from "biologically plausible" to a "biological certainty" (Boyd Haley). Recent work by Dr. Mark Geier and David Geier in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons and Experimental Biology and Medicine have shown strong epidemiological evidence for a causal relationship between thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders in children.

The FDA acted too slowly to remove ethylmercury from over-the-counter products like topical ointments and skin creams. Although an advisory committee determined that ethylmercury was unsafe in these products in 1980, a rule requiring its removal was not finalized until 1998.

The FDA and the CDC failed in their duty to be vigilant as new vaccines containing thimerosal were approved and added to the immunization schedule. When the Hepatitis B and Haemophilus Influenzae Type b vaccines were added to the recommended schedule of childhood immunizations, the cumulative amount of ethylmercury to which children were exposed nearly tripled.

The amount of ethylmercury to which children were exposed through vaccines prior to the 1999 announcement exceeded two safety thresholds established by the Federal Government for a closely related substance - methylmercury. While the Federal Government has established no safety threshold for ethylmercury, experts agree that the methylmercury guidelines are a good substitute. Federal health officials have conceded that the amount of thimerosal in vaccines exceeded the EPA threshold of 0.1 micrograms per kilogram of bodyweight. In fact, the amount of mercury in one dose of DTaP or Hepatitis B vaccines (25 micrograms each) exceeded this threshold many times over. Federal health officials have not conceded that this amount of thimerosal in vaccines exceeded the FDA's more relaxed threshold of 0.4 micrograms per kilogram of body weight. In most cases, however, it clearly did. As evidence of the growing concern of the adverse effects of mercury, the FDA has recently changed its permissible dose of oral methylmercury from 0.4 microgram to 0.1 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day.

The actions taken by the HHS to remove thimerosal from vaccines in 1999 were not sufficiently aggressive. As a result, thimerosal remained in some vaccines for an additional two years. Thimerosal remains in several vaccines and with the addition of the influenza vaccine now being recommended for infants, children are exposed to more thimerosal today than ever before.

The CDC's failure to state a preference for thimerosal-free vaccines in 2000 and again in 2001 was an abdication of their responsibility. As a result, many children received vaccines containing thimerosal when thimerosal-free alternatives were available.

Thimerosal should be removed from all of these vaccines. No amount of mercury is appropriate in any childhood vaccine.

The CDC in general and the National Immunization Program in particular are conflicted in their duties to monitor the safety of vaccines, while also charged with the responsibility of purchasing vaccines for resale as well as promoting increased immunization rates.

There is inadequate research regarding ethylmercury neurotoxicity and
nephrotoxicity.

There is inadequate research regarding the relationship between autism and the use of mercury-containing vaccines.

To date, studies conducted or funded by the CDC that purportedly dispute any correlation between autism and vaccine injury have been of poor design, under-powered, and fatally flawed. The CDC's rush to support and promote such research is reflective of a philosophical conflict in looking fairly at emerging theories and clinical data related to adverse reactions from vaccinations....

And that stuff about other countries' not using thimerosal (aka ethylmercury) in vaccines is a bill of goods, at least according to these cites (the Wall Street Journal and a few other GOP/Big Pharma friendly publications shopped it around, though--wonder why?):

http://whale.to/vaccines/thimerosal_third.html

Thimerosal use in Third World
Mercury

2006 and most vaccines are supposedly mercury free (2005), yet in the third world they continue to use them.

Delivering 20 vaccines by 14 weeks containing 187.5 micrograms of mercury (equivalent to say 3 grams scaled to adult weight) to immunologically vulnerable infants, surviving in conditions of poor sanitation, nutrition and housing.

Vaccines with mercury can cause autism, but removing the metal is uneconomical for developing countries such as India. http://www.seruminstitute.com/

Here's a cite that says Europe AND the US started phasing it OUT in 2000:
http://www.nupr.neu.edu/2-04/autism.html
(2-5-04) BOSTON, Mass. – According to new research from Northeastern University pharmacy professor Richard Deth and colleagues from the University of Nebraska, Tufts, and Johns Hopkins University, there is an apparent link between exposure to certain neurodevelopmental toxins and an increased possibility of developing neurological disorders including autism and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. The research – the first to offer an explanation for possible causes of two increasingly common childhood neurological disorders – is published today in the April 2004 issue of the journal Molecular Psychiatry.

Though some speculation exists regarding this link, Deth and his colleagues found that exposure to toxins, such as ethanol and heavy metals (including lead, aluminum and the ethylmercury-containing preservative thimerosal) potently interrupt growth factor signaling, causing adverse effects on methylation reactions (i.e. the transfer of carbon atoms). Methylation, in turn, plays a significant role in regulating normal DNA function and gene expression, and is critical to proper neurological development in infants and children. Scientists and practitioners have identified an increase in diagnoses of autism and ADHD in particular, though the reasons why are largely unknown.

In their work, the scientists found that insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) and the neurotransmitter dopamine both stimulated folate-dependent methylation pathways in neuronal cells. At the same time they noted that compounds like thimerosal, ethanol and metals (like lead and mercury) effectively inhibited these same biochemical pathways at concentrations that are typically found following vaccination or other sources of exposure. By better understanding what happens when infants and children are exposed to these materials, the work of Deth and his colleagues helps to explain how environmental contact with metals and administration of certain vaccines may lead to serious disorders that manifest themselves during childhood, including autism and ADHD.

“Scientists certainly acknowledge that exposure to neurotoxins like ethanol and heavy metals can cause developmental disorders, but until now, the precise mechanisms underlying their toxicity have not been known,” said Deth....Thimerosal, which was largely phased out in the U.S. and in Europe starting in 2000,was often used for its preservative abilities in multi-dose units of vaccines for diseases like hepatitis, whooping cough, tetanus and diptheria. Today, most vaccines carry only trace amounts of it, according to the CDC. But in larger, multi-dose vials of these vaccines, often shipped to and used in third world countries, thimerosal is still very common. Multi-dose flu vaccines still contain thimerosal.

Additionally, the scientists recently obtained more insight into the mechanism by which thimerosal interferes with folate-dependent methylation. It acts by inhibiting the biosynthesis of the active form of vitamin B12 (methylcobalamin), which is of particular interest because doctors treating autistic kids are having good success with the administration of methycobalamin....

Big Pharma doesn't want to be SUED like the tobacco companies, do they? What better way to prevent that than to give money to the GOP leaders, who appoint stooges to the CDC, who write authoritative papers full of bullshit?

I go with the Autism Associaton, who are looking at environmental causes, genetic causes, AND thimerosal/ethyl mercury as precipitators. Put the three together, or even two out of three, and you get a perfect storm.

Great article. Thanks for posting it.

:hi: As usual, it's a he said/she said and anyone who questions is deemed either insane, inept or both. :crazy:

We'd make a bundle selling asbestos drawers up in here!

Indeed. Or some of these:

http://www.jpands.org/vol11no2/correspondence.pdf

I found the authors' defense of the study's cherry picking of data kind of flimsy.

...Also in 2003, the CDDS, noting that the
rate of increase documented in its 1999
report had accelerated, predicted that
autism “will most probably continue to be
the fastest growing disability served by the
regional center system.”
Since the publication of our paper, we
have become aware of additional data from
the State of Minnesota, showing the rise
and subsequent fall of the rate of autism
and other NDs in a pattern similar to that
shown in the three databases on which we
have reported. Additionally, the biological
plausibility of our hypothesis continues to
receive support from scientific and
medical studies.

Critics such as Schure appear to oppose
any data that contradict preconceived
assumptions about the safety of vaccines,
specifically the absence of a causal link
between an increasing dose of thimerosal
and an increasing incidence of NDs. It is
time to face the truth, as distasteful as it is,
that the rapid rise in mercury exposure from
thimerosal in childhood vaccines and
Rh (D) immune globulin caused a tragic
epidemic of autism and related
neurological disorders.....

You will continue to see robust denials with regard to thimerosal/ethylmercury's involvement in autism, because Big Pharma doesn't want to be taken to the lawsuit whipping shed like Big Tobacco was.

"It is time to face the truth, as distasteful as it is,
that the rapid rise in mercury exposure from
thimerosal in childhood vaccines and
Rh (D) immune globulin caused a tragic
epidemic of autism and related
neurological disorders....."

Considering they did not allow for outside factors this statement is simply incorrect.

As I said before (and no I'm not a doctor) I think a combination of things rather than just vaccines were the cause of a spike in autism cases.


You and I have seen eye to eye on other issues and I would hate for heated tempers on this issue kill that. So I am backing away from this thread. You should have the last word.

open to the ideas of the NAA and others, who see a perfect storm of genetic predisposition + environmental toxins/influences + thimerosal/ethylmercury = autism, or, depending on the degree of any of those three inputs, anything along the autism spectrum.

What they are saying, though, is that as mercury in vaccines went up, so did autism. As it decreased, so did autism. They're simply averring a correlation, which the CDC continues to robustly deny in the face of way too many studies to the contrary. I imagine if you tweaked any of those other factors up or down you'd see more or fewer births along the spectrum as well.

"As it decreased, so did autism"

There is no empirical evidence supporting this claim. Nada.

Read the rebuttal statement that follows, at the end of the first page and onward. They make it plain that's what they mean, and they cite examples in other localities as well.

So go gripe at them if you don't believe their evidence.

I see a bunch of cut and paste text. I don't see any link to the actual citation. How do I know where such a thing was published, if anywhere? World Nut Daily perhaps?

But then, I'm a "shrieking hysteric" according to your downthread caterwauling. You're too busy slinging insults to actually read what people wrote -- or at least read it for comprehension.

As I said downthread, I'm done with you. Life is too short to spend it arguing with rude, childish people who toss insults for their own amusement and are uninterested in real discussion.

I know I said you should have the last word but I thought you should know the source being relied upon may not be legitimate.

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2005/medicine.html

and the bit I was referring to was the REBUTTAL correspondence to the assertions touted in the journal.

So, I guess you proved my point.

The correspondence I linked to was to the same "journal" that published the article originally cited in a posted article by mzmolly.

Here's the first citing

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3099154&mesg_id=3100309

Here is what the article linked to there is based upon (you can see the link in the 1st paragraph)

http://www.jpands.org/jpands1101.htm

The correspondence I posted was somone writing a letter in critiquing the article in a later issue.

It doesn't mean the notion of autism linked to thimersal is dismissed out of hand. It just means that publication should not be relied upon

Also it appears that was their anti-vaccine issue as I count 3 articles discussing it.

I have a good deal of respect for you and understand your passion on this issue, I don't want you to get blind sided by someone pointing poor sourcing when you have used other materials.

The Shure letter, and the Gier's response. That's all I am talking about in the context of the journal. http://www.jpands.org/vol11no2/correspondence.pdf

Shure says: the paper by Geier and Geier is
based on a subjective background,
insufficient data analysis, questionable search
criteria, and arbitrary date and data selection.

The Giers reply: Critics such as Schure appear to oppose
any data that contradict preconceived
assumptions about the safety of vaccines,
specifically the absence of a causal link
between an increasing dose of thimerosal
and an increasing incidence of NDs. It is
time to face the truth, as distasteful as it is,
that the rapid rise in mercury exposure from
thimerosal in childhood vaccines and
Rh (D) immune globulin caused a tragic
epidemic of autism and related
neurological disorders.

as well. :hi:

I'm trying to leave this thread, really I am, ;)

Sorry I wasn't more diplomatic.

And I was heartened to see other sources used.

:hi:

Have a great day rinsd :hi:

Thanks for sharing respectfully. :hug:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&itool=abstractplus&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=12773696

More:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Neurodevelopmental+Disorders+Following+...%22+&btnG=Search

The AAPS defended Geier against "financially motivated" critique. ;)

Here's some "unpopular" info on Mr. Geier.

http://www.attorneyaccess.net/Geier.cfm

Granted Geier has been "swift-boated" as I've stated. Happens to anyone who dares to question vaccination.

I'm out, I will check in tomorrow. :hi:

Edited to add linkys.

Unfortunately, the RW is more open (generally speaking) to the possibility that vaccinations and or drugs, may have unwanted consequences.

David Kirby touches on the "politics" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kirby

Strange bedfellows

A strange twist of fate has garnered unexpected support for Evidence of Harm from conservatives in the US. A story reported on the Corporate Crime Reporter said, "Kirby, a former assistant to New York City Democratic Party officials, including former City Council President Carol Bellamy and former Mayor David Dinkins, says that “the right wing press has been all over this, and the left wing press won’t touch it.” NPR and the Public Broadcasting System get a lot of money from drug companies, and they need whatever money they can get, so they are not going to offend any advertiser - ever. Whereas the major commercial networks have a little more leeway and play. They take more risks. The conservative press is anti-government, whereas the liberal press is so pro-public health - it is like the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) can do no wrong, doctors can do no wrong. It's like the liberal Democratic Party establishment created this public health system that we are so proud of, and we are not going to attack it."

I should note that I do try to avoid quoting the AAPS, in spite of limited "liberal" sources.

I'm out, have a great day MADem. :)

The subject of vaccination is always fascinating, and sucks me in like nothing else!

OY!

K, bye!

That's the same rightwing "medical" organization that spent eight years slamming Hillary Clinton. I seem to recall they also claimed that abortions cause breast cancer.

I think they've also come up on "Quackwatch".

Professionals who dare question vaccines are "swift-boated" accordingly. Science is subjective and "consensus" is bought and paid for when it comes to many meds/vaccines. Especially in today's corporate controlled government culture.

Are you familiar with David Kirby? He who wrote the book "Evidence of Harm." http://www.evidenceofharm.com/index.htm

Here's an interesting snip from wiki:

A strange twist of fate has garnered unexpected support for Evidence of Harm from conservatives in the US. A story reported on the Corporate Crime Reporter said, "Kirby, a former assistant to New York City Democratic Party officials, including former City Council President Carol Bellamy and former Mayor David Dinkins, says that “the right wing press has been all over this, and the left wing press won’t touch it.” NPR and the Public Broadcasting System get a lot of money from drug companies, and they need whatever money they can get, so they are not going to offend any advertiser - ever. Whereas the major commercial networks have a little more leeway and play. They take more risks. The conservative press is anti-government, whereas the liberal press is so pro-public health - it is like the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) can do no wrong, doctors can do no wrong. It's like the liberal Democratic Party establishment created this public health system that we are so proud of, and we are not going to attack it."

Given studies are lacking, some consider contrasting rates of autism in the Amish community to that of vaccinated populations.

Again from WIKI

An apparent anomaly among Amish populations was reported in 2005. Although a formal study has not yet been conducted, efforts to assess the prevalence of autism in the Amish community turned up only a very few cases. About 22,000 Amish live in Lancaster County, yet only three or four Amish with autism have turned up thus far in an informal survey of Lancaster County, whereas dozens would be expected at the 1-in-166 prevalence in society at large. "You'll find all the other stuff, but we don't find the autism," according to Dr. Frank Noonan, a Lancaster County family doctor, adding "We're right in the heart of Amish country and seeing none."

In June, 2005, William F. Raub, of the Department of Health and Human Services, suggested the possibility of launching studies of the Amish in response reports of a low prevalence of autism in that community.<27>

Since vaccinations are virtually unheard of in the Amish, these preliminary findings have sparked further speculation about the vaccine-autism link. However, note is made of potential for substantial confounding with other aspects of Amish lifestyle and genetic homogeneity.

The REBUTTAL, which said that ethylmercury/thimerosal IS a factor, was the OPPOSITE view touted by the Journal.

Which is why I look at various sources of information.

http://www.forbes.com/home/sciencesandmedicine/2004/12/13/cx_mh_1213faceoftheyear.html

NEW YORK - On Nov. 18, an unassuming safety researcher from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration sat down before a

"I don't represent the views of the FDA," says drug safety researcher David Graham. "I think that's pretty clear to everyone in America."

The FDA, he said, had ignored warnings that the pain pill Vioxx was killing people by causing heart attacks and strokes--and he said the agency was incapable of defending the public against another drug disaster. "I could have given a very mealy-mouthed statement," says David Graham, the scientist. "But then I would have been part of the problem."

For his steadfast advocacy of drug safety and his willingness to blow the whistle on his bosses, we're naming David Graham our Face of the Year.

Without Graham, the Vioxx debacle might have been seen as an isolated event. But because he was willing to step into the spotlight, the withdrawal of Vioxx from the market looks like part of a systemic failure to properly weigh the risks and benefits of drugs.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10088939/site/newsweek/

How is the FDA captive to the pharmaceutical industry?

The takeover by the pharmaceutical industry they are supposed to regulate began with PDUFA. The user fees, which is a terrible term because the public—not the drug industry—should be the users of the FDA, are contingent on the industry. They provide over half of the resources of the FDA’s Drug Evaluation Center. So this part of the agency is directly dependent on the drug industry it is regulating. We’re also seeing top-down enforcement of the industry, fierce posturing of the FDA officials and this leaning on the scales to further the agenda of the religious right. We started with corporate problems and now have all kinds of ideological problems in addition.

On Tuesday, Rep. Henry Waxman called the FDA’s decision to block over-the-counter sales of Plan B “an egregious example of the politicization of science” and asked for congressional hearings. Henry Waxman has a long history of looking at ways in which scientific evidence has been perverted for political reasons, in other ways, as well.

The evidence for Waxman's concern about > "the politicization of science" is overwhelming.

just....incredible. Most of the seniors I know are on a dozen or more meds, and they have to take meds to counteract the side-effects of meds--it's insane.

And when you put money and politics into the mix, you are bound to get a boatload of snake oil.

When "science" has political/financial agendas - it's no longer "science."

Peace MADem :hi:

You're not a doctor, either, and I agree with him, and I disagree with you. A medical degree isn't needed to participate in this discussion, to read and comprehend the associated literature, and to come to reasoned conclusions. Just because people don't have an MD doesn't mean they check their brains at the door.

His article was rife with errors that needed correcting and hysteria.

Frankly, I and everyone else I know with an interest in autism viewed that article as a throwdown, as the FIRST word, certainly not the last.

It was seen as a bold salvo to open discussion, not end it--where none that had gotten a whit's worth of publicity had theretofore existed.

It afforded others who agreed, and those who opposed, and those who had a third way theory, the opportunity to respond, rebut, elucidate, and comment.

epidemiology. Unless an MD has post-doc'd in that area, s/he won't know what the hell s/he is talking about.

Sorry, but there is not ONE SINGLE SOLITARY REPUTABLE epidemiologist who agrees with RFKJr. Not one.

And I'm not going to take the word of unnamed, unsourced, and uncited "epidemiologists" just because you ask me to. I will, though, consider the many cites I have read and posted throughout this thread.

Read this. If you still don't think politics, drug money, and kickbacks play a role in the unwillingness to finger vaccines, I can't help you see the light:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/doctors-against-research_b_17726.html
...In other words, Congress wants to study thimerosal -- the mercury containing vaccine preservative and possible contributor to some autism cases -- and that makes the powerful AAP very, very unhappy.

"Any bill that contains any questions about vaccines, we are not going to endorse," one lobbyist informed the group. "There is absolutely no link between thimerosal and autism. Period. To endorse the bill implies that this is an open question, and it is not."

"The bottom line," the lobbyist continued, to stunned silence, "is that we don't want to look into this. It is inappropriate to waste precious research dollars on something that we know will be disproved."

Apparently, the pediatricians haven't gotten the memo from the CDC. The folks in Atlanta are still very much looking into thimerosal and autism, as are officials at the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which just funded and published two very significant studies. One showed that mercury from thimerosal accumulates rapidly in the brains of infant primates (after converting to inorganic mercury); and the other showed that a few minutes of exposure with even miniscule amounts of thimerosal can damage dendritic cells, causing immune dysfunction and cytokine-induced inflammation, both of which are found in autism.

Other research continues at places like Harvard, Columbia, Northeastern and Arizona State University, where the first-ever trial of chelation therapy (removal of heavy metals) for autism is about to wrap up.

So while numerous experts are still seeking answers, the AAP is whispering "Stop." ....

You have to ask WHY? If there's nothing to fear, why not study the link? One simple, big and important word: Lawsuits.

I don't claim to know the answers, but I'm not going to rule out one possible cause that virtually EVERY parent with an autistic child points to. I hardly think they're ALL stupid, or dramatic, or making things up. "He was fine until he had all those shots..." is a common, almost universal refrain.

I do think the Holy Trinity theory is a distinct possibility: Mercury/Genetics/Environment. Or maybe even two of three.

The organizations that are shrieking "DON'T look into this!!!" are the ones who have something to lose if thimerosal/ethylmercury are implicated, even as a contributor and not a primary cause.

Funny how people are willing to throw billions and billions and billions at MERCK for an HPV vaccine of very dubious efficacy (virtually untested, non peer reviewed because Merck has the patent, and touted by a lobbyist who used to work for a GOP governor who owns Merck stock) but they won't toss even a few tens of millions, even a half a billion, at autism. Autism effects one out of 166 children, while HPV kills three thousand, seven hundred (most of whom eschewed pap smears) a year.

I just don't get it. I think they don't want to research it, because they don't want to KNOW the answer...likely, they already know it, they just don't want others to.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I was being reasonable, and discussing this matter in measured tones. And my sources aren't "quack websites." I hardly think the above narrative of what is happening on the lobbying and political scene vis a vis this matter comes from a "quack website"--but go ahead and think that, as apparently you think Huffington Post is a publication dealing primarily with the practice of medicine.

If anyone is being a shrieking hysteric, it's you. Your remarks aren't just childish and petulant, they border closely on personal attack, if not trotting OVER that line.

It's all too common, this approach--get all pissed and insult people when you can't back up your smart commentary with a few links and facts. Thanks for terminating the discussion, though. Life is way too short to bother with people who can't have a civil discussion and resort to insults any time their shaky reality is challenged.

You have a real nice day, now, hear? :eyes:

Apparently, the pediatricians haven't gotten the memo from the CDC. The folks in Atlanta are still very much looking into thimerosal and autism, as are officials at the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which just funded and published two very significant studies. One showed that mercury from thimerosal accumulates rapidly in the brains of infant primates (after converting to inorganic mercury); and the other showed that a few minutes of exposure with even miniscule amounts of thimerosal can damage dendritic cells, causing immune dysfunction and cytokine-induced inflammation, both of which are found in autism.

Other research continues at places like Harvard, Columbia, Northeastern and Arizona State University, where the first-ever trial of chelation therapy (removal of heavy metals) for autism is about to wrap up.

So while numerous experts are still seeking answers, the AAP is whispering "Stop."

Excellent article MADem. Thanks :hi:

I'm with you--we can't be checking our brains at the door on these issues, can we!

I agree with moc on this. I am a medical student and he totally ignored basic statistics and epidemiology... such as NNT (number needed to treat) & NNH (number needed to harm).

Look the definitions up here:

http://www.med.ualberta.ca/ebm/define.htm

Toxicologists, Epidemiologists, Medical Doctors, Medical research professionals etc.

Here is some good info on mercury:

http://www.909shot.com/Issues/mercury.htm

http://www.nomercury.org/science.htm

Of course as quickly as one questions vaccination, the money machine deems them unequipped to do so, regardless of background.

Edited to add this commentary by an Epidemiologist who works in integrative medicine:

Eric L. Hurwitz Is an Assistant Professor at UCLA's School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology

http://ehurwitz.bol.ucla.edu/latimes020401.html

I think Dr. Hurwitz has a balanced position?

'background pollution.' Who was this debunked by? Big pharma sponsored $$$$ research? :shrug:

You employ faulty logic: the rise in autism and asperger's is due to more careful and understanding diagnosis. In the past many individuals would have gone undiagnosed. I call BS on that. 30 years ago we did not have so many young children with these diseases, and I don't think it has anything to do with diagnoses.

Stolen future anyone? Complete with xenohormones, recombinant growth hormones, food additives, preservatives, messed up food chain much?

Sorry, as the parent of two daughters (albeit grown, not little ones) I am with the OP, I do not want pharmaceutical companies telling me we have to have X vaccine when book is out on the side-effects. Just wait until they find out these stupid birth control pills that suppress periods completely fuck up a woman's body. But we won't know the effects of that for decades.

And before you jump on me for my comment, know that my oldest just had a colposcopy last week for HPV and we are awaiting the results. We don't know which strain of the virus caused her irregular pap. There are 30 probable viruses, the vaccine is effective against 4. No one has the right to tell anyone they have to intake an experimental vaccine, and subject their prepubescent daughters to this.

Just MHO.

by Tim O'Shea,DC

This article is excerpted from Dr. O'Shea's revised edition of The Sanctity of Human Blood.

Inquiry into vaccine safety is exploding like never before, even in the popular press. Research coming from dozens of mainstream medical studies can no longer be easily suppressed, as it has been in the past, especially with the prevalence of online information exchange.

Last September, some 2,000 people, mostly MDs, assembled at the Town and Country resort in San Diego to hear the latest research on autism. Following the April 2000 Congressional hearings on autism and vaccines, this epidemic can no longer be ignored.

The figure of one autistic infant for every 150 is now widely documented.

Dr. Stephanie Cave presented enlightening data on mercury toxicity, drawn largely from the brilliant work of Sallie Bernard. Dr. Cave explained how:

By age two, American children have received 237 micrograms of mercury through vaccines alone, which far exceeds current EPA "safe" levels of .1 mcg/kg. per day. That's one-tenth of a microgram, not one microgram.

Three days in particular may be singled out as spectacularly toxic for infants:

Day of birth: hepatitis B-12 mcg mercury

30 x safe level

At 4 months: DTaP and HiB on same day - 50 mcg mercury

60 x safe level

At 6 months: Hep B, Polio - 62.5 mcg mercury


78 x safe level

At 15 months the child receives another 50 mcg

41 x safe level

These figures are calculated for an infant's average weight in kilograms for each age.

These one-day blasts of mercury are called "bolus doses". Although they far exceed "safe" levels, there has never been any research conducted on the toxicity of such bolus doses of mercury given to infants all these years.

Inconceivable

Historically, the toxicity of mercury has been known for more than a century. The Mad Hatter was more than a fantasy character from Alice in Wonderland. Mad Hatter's disease became well known in England in the mid-1800s, when hat-makers were subject to inhaling the vapors from the mercury-based stiffening compound they used on felt to make top hats.

http://www.mercola.com/2001/feb/24/autism_mercury.htm




Government Investigation Finds Autism Vaccine Related
by Evelyn Pringle
August 13, 2006



According to the most recent CDC estimates, one in 166 children in the US suffers from an autistic disorder. Twenty years ago, autism only affected one in 10,000 children.

For years now, studies have shown that exposure to mercury in childhood vaccines, not only causes autism but can also result in immune, sensory, neurological, motor, and behavioral dysfunctions similar to traits associated with autism.

On May 21, 2003, after a three year investigation, "The Mercury in Medicine Report" was released by the House Committee on Government Reform, and stated in part:

"Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines is likely related to the autism epidemic. This epidemic in all probability may have been prevented or curtailed had the FDA not been asleep at the switch regarding a lack of safety data regarding injected thimerosal and the sharper eyes of infant exposure to this known neurotoxin. The public health agencies' failure to act is indicative of institutional malfeasance for self protection and misplaced protectionism of the pharmaceutical industry."


http://www.thenhf.com/vaccinations_95.htm

...the other factors that could be responsible in the raise in autism. It cannot be claimed to be the sole factor in the rise of autism when the other factors are not addressed.

I when our daughter got vaccines. I don't see the need to make this mandatory right away. I don't trust this at all.

(I think this is soooooo astonishing. I drop my jaw to the floor just thinking about it. Please pass it along to everyone you think may be interested.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=10457


And thanks for those links.

That's a YOUNG girl to me.

This thing should NOT be mandatory. If parents want their girls to be part of a GIANT Merck study, AND pay for the opportunity, fine, LET THEM.

But to mandate this is insane.

Let's give the makers of VIOXX billions and billions of dollars to put a lightly (and entirely Merck) tested, small universe tested, five year old vaccine in girl-children...and let's force them to do it (or force their parents to explain in detail why they don't like it) and let's not squawk that the legislative process was completely abrogated, because Perry did this by EXECUTIVE DECREE.

Oh, and pay NO attention that the Merck lobbyist selling this "mandatory" program, or trying to , to states was PERRY's FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF.

Don't look up Merck's contributions to the GOP...it will only disturb you.

That stinks worse than week-old fish in July. And those who can't see it are so INVESTED in the concept of eliminating a dreadful cancer that they'll grasp at any straw and believe any snake oil salesman. The stuff MIGHT work, it might not need boosters every four years (but some say it will) but there hasn't been enough testing to KNOW that. And every WONDERFUL, MARVELLOUS news article and release can be traced back to Merck's public relations department. Don't let that worry you, either...

Again, brought to you by the makers of VIOXX....

But HS age is completely,completely appropriate.

I'm getting this vaccine as soon as I get insurance--which may be a while for me :(

and the next two BEFORE they hit thirteen.

It's bullshit.

And way too many people are just "going along, gettin' along" and thinking it's fine. After all, maybe, possibly, could be, eliminating cervical cancer just HAS to be good...don't think about any of the negatives, and don't think about a drug company with a monopoly, and don't think about the mandatory nature of this effort in Texas.

The series of shots is expected to cost three hundred and fifty bucks, or thereabouts. I imagine if you call around you might be able to get a discount on it at a health clinic.

If you want to have it, go for it. That's INFORMED CONSENT. But forcing developing young girls to take it, without multi-generational studies, and forcing their parents to EXPLAIN THEMSELVES (and they DO want a REASON, not "None of your fucking business") to the governor of the state, is just WRONG.

But it's a cash cow for Merck. Add up all the little girls, multiply that times three hundred and fifty, and then, figure that they lied, because they do, and they'll need a booster at age eighteen, say, and another at 22, and another at 26....those boosters going for a hundred and twenty bucks or so in 07 dollars...ka ching, ka ching, ka ching.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The whole thing stinks. Everything leads back to Merck....the money, the studies.

I wouldn't trust Merck as far as I could throw them.

Cheers

That said I have issues with rushing a mandatory vaccination on something that just rolled off the assembly line in the last year or so.

But the anti-vaccination crowd *in general* is problematic because it's not JUST this vaccine...

cervical cancer can be diagnosed and treated early. Nobody should be dying from cervical cancer in the 21st century. The emphasis should be on good medical care for girls and women, rather than on using a vaccine that's only supposed to be effective 75% of the time. 25% is a big risk. . .

ALSO, vaccination against HPV may lead to an increase in HPV and cervical cancer since it's not completely effective but will undoubtedly give many girls and women a false sense of security and an excuse to put off visits to the gynecologist, which most young girls and quite a few grown women dread.

I think Gardasil is a money-maker for Merck but potential disaster for many girls and women.

that's what annual pap smears are for...

I live in Texas and Governor, "Goodhair" Perry is very adamant about this drug. Funny thing is, his former chief of staff is the one lobbying so hard for it. He and Merck are one in the same...disgusting.

Indeed the former is to assist the later but even assuming people decide the vaccine means they never have to see an OB/GYN cosnider that the vaccine will help curb the spread of the sexually transmitted disease, which will have an even greater inpact on HPV and HPV caused cervical cancer by reducing the amount of carriers.

"The emphasis should be on good medical care for girls and women,"

Totally agree but I fail to see how using a vaccine is somehow counter to that.

"rather than on using a vaccine that's only supposed to be effective 75% of the time. 25% is a big risk. . ."

25% is smaller than 100% and if this vaccine can even cut the HPV cases in half and cervical cancer cases by a quarter that is thousands of lives saved that will grow epotentially as more become vaccinated.

All that said, I think this is a rush at this point to mandate because the vaccine itself is relatively new.

Say a woman is "lucky" and is diagnosed with an early stage cancerous lesion that can be treated with conization or a LEEP. These procedures, which remove most of the cervix, often cause incompetent cervix. Incompetent cervix makes pregnancy difficult if not impossible, and can lead to abortions. Do you really want to cause MORE abortions?

Say a woman isn't so "lucky" and at her yearly exam is diagnosed with an aggressive, fast growing lesion that cannot be treated with just a LEEP or conization. She needs a hysterectomy, and depending upon the biopsies, she may lose her ovaries as well - and she may need chemotherapy. Pretty goddamn lucky, eh?

No, what I'm really hearing is another Junior Anti-Sex Brigade lecture couched in terms "for her own good." The vaccine may not prevent all cases of cervical cancer, but it will certainly reduce the mumber of deaths, hysterectomies and other surgical/chemical treatments related to cervical cancer.

I don't see a SINGLE "don't fuck" argument in this ENTIRE thread.

But hey, go ahead and project. It says more about you than anything else.

The arguments I see here have to do with the vaccine being MANDATED in TX, the lobbyist-governor connection, the fact that the thing is UNTESTED except by the company that owns the patent, the fact that the test universe was small, taxpayer money being spent in the BILLIONS on something that only works three out of four times...you know, rational, REASONABLE reasons for looking askance at this "manna from Merck heaven."

But go ahead and accuse thinking people with reasonable concerns of being members of the "anti-sex brigade." That's uh, real mature of you....and let's us know exactly where your head is at.

will give girls a false sense of security, there may be more cases like you describe.

The last thing I want is for cervical cancer to kill more women than it does today. I've had most of the procedures you discussed, and more colposcopies than I can count, plus exploratory laparoscopies and laparotomies; wouldn't wish any of them on anybody else. I'm a DES daughter and all of my medical problems may be due to my in utero exposure to that "perfectly safe" drug. We should learn from such medical mistakes, not continue making new ones. I'm concerned about widespread administration of a vaccine that's had little testing.

Young women have always dreaded going to the gynecologist and anything that makes them feel that they're safe not to go is potentially dangeous.

That's my argument, that girls will be more likely to skip GYN check-ups, not that being vaccinated will lead more teenagers to have sex. Teenagers have always had sex.

I think you said you left this discussion, but I wanted to reply to this statement.

when an "expert" on CNN just said the idea was to vaccinate them before they became sexually active.

If these "experts" would talk to public school teachers, they'd learn that 6th grade is way too late for some girls.

I know that at least thirty years ago, some kids in the early grades (K-3) were sexually active. It's essential for parents to talk to their kids about sex at an early age.

It's also essential for parents to decide about vaccinating their kids. Kids don't get HPV from sitting next to an infected kid in school, making it far different from polio vaccine or measles vaccine (though there's parental opposition to them as well.)

AND Gardasil is only supposed to protect 75% of girls and women vaccinated. But, hey, Merck needs the money!

You may have to homeschool your little girl because there's a big push to mandate Gardasil in other states.

Homeschooling is hardly necessary.

"Because I said so" isn't acceptable. The only card that works without additional scruitiny is the "religious" card.

The whole program is offensive. They should take a page from New Hampshire, where ALL vaccinations are OPTIONAL, and they have one of the highest vaccination rates in the entire country.

Why? Because they treat their citizens like free adults, not serfs or slaves who must bend and obey.

I guess they can't do that with this vaccine, though, because maybe once parents start reading, they might not think it's so great.

It is voluntary. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15958573/

If New Hampshire is so great, why do you live in Massachusetts?

Edited to add: Apparently Massachusetts has the country's highest vaccination rate & Vermont has the lowest. Where can I find figures for the whole USA?

www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2006/09/17/vermont_has_lowest_vaccination_rate_in_the_country/

I am loyal to it. I have family here, all over the state. It is my designated "home of record"--the place from which I joined the military, and the place to where I returned upon retirement. I live in our old family home that's been in the family for eons.

If you think a single thing like "vaccination policy" would be a deciding factor as to where I live, well, that's some incredibly interesting thinking. Besides, there are way too many Republicans in NH. The D to R ratio is much better here in the Bay State. We're also very civilized on social issues, and that sits well with my world view.

Last, Massachusetts HONORS military service--they don't wave flags on the one hand, and fuck vets on the other. Military retirees don't pay state taxes on their pensions, so I'm getting some payback for all those years I paid MA taxes when I lived on or was deployed to the other side of the world.

As for the vaccine in NH, making it voluntary is FINE, as I have said REPEATEDLY on this and other threads. My objection has always been to the mandatory nature of the vaccination policy that the Merck-stock-owning, Lobbyist-crony, TX governor is shoving down the throats of the citizens of his state. Let parents weigh the risks and benefits, and make their OWN decision.

Isn't it funny that NH can make it both VOLUNTARY and FREE, while other states are saying they need to make it "mandatory" in order to tap into billions of dollars of Medicaid money? Some of these mandating assholes might want to call the NH state house and find out how they managed that neat trick--if they're serious about "public health" and aren't just looking for a big payday.

that the governor of Texas holds stock in Merck.

Doesn't anyone find it a bit curious that this governor would bypass all gov. channels to sign this into law? Anything done with such haste screams RED FLAG to me.

I don't care is Merck was providing Perry with the services of Jeff Gannon - two women in my family have had cervical cancer an aunt on each side of the family.

If this can join the ranks is extinct diseases that is wonderful. Politics and ideology don't come into it for me. Sometimes those in power will only do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

I'd appreciate the choice myself thank you very much.

That's if it works, there's no long-term OR short-term side effects....and if it does, they're suggesting you may need boosters every four years.

You shouldn't force everyone else to take a ride on the wheel of fortune along with you.

How you can EXCUSE Perry for signing an "executive decree" with no legislative consent or debate is beyond me. How you can ignore the Merck connection to him, the fact that his former chief of staff is THE lobbyist, and all of the GOP contributions to GOP candidates and the RNC suggests that you are suspending critical thought because you have a vested interest in wanting this to work.

All I can say is I hope there aren't any unintended consequences from this lightly-tested, sole source tested, non-peer reviewed, brand new vaccine.

You've relying on "ifs" -- IF it works, IF it eradicates. What IF it causes mutations in development, or because of the additives in it, IF it kills, say, one in a thousand? They don't KNOW, because they haven't tested it on a thousand--only "several hundred." If they get their way, though, the US government will PAY them to test on a huge universe--all the nine year old girls in Texas.

You go take the shots. Don't force others to go with you, absent INDEPENDENT and peer reviewed studies. That's just wrong.

Start here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=gardasil&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws

The Texas proposal lets parents opt out of the program. Anyone who can't understand that simple fact should not bother with scholarly journals.

FINISH here--you'll make the connection. Match up those names in that list of crappy abstracts you so cavalierly tossed out--they all have been on the payroll, been contracted, had their hand out, and Merck greased their palms. Sheesh. Some people are easily fooled by "scholarly" articles, it would seem. Ask yourself "Cui bono?" This is a disease that kills three thousand, seven hundred annually. It's been reduced by seventy four percent over the decades because of regular pap smears. If everyone got pap smears, no one would die. Yet you want to spend Iraq War-like money on an unproven vaccine, to be given to nine year olds. Sorry, I cannot get behind your logic.





But hey--whatever. Anyone who can't understand the simple fact that they are releasing this vaccine without even FINISHING the studies they vowed to do in the first place, never mind that all the "scholarly articles" were written by their OWN scientists because the damn thing is patented, and they won't let anyone else have a gander at the exact formula, makes it pointless for me to continue any discussion. I don't go for faith-based science, and I don't have unquestioning faith in articles written by scientists who are paid by and own stock in Merck. If every girlchild in America is forced to take this vaccine, those clowns will be rich, rich, RICH.

Go get your shots, enjoy yourself...just don't force the nine year olds in my extended family do the same, or force their parents to jump through hoops and present explanations to avoid it.

So you're safe in oregon -- or whichever portland it is.

personally HPV provides an insidious problem for millions of women -- and the vaccine is most effective in girls at a certain -- generally before they become sexually active.


the societal costs and personal costs are becoming extraordinary for cancers -- and prevention in terms of dollars{and lives} in this day and age is well worth a pound of cure.

If you think this is good for YOUR daughter go ahead.

My daughter is not "safe" because it could well catch on.

Mandatory No; Education Yes.

see that's the problem -- humans with or with out education fuck like bunny rabbits.

and when it comes to gettin down with the funky time -- people don't think.

and rubbers don't counter act this.

now if you don't want to vaccinate your kid fine -- so far you're safe. -- but i'm all for vaccinating young girls for this for the reasons i stated.

Merk's corporate need to put profits above people.

i guess the pain of womens cancers mean nothing to you.


''i told ya not to fuck honey -- but no you fucked any way -- now you have cancer.
there was a remote chance you'ld get something awful from the vaccine -- and i didn't want the corporation make any money off of you.
noww look at what you've done to your self.''

But frankly why can't I have the choice?

What's giving you the inherit understanding that this will cause more good than harm? Remember we HAVE made this mistake in the past OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Putting Asbestos in ALL the buildings seemed like a super idea at the time. Do ya know how many cancer deaths that caused?

I'd like to be wise and use fair judgement.

You do what you want.

Leave my daughter alone.

that's how expensive it's gotten.

most people could never pay for a really bad case of ovarian cancer -- unless they were really rich.

that's why.

second -- it really does prevent many, many cancers. there's risk walking across the street -- which if you're hurt bad enough and require enough help getting better you can't pay for on your own either.
so for the risk -- which is admittedly small -- the benefit is greater.

lastly so far it's not required where you are -- so don't give your daughter the vaccine.

it's up to you.

BTW what prevents "many many cancers"?

several cancers -- but not all.

And one of the side effects (that they determined from this universe of hundreds) is that you CAN'T BREATHE. Geez, that's nice. So we vaccinate millions, and maybe a hundred or so die. Is that OK with you?

It doesn't prevent "many" cancers, either. It prevents cervical cancer, "LINKED" to four strains of HPV.

And gee, your attitude is that since the poster doesn't live in Texas, well, it isn't her problem--talk about not caring about your brethren--which, ironically, you accused the poster of doing upthread.

Again, heckuva job Brownie...You are a real piece of work.

You make two shitty assumptions--first, that the poster is opposed to "fucking" as you so quaintly put it, and second, that the poster doesn't care about cancer.

You should be ashamed of yourself. You have no "fucking" rebuttal to the very real facts that this vaccine is owned by Merck, incompletely tested ONLY by Merck, and it's being forced on nine year old girls.

So instead, you resort to highly offensive insults and smears.

Heckuva job, there, Brownie....

no one is being forced -- the public can opt out.

so not ONLY do you see things -- you run head long into lying.

extra-curricular programs if they don't have a full complement of vaccines. So, they're "forced" to take the shots if they want the full school experience.

But then, if you actually read up on what was going on, and concentrated on getting your facts right rather than engaging in childish fights, you'd be actually participating in the discussion rather than snarkily working hard to seemingly derail it.

If anyone's "hallucinating" it's you. Heckuva job there, Brownie. Proud of yourself?

since you want to prevent women from having cancer you surely don't want to give a woman HPV, right?

Have you been tested to find out if you alread have HPV? If not, why not?

the equivalent of pap smears.

but i'm too old for the vaccination.

though they will soon be giving the vaccination to boys.

do you want to enter reality now?

Go see the thread "National Cancer Institute says HPV causes penile and anal cancer in men" and explain to us again why only girls are being targeted for vaccination.

men are checked for hpv -- i already knew that.

Why lie about such a thing? You're speaking as though you are tested. You're deliberately going out of your way to be rude, too, I see, and you might want to apologize to the poster to whom you behaved in such snarky fashion. It would be the mature thing to do.

Unless you're in some obscure research cohort, you aren't getting tested for HPV, and neither is anyone else. From what I have read and understand understand, the research test involves running a scraper up the urethra to grab a few cells for the test. I'm sure you look forward to a test of that nature, regularly....not.

It's a valid question, asking why you made that bit up. Are you trying to flame, or fight? Why do you keep trying to derail this thread?

Oh, and to demonstrate that my goal isn't simple goading, as yours seems to be, I will provide a cite--from the CDC, no less:

http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-and-men.htm

Is there a test for HPV in men?

At the moment, there is no test approved to detect HPV in men. However, there are ways to detect the most common problem caused by HPV in men, genital warts. Genital warts are usually diagnosed by visual inspection. Some health care providers may use a vinegar solution to help identify flat warts, although this test is not specific for warts. That means the test may falsely identify normal skin as a wart.

Now, there IS a test for HPV-related cancers in men, but it isn't APPROVED, and it isn't a test for HPV. It's an unapproved CANCER test, not an HPV test, you see. There is a difference in the terms:

Is there a test to screen for HPV-related cancers in men?

There are currently no tests approved to detect early evidence of HPV-associated cancers in men, as there are for women (Pap tests). Nonetheless, since anal cancer is more common in gay, bisexual, and HIV-positive men, some experts recommend routine anal Pap tests for those populations. The anal Pap test is used to find abnormal cells in the anus (caused by HPV) that could turn into cancer over time. However, it is not yet clear that finding and removing abnormal cells from the anus will effectively prevent anal cancer from developing in the future. CDC does not recommend anal cancer screening.

about HPV and cancer.


The CDC (Centers for Disease Control) also say that "Females who are allergic to yeast or to any component of the vaccine should not receive Gardasil."

But I have yet to find where they tell what the other components are that girls could be allergic to.

Another quote from the CDC website's section about Gardasil:

"Gardasil is expected to prevent up to 70% of cervical cancers, because they are due to HPV types against which the vaccine is directed. However, it does not protect against the types of HPV that are not included in the vaccine, which can also cause some cancers. Furthermore, women aren't protected if they have already been infected with the HPV types(s) that are covered by the vaccine prior to vaccination."

So, according to CDC, it's expected to prevent only 70% of cervical cancers, not the 75% other sources have said.

Do I hear 65%?

I know there's ALUMINUM in the vaccine...that's not quite mercury, but damn...

Wonder when they will start working on a male vaccine--because they aren't doing much with HPV and men. Aside from a Mexico-US study with a small universe of subjects, they just aren't pushing this at all. I swear, they're going after the Mexican males (who have a high HPV rate, apparently, from what I have read) so the GOP can justify building a border fence...I know, farfetched, totally unlikely....but if it came to pass, and HPV was used as an excuse to build fences or deny people entry into the US, well, nothing would surprise me! Politics rules!

my doctor insisted on the male equivalent to a pap smear.

so for some time now -- annually i've been getting one.

now, no i can't the vaccine -- and i'm too old to boot.

-- pure and simple and pass information on and twist it to suit your medieval notions of health and medicine.

''a truth that's told with bad intent is worse than all the lies you can invent''

http://www.vaccineethics.org/labels/Gardasil.html

HPV: favorable data for male vaccination; VFC action; CDC shift in research focus

A paper published in the November issue of the journal Pediatrics includes new data from Merck on some of their ongoing trials of Gardasil in different populations. It's a highly technical paper with an equally complex title: "Comparison of the Immunogenicity and Reactogenicity of a Prophylactic Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus (Types 6, 11, 16, and 18) L1 Virus-Like Particle Vaccine in Male and Female Adolescents and Young Adult Women." (free abstract; subscription required for full-text).
To summarize, the paper reports the results of trials examining whether the vaccine's response in 10-15 year olds mirrors what's been shown in older females (16-23 year-olds). The short answer is that it does generate a comparable ('noninferior,' in scientific jargon) immune response in younger populations. Good news. The most interesting finding from the perspective of potential ethical issues is the comparison of data between 10-15 year old boys versus girls. Boys had a nearly identical response to the vaccine as their female counterparts did as well as a virtually identical safety profile between genders. As the paper's authors (all of whom are employees or consultants of Merck, critics might note, despite that being an obvious result of a Merck trial) note:

"Our findings in boys lend support for implementation of gender-neutral immunization using this vaccine for the purpose of preventing the widespread morbidity and mortality from anogenital cancer, as well as dysplastic cervical and external genital lesions, in the general population."
Speaking of Gardasil, news earlier this week that the vaccine has officially been added to the federal government's Vaccines for Children program, ensuring its availability to uninsured children age 18 or under. Here's a brief story from UPI.
One final related item: a story from Wednesday's Washington Post, "CDC Shifts Vaccine-Data Focus," reports on the decision to refocus intensive data-collection activities on immunization in 22 major cities on teenagers rather than young children. The move is a result of multiple new vaccines recommended for adolescents, including vaccines against HPV, meningococcus, and tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis (Tdap).

Labels: CDC, Gardasil, HPV, Pediatrics (journal)

No one is making PRONOUNCEMENTS over whether or not these unapproved methodologies are good are bad.

But you did tell an untruth. A couple of them, in fact. That was the point. You do it a lot.

And then, you get rude and argumentative, and make false statements about the posters who point out your horseshit, when you're called on it.

You should do some introspection. You don't know how to have a civil discussion, and your level of maturity could use an upgrade.

That's pretty funny coming from you.

Anal cancer is an uncommon, often curable cancer that produces slow-growing tumors and lesions in the anus and nearby anal anatomy. Most anal cancers are associated with human papillomavirus (HPV), which causes warts on the anus and genitals, similar to cervical and other cancers of the reproductive system. Providers recommend annual anal Pap smears to HIV-positive men who have sex with men (MSM), and biannual Pap smears to HIV-negative MSM. Pap smears screen for HPV and abnormal tissue growth (dysplasia). Routine anal Pap smears may reduce the incidence and progression of anal cancer, as they have for cervical and uterine cancer. The prognosis is good if the cancer is discovered early.

Incidence and Prevalence
Anal cancer affects men and women, but it is the only cancer with a greater prevalence among men who have sex with men (MSM) than in the general population. About 35 in every 100,000 MSM develop anal cancer, compared to less than one in every 100,000 heterosexual men. The risk for anal cancer in HIV-positive men is twice as high as that for HIV-negative MSM.

The American Cancer Society estimates that there will be 3,500 new cases of anal cancer among men and women in 2001 and 500 deaths resulting from it. Cancer of the perianal skin around the anus is more common in men, while tumors of the anal canal more often affect women.

Anal cancer accounts for only 4% of all cancers affecting the digestive tract.

Diagnosis

Anal cancer is diagnosed with an anal Pap smear, in which a cotton swab is inserted past the anus and swirled to capture a tissue sample. The tissue cells are examined under a microscope for signs of dysplasia. An abnormal Pap smear shows signs of excessive cell growth and is followed by a colposcopy, the internal examination of specific lesions or areas of cell growth for biopsy. Acetic acid (vinegar) is introduced into the anal canal to prepare the cells before an anoscope, a plastic tube, in inserted. The provider inserts a colposcope through the anoscope to visualize the cells in the anus with magnification. The procedure is painless. During a biopsy, a biopsy forceps is inserted in the suspect tissue to obtain a sample for close examination. Lesions and tumors found during a colposcopy are typically biopsied.

Anal cancer may be discovered during a routine digital rectal exam (DRE), in which a medical professional inserts a gloved finger past the anus to feel for abnormalities.

http://www.lgbthealthchannel.com/msmcancer/


The belief is that it is this prevalence that has caused the rise in anal cancers. Gay and bisexual men with HIV are especially at risk because they are at higher risk for persistent HPV infection. And unlike other sexually transmitted diseases, condoms are not effective in preventing HPV infection.

The numbers tell the story
So what is the prevalence of HPV and anal carcinomas (cancers) in men? Is anal papilloma screening worth the cost of the test? The numbers tell the story.

Studies now show that the rates of anal cancer are much higher in gay men and men who have sex with men (MSM) with HIV.

* Eight of every 100,000 women will get cervical cancer. Compare this to the numbers for men who have sex with men: 35 of every 100,000 will develop anal cancer. The risk in the general population is 0.9 per 100,000.
* The risks to HIV infected people are even more staggering...in one study, HIV infected people are twice as likely to contract anal cancers as are HIV negative people. As a person progresses toward an AIDS diagnosis, the risk increases further. And, unlike some other diseases, anal cancer does not seem to improve with better HAART therapy.
* In one study, 28 men with anal cancer, low CD4 counts, and high viral loads, were given HAART therapy and saw good results HIV virologically. But, only 1 of the 28 experienced a regression of lesions or cancer. This indicates that HAART may have little impact on anal cancer.
* In a recent study in San Francisco, anal pap smears are abnormal in about 40% of HIV positive men.

The Procedure
The anal PAP screening is very simple, painless, and quick. Simply put, the physician uses a Dacron swab and collects cell samples from the anal canal by swabbing all surfaces of the anus and rectum. These cell samples are sent to a lab where technicians prep the samples and look at them under a microscope. In a few days, the physician will have the results and will discuss them with you.

But how often do you need an anal PAP? Sue Goldie, MD, MPH, the author of a anal PAP study at the Harvard School of Public Health found that screening gay and bisexual men every three years would identify many cases of anal cancer early -- when they can be treated successfully.

What if the test finds an abnormality? Initially, the cells in the anal canal develop abnormal, pre-malignant changes called intraepithelial (the superficial layer of the anal canal) neoplasms. These changes gradually worsen and become an invasive cancer. If abnormal changes are noted, further investigation and possible surgical excision by a laser may be necessary. Or, there are currently three methods of non-surgical treatment:

1. Imiquimod: This is a topical agent that has limited effect because it so easily gets rubbed off.
2. Therapeutic vaccines: These may work, but one needs to have a strong immune system for vaccines to work well.
3. Onxy-015: This is a recombinant adenovirus that is about to enter clinical trial phase. It has the ability to kill cells infected with HPV.

http://aids.about.com/cs/conditions/a/analpaps.htm

Human papilloma virus poses particular risks for MSM. In a 1998 study, 61% of HIV-negative men and 93% of HIV-positive men showed evidence of HPV infection.2'' As with cervical cancer, HPV infection has been strongly associated with anal cancer. Thus, although the risk of anal cancer in the general population of men is 7 per million, the risk is 35 per 100,000 in MSM (rivaling the rate of cervical cancer in women prior to the introduction of routine Pap smears).7 The rate of anal cancer in HIV-positive men is twice as high as in HIV-negative men.21 Although it has not become standard of care, experts now recommend anal Pap smears for high-risk men. Abnormal Pap smears would be evaluated by referral for anoscoopy. Data on outcomes are limited, but the sensitivity of anal Pap smears has approached 98%, although the specificity for predicting severe dysplastic changes is much lower.2 Surgical treatment of anal HSIL has shown excellent results in small numbers of HIV-negative men; unfortunately, HIV-positive men have had high rates of recurrence.6

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4100/is_200606/ai_n16501061

Regulators in Australia and the European Union have approved the vaccine, called Gardasil and made by Merck, for boys ages 9 to 15. They cited data showing that it produced an immune response in boys, though its effectiveness in preventing infection in sexually active men has not been proved.

As with prescription drugs, doctors in the United States can provide the vaccine “off label” to anyone. “The approval is for marketing and distribution, but medical providers can use it in ways they feel is appropriate,” said Dr. Jeffrey Klausner, director of S.T.D. prevention at the San Francisco Department of Public Health.

Dr. Eliav Barr, a director of clinical research at Merck, said he had heard that some men were receiving the vaccine, but added that the company was barred from promoting it for men unless the F.D.A. approved it for that use.

That is unlikely to occur for at least a couple of years. Merck is sponsoring a clinical trial of Gardasil in 4,000 men, including 500 self-identified gay men. The first results are expected toward the end of next year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/health/30virus.html?ex=1171342800&en=164dc531bf34761a&ei=5070

Anal Cancer Screening for Gay and Bisexual Men Would Save Lives and be Cost Effective
For immediate release: Tuesday, May 30, 2000
Boston, MA and San Francisco, CA--Just as use of Pap smears has led to a dramatic drop in cervical cancer, so screening for anal cancer among gay and bisexual men would save many lives at a reasonable cost, according to a study conducted at the Harvard School of Public Health and University of California at San Francisco. Anal squamous cell cancer and cervical cancer are similar diseases, both caused by a sexually-transmitted virus called human papillomavirus (HPV).

The study, led by Sue Goldie, MD, assistant professor at the Harvard School of Public Health's Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, predicts that the use of a simple and inexpensive procedure, comparable to a Pap smear, would lead to detection of pre-cancerous lesions among high-risk, HIV-negative men and allow for removal of these lesions and early treatment of anal cancer. A study by the same scientists last year reported similar findings for HIV-positive gay men.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/releases/press05302000.html


HPV has similar carcinogenic effects on the anus as it does on the cervix. Anal cancer is preceded by detectable premalignant changes in the anal mucosa and is related to specific HPV infections. Similar to cervical Pap smears, checking for pre-malignant lesions of the cervix, it is recommended that anal cytological screening be performed every three years for all individuals (men and women) who engage in receptive anal intercourse, and every year for HIV positive individuals who engage in receptive anal intercourse<1> <4>.
http://www.genderandhealth.ca/en/modules/sexandsexuality/gss-gay-men-issues-04.jsp


now i live in an area where 40% of gay men have been exposed to hpv -- can you figure out why my doctor would do an annual smear?
or why this vaccine is extremely important to both genders?

you can see that both australia and the european union are vaccinating boys -- i'm guessing the sheer weight of medical and public health care experts so far outweighs your position here -- as to make you look ridiculous.

but here's more --

here's just the very briefest overview of what vaccines have done for humanity -- so many millions saved as a result.
now that's not saying that people like don't want vaccines to be safe -- or that we don't big pharma cut off from the conduits of power --
but this vaccine is a very good thing.

http://blogs.cgdev.org/globalhealth/

January 22, 2007
Hundreds of Thousands Saved: A Measles Success Story

The numbers are in! The Measles Initiative, which set out to halve the global measles burden between 1999 and 2005, has surpassed its goal with a 60 percent reduction. A new Lancet study (subscription required) reports an estimated drop in measles deaths from 873,000 in 1999 to 345,000 in 2005 (based on a natural history model to evaluate mortality trends).

For related coverage, see The Economist, the Washington Post, the New York Times and elsewhere. But also be sure to check out CGD's Millions Saved for a detailed account of how measles was nearly eliminated in seven southern African countries in the late 1990s. The case study suggests some key ingredients for the intervention's success: the commitment of governments, the strengthening of surveillance systems, and the integration of measles vaccinations with other health services. Some of these reasons are echoed by WHO director Margaret Chan in an International Herald Tribune op-ed on the more recent Measles Initiative success. She said that "it took a new partnership - with commitment, caring and cash - to turn things around," and noted that the success in countries was aided by their ability to build on the strategies and infrastructure of existing health programs and services.

As usual in public health, this success implies more work to be done. In a good sign that past successes are being used to inform future aims, the Measles Initiative has already set a new goal of reducing measles mortality 90 percent by 2010. Margaret Chan is optimistic that the new measles target will be achieved; so am I.


http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/vaccinedevelopment/overview

Nowhere are the potential benefits greater than in the production and distribution of new vaccines to prevent the diseases that needlessly take lives and destroy livelihoods in developing countries.

In 2003 we established a Working Group, including economists, public health professionals, lawyers, experts in public policy and pharmaceutical and biotech experts, with the mandate to develop a practical approach to the vaccine challenge: to go from ideas to action. The result is this report.

My colleagues propose an elegant solution to enable the high income countries to work together to accelerate the development of vaccines for diseases of low-income countries to guarantee to pay for such vaccines if and when they are developed. The solution is simple and practical. It unleashes the same combination of market incentives and public investment that creates medicines for diseases that afflict us: arrangements that have been spectacularly effective in improving the health of the rich nations in the last century. It creates incentives for more private investment in these diseases. And it will ensure that, once a vaccine is developed, the funds will be there to get the vaccine to the people who need it.

Adequate investment in global public goods should be a cornerstone of foreign assistance. By definition, we all benefit from global public goods, and we share a responsibility to see that they are properly funded and available to everyone. These are investments with high returns and low risks of corruption and appropriation. Furthermore, this proposal ties funding directly to results: if the commitment does not succeed, there is no cost to the sponsors.

Every so often, an idea comes along that makes you ask: now why didn't I think of that? This is such an idea.
Nancy Birdsall
President


http://www.savekids.org/vaccines/v.html

the above site is comprehensive in recording both past achievements and current achievements for saving millions of lives through vaccinations.
truly a remarkable human achievement.

this describes an effort to save 5 MILLION CHILDREN through vaccination
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/news/files/pressreleases/iffi-bond.asp

The first step was taken today to raise funds for a mass immunisation programme for children in the developing world, at a ceremony in London attended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, Queen Rania Al-Abdullah of Jordan, and representatives of Britain’s faith groups.
The International Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm) will deliver 4 billion dollars over the next ten years to be spent on the immunisation of up to 500 million children in the world’s 70 poorest countries against preventable diseases like polio, measles and diphtheria. It is estimated this will save 5 million lives in the years up to 2015, and a further 5 million afterwards, and lead to the eradication of polio.
Speaking in advance of the launch, the Chancellor said:
"Millions of people campaigned to Make Poverty History last year, and now we can say to them all: we are delivering the promises we made, your hopes are becoming a reality, and millions of young children's lives will be saved as a result."
IFFIm uses long-term, binding commitments from donors as collateral against which to borrow money up front from institutional and private investors, which can be spent immediately on mass vaccination programmes. Commitments have so far been made by the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Brazil and South Africa, together with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The first step was taken today to raise funds for a mass immunisation programme for children in the developing world, at a ceremony in London attended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, Queen Rania Al-Abdullah of Jordan, and representatives of Britain’s faith groups.
The International Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm) will deliver 4 billion dollars over the next ten years to be spent on the immunisation of up to 500 million children in the world’s 70 poorest countries against preventable diseases like polio, measles and diphtheria. It is estimated this will save 5 million lives in the years up to 2015, and a further 5 million afterwards, and lead to the eradication of polio.
Speaking in advance of the launch, the Chancellor said:
"Millions of people campaigned to Make Poverty History last year, and now we can say to them all: we are delivering the promises we made, your hopes are becoming a reality, and millions of young children's lives will be saved as a result."
IFFIm uses long-term, binding commitments from donors as collateral against which to borrow money up front from institutional and private investors, which can be spent immediately on mass vaccination programmes. Commitments have so far been made by the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Brazil and South Africa, together with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.


''Vaccines have been one of the most important health gains in the past century. Infants and young children are particularly vulnerable to infectious diseases; that is why it is critical that they are protected through immunization. The benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks. Children who are not immunized increase the chance that others will get the disease. Since this effort 50 years ago, we can now protect children from more than 12 vaccine-preventable diseases, and disease rates have been reduced by 99% in the United States. Immunizations are extremely safe thanks to advancements in medical research and ongoing review by doctors, researchers, and public health officials; yet without diligent efforts to maintain immunization programs here and strengthen them worldwide, the diseases seen 50 years ago remain a threat to our children.''
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/events/polio-vacc-50th/

the above quote is from the cdc re: the fiftieth anniversary of the polio vaccine and takes in the scope of what vaccines have brought humanity -- millions have been saved -- and many millions more will be through hard work and determination.

HPV vaccines
Vaccines are being developed to prevent HPV infection.  There are many different HPV strains.  Some are known to be high risk for cervical cancer.  If we had effective vaccines against all these strains, we might be able to prevent cervical cancer altogether.  Several research trials have been testing vaccines as a way of preventing infection with HPV.
A trial testing Gardasil called FUTURE II reported its results in October 2005.  This phase 3 trial involved over 12,000 women aged between 16 and 26.  These women did not have HPV before the start of the trial.  The women were divided into two groups.  Half the women were given Gardasil and the other half had a dummy vaccine (placebo).  Both groups of women had 3 injections of either the vaccine or placebo over six months.  Over the following two years the women had regular checks to see if they had developed HPV, or had any precancerous changes to the cells of the cervix, which could develop into a cancer.  The group who had the vaccine showed no precancerous changes.  Of the 5,258 women who had the placebo, 21 had precancerous changes, which is 0.4%.  The researchers found that Gardasil protected against HPV types 6 and 11, as well as 16 and 18.  Gardasil was licensed for use within the European Union in September 2006.  
Two other phase 3 trials have tested the vaccine Cervarix.  The first was for women under 26 and closed in July 2005.  It involved over 18,000 women from all over the world, including the UK.  This study was called ‘PATRICIA’ (PApilloma TRIal to prevent Cervical cancer In young Adults).   The second was for women of 26 and over, and closed in August 2006.  The aim of the trial is to find out the effect of the Cervarix vaccine on long term HPV infection. So it will be some time before we know the results.
It is possible that these vaccines will be used in a national vaccination programme in the UK in the future.  The research suggests that they would dramatically lower the number of cases of cervical cancer.  They would also reduce the need for colposcopy.  At the moment, they are only available on private prescription.  There is more information about HPV vaccines and cervical cancer in the cervical cancer questions and answers section of CancerHelp UK.
http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default_printer_friend.asp?page=9596

merck is not the only company who developed this vaccine -- a french drug company was also the developer

Comparable strategies needed to evaluate human papillomavirus vaccine efficiency across Europe

K Soldan1 (kate.soldan@hpa.org.uk), J Dillner2

1Health Protection Agency Centre for Infections, London, United Kingdom
2Dept of Medical Microbiology, MAS University Hospital, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
A quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16, 18, 6 and 11, known as GardasilTM (or Silgard, see note) was granted a marketing license by the European Commission in September 2006 following the positive opinion of the European Medicines Agency’s (EMEA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use in July 2006 <1>.

HPV infection is the most frequent sexually transmitted infection in Europe. Certain HPV types have been established as causative agents of cervical cancer (and its precursor stages that are the target of cervical screening), as well as of some other rare cancers of the ano-genital tract and oral cavity. A meta-analysis of published studies found just over 70% of invasive cervical cancer cases in Europe to be positive for HPV types 16 or 18 <2>. Pre-cancerous stages of cervical disease are common and often resolve with time. However, their follow-up, including treatment, repeated screening and examination of the cervix (colposcopy), is associated with considerable costs and anxiety. HPV 6 and 11 are not causally linked to cervical cancer, but are associated with some low-grade cervical lesions, the vast majority of genital warts and the rare condition of recurrent respiratory papillomatosis <3>.

The Gardasil vaccine is composed of virus-like particles (VLP) generated by the synthesis and self-assembly of the major HPV capsid protein (L1) in yeast cells (Saccharomyces cerevisiae). Gardasil has been licensed for the prevention of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN grades 2 and 3), cervical cancer, high-grade vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN grades 2 and 3), and external genital warts (condyloma acuminata) causally associated with HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18 <1>. Trials have been undertaken to demonstrate the efficacy of the vaccine in women aged 16 to 26 years and immunogenicity in girls and boys aged 9 to 15 years. Protective efficacy in males has not been reported in the literature yet, but the results of more trials involving males are expected over the next few years.

Another vaccine composed of virus-like particles (VLP), a bivalent vaccine for HPV 16 and 18, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, is currently under evaluation by the EMEA. Both these prophylactic vaccines have been shown to have very high efficacy in uninfected women against infection, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and, by implication, against cervical cancer caused by the HPV types targeted by the vaccine <4>.

The availability of efficacious vaccines now means that vaccination strategies should be designed and evaluated to inform decisions on efficient control of HPV-related diseases. Several questions about HPV vaccination efficacy and effectiveness are still under consideration <5> For example, data on its efficacy against disease in males and in women aged over 26 years (of whom many could have been previously infected) are still awaited. A longer follow-up of vaccine programmes is needed to determine the duration of protection. The impact of vaccination on the epidemiology and disease burden of HPV types not covered by the vaccine is also uncertain. There are some data from trials which suggest cross-protection against HPV-types closely related to the vaccine types. The possibility of type-replacement with non-vaccine types emerging as the cause of more disease is also a concern to be evaluated further. It is likely that most European countries will first consider vaccination of girls who have not yet become sexually active
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ew/2006/061123.asp

regarding the stigma around hpv --
Social Stigma
 
"There is unfortunately a social stigma associated with cervical cancer because HPV is a direct cause in approximately 70% of cases," Dr. Makhija told Medscape. "People are under the impression that this means the patient slept around or was in some way more sexually active, but this is often not the case, and she may well have been with 1 person who had the infection."
 
HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the US. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that about 6.2 million Americans become infected with HPV every year and that over half of all sexually active men and women become infected at some time in their lives.
 
"Our expectation is that the far-right machine will gear up its disinformation and fearmongering tactics, all aimed at reducing availability of the vaccine by threatening funding and clouding the facts regarding the safety and the need for this vaccine," Ms. Julie Kay, an attorney for Legal Momentum, a New York City–based women's-rights organization, said in a statement to the press.
 
But Dr. Makhija said she has been pleasantly surprised by reaction so far. "I think people are realizing that this is not a political issue so much as a health issue." Based in Alabama, the investigator had worried about how difficult it might be to recruit women in the Deep South for the trial. "But we enjoyed an enormous response and had no trouble at all," she said. "People realized that this is something that could potentially protect their daughters, and the response has been excellent."
 
"Exciting Win Against Cancer"
 
Mr. Alan Kaye, from the National Cervical Cancer Coalition in Van Nuys, California, called the news "an exciting win against cancer." He is looking forward to what this could mean for public health.
 
But he is also glad from a personal perspective. Mr. Kaye founded the cancer coalition with his wife before she died of cancer. Today is the 5-year anniversary of her death. "It's wonderful to think that this amazing step forward has taken place on such an important day," he said. "My wife would be pleased."
 
http://www.brodstonehospital.org/your%20health.htm

other countries approve gardasil --
During an interview with Medscape, Jaime de la Garza, MD, from the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología in Tlapan, Mexico, agreed that the vaccines represent an important advance. He says they will be especially important for women in developing countries. "The incidence of cervical cancer is continuing to rise, and mortality rates are especially high in poor countries. If we can get vaccines such as these to patients, it will make a big difference."
 
Gardasil was approved last week for use in Mexico and is currently under review with regulatory agencies in the European Union, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, New Zealand, Singapore, and Taiwan.
http://www.brodstonehospital.org/your%20health.htm

this from an interview with dr tristram in the uk

Dr Tristram said, "This vaccine has to be given as a preventative, before there is any contact with the virus.


"If we are looking at the population and asking who should be vaccinated, we have to consider that one in four young people are sexually active before the age of 16, so we have to look at a younger age group.


"Another issue to consider is that, at around the time of puberty, if the cervix comes into contact with HPV, it is more likely to cause problems."

more --

Q Will the vaccine replace the need for regular smear tests?


A Dr Tristram said, "Cervical screening has been very successful in reducing the incidence of cervical cancer and this should not stop just because a vaccine has been introduced.


"There are lots of different types of HPV which can cause cervical cancer, not just 16 and 18, for which the current vaccine offers protection.


"The vaccine will reduce the incidence of cervical cancer further, but it will not get rid of it."

it also looks like some hpv related cancers are becoming MORE virulent and difficult to treat.

meps' in the uk supporting the use of gardasil

glynis wilmot is the labour mep for the west midlands

Cutting cancer deaths

I reported in the October edition that European Commission had licensed Gardasil, the first vaccine against HPV which can lead to cervical cancer. 

I am pressing the Commission on its plans to ensure that vaccination programmes are introduced in all member states, as well as a comprehensive programme of education to inform parents about the vaccine. Immunising every 12 year old girl could cut deaths from cervical cancer by more than 75%.

Latest information

http://www.gleniswillmott.labour.co.uk/ViewPage.cfm?Page=20338

planned parenthood's statement on gardasil

 Planned Parenthood Applauds FDA Approval of Gardasil
HPV Vaccine Is Crucial Step Forward for Women's Health  

New York, NY — Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) commended today's action by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which approved the first vaccine against two types of human papilloma virus (HPV) that cause about 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. 

"This is a huge step forward for women’s health.  Prevention is the key to good health, and this vaccine will give future generations the promise of health, safety and peace of mind," said PPFA President Cecile Richards.  “Now we must move forward to educate the public about the vaccine and ensure it is available to all Americans, regardless of their income level.” 

Planned Parenthood provides more than 1,000,000 women with cancer screenings each year.  This new vaccine will hopefully save lives. 

"The HPV vaccine is a public health breakthrough," said Richards.  "On behalf of the millions of women, men and teens Planned Parenthood serves every year, I thank the FDA for today's action." 

Worldwide, cervical cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among women.  Each year approximately 10,000 cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed in the United States, and 4,000 American women die from the disease.    

###
http://ww1.ppgi.org/includes/media/prjune_06_c.asp

canada approves gardasil{ but of course merck has subverted the entire world to it's sinister plans}
HPV VACCINE APPROVED

In July 2006, a new vaccine to prevent against four strains of the Human Papilloma Virus was approved for use in Canada by Health Canada. Gardasil will be available by the end of August 2006 through Canadian physicians and pharmacists, and is designed to prevent cervical, vulvar, and vaginal cancer as well as genital warts.

For more information, please visit: http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm.
http://www.optionsforsexualhealth.org/

trials on males yet. A cite is appreciated.

HPV: favorable data for male vaccination; VFC action; CDC shift in research focus

A paper published in the November issue of the journal Pediatrics includes new data from Merck on some of their ongoing trials of Gardasil in different populations. It's a highly technical paper with an equally complex title: "Comparison of the Immunogenicity and Reactogenicity of a Prophylactic Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus (Types 6, 11, 16, and 18) L1 Virus-Like Particle Vaccine in Male and Female Adolescents and Young Adult Women." (free abstract; subscription required for full-text).
To summarize, the paper reports the results of trials examining whether the vaccine's response in 10-15 year olds mirrors what's been shown in older females (16-23 year-olds). The short answer is that it does generate a comparable ('noninferior,' in scientific jargon) immune response in younger populations. Good news. The most interesting finding from the perspective of potential ethical issues is the comparison of data between 10-15 year old boys versus girls. Boys had a nearly identical response to the vaccine as their female counterparts did as well as a virtually identical safety profile between genders. As the paper's authors (all of whom are employees or consultants of Merck, critics might note, despite that being an obvious result of a Merck trial) note:

"Our findings in boys lend support for implementation of gender-neutral immunization using this vaccine for the purpose of preventing the widespread morbidity and mortality from anogenital cancer, as well as dysplastic cervical and external genital lesions, in the general population."
Speaking of Gardasil, news earlier this week that the vaccine has officially been added to the federal government's Vaccines for Children program, ensuring its availability to uninsured children age 18 or under. Here's a brief story from UPI.
One final related item: a story from Wednesday's Washington Post, "CDC Shifts Vaccine-Data Focus," reports on the decision to refocus intensive data-collection activities on immunization in 22 major cities on teenagers rather than young children. The move is a result of multiple new vaccines recommended for adolescents, including vaccines against HPV, meningococcus, and tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis (Tdap).

Labels: CDC, Gardasil, HPV, Pediatrics (journal)

http://www.vaccineethics.org/labels/Gardasil.html

ideological purity above all else, it doesn't make much difference if they believe fornicators deserve death or that anything produced by a drug company is automatically evil - the end result is potentially the same.

I fear for the state of public health in America a generation from now if this paranoia goes unchecked. Once eradicated diseases are making a comeback in America because of it.

Some jesus freaks from Indiana came back from a missionary trip to some hell hole and their un-vaccinated kids came back sick and infected all the other un-vaccinated kids at their school. But hey, atleast the UN doesn't have their kids DNA!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Pisses me off that Governor "goodhair" Perry thinks he knows what's best for us. Another GOP "order" trying to designate what women should do with THEIR bodies.

And they handed that shit out for THIRTY YEARS before they admitted they had a problem. See, it took that long for daughters of the women who took the drug to manifest problems in sufficient numbers so that they started to make the connection.

I don't blame you for not trusting Big Pharma. They're thieves who sell ten varieties of snake oil for every decent drug they develop. And sometimes, like Merck's VIOXX, and your mother's DES, they get it horribly wrong and it kills or maims people.

So ya gotta ask yourself...what's the rush? Well, Governor Goodhair's on his last term, and BushCo is a lame duck...the clock is ticking, and 2008 is just around the corner--that's when they turn into a pumpkin, and they know it.

they put commercials on TV telling people it was fine, to keep taking the drug. Pay no attention to the facts at hand!!! Bastards.

A questioning, cynical approach to those bums is mandated, because they have given us reason to be suspcious.

I am so sorry about your situation.
I went to high school with girls that died horrible painful lingering deaths from a drug their Mom was given in the 50's to prevent their miscarrage. Side effects not in the Mom but passed down to the next generation and on and on. Perry could easily knowingly premeditated by planning to wipe out several generations of new Texans then not have to build new schools, etc.. Thats my tin foil hat. :tinfoilhat:

of us there are here. I wrote some about my medical experiences up above. DES is a classic example of something that was well-intentioned and had tragic results.

I hope Gardasil won't be another case of good intentions leading to tragic results for those who are exposed before they're old enough to give informed consent.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=130276&mesg_id=133579

Check out MzMolly's post follow ups and those posting with her on that long thread. The safety of Gardasil is questionable...and it's worth the read if you have daughters to see the studies on this before making a decision..

:crazy:

I'll take my chances in teaching them about safe sex and using condoms and making good choices. I personally feel the risks of this vaccine is far greater than the threat of HPV leading to cervical cancer.

Something doesnt' feel right about this vaccine...I'm not going to have my daughters be test cases...I'll take my chances...And I would die for my kids...

That might change over time. And if your kids haven't been exposed to all four strains of HPV this vaccine is "supposed to" guard against (three out of four times, they say--a seventy five percent success rate), then they can have it later, IF no adverse reactions with the Texas crowd come to the fore. Of course, odds are good that even if there are no adverse reactions, there will likely be a need to get a booster every four years. They're not touting that aspect though...but hey, a hundred twenty bucks a shot to Merck...ka ching, ka ching, on top of the $360 that they get for the initial series!!!

You're right to be skeptical--there's been no peer reviews, just Merck testing. The universe of testees was in the hundreds, not even thousands. The thing is less than five years old. Way too much Merck money has ended up in GOP coffers, and the lobbyist touting it used to be the Chief of Staff to the Texas governor.

There's a RUSH to get this to market...before the GOP Big Pharma crowd gets thinned out in earnest in 08.

and treatment 15 years ago.

I choose education, regular checkups and Pap tests to this mandatory action to vaccinate all little girls.

DemEx

I agree with all your reasons. I would do the same.

is the vaccine also said to prevent HPV in 75% of vaccinated BOYS???

If so, why is there no push to vaccinate all the little boys?

I've wondered the very same....

Any one know the answer????

They didn't include males in their studies, they didn't even consider it. They wanted to rush this sucker to market, I guess...and doing dual-gender testing might have slowed them up.

Can't have that, can they? This has to be IN PLACE before the 08 elections, when the GOP is beaten like a rented mule, and they won't be able to call in favors from well-placed cronies any more.

"recipient/victim" of the virus (in the form of possible cancer and ofcourse a breakout in genital warts) is the one who is "vaccinated" and not the "donor/giver" of the virus???

I think your explanation makes a lot of sense...on the other hand, I feel as if there is a definite "sexist" element in this whole thing that is plain wrong....

I will absolutely not let my daughters get this vaccine while they are minors. If they choose to do so themselves after age 18, that's their business and right, but I hope to teach them to wait before having sex and when they do, to have safe sex with condoms.

I don't know if they intended it that way, but it smacks of "Jezebel thinking," IMO. You know, those "hussies" are by nature sluts, and of course the poor boys cannot control themselves, so best to vaccinate them because the boys wouldn't get the virus and hand it off to their future wives if it weren't for those slutty girls.

You see the same thinking in the Middle East where they take hijab to the Nth degree. Gotta cover up those women, because they'll have sex at the drop of a hat if you leave them unsupervised (they just can't help it, you see--they're by nature whorish), and of course, if the poor males SEE them, even if they are 80 year old great grandmas, they'll get all horny--it's God's will.

I can't understand why they didn't do concurrent testing and development of a vaccine that was suitable for both genders. It's the first thing, even before I heard about the Merck-lobbyist-TX Governor-GOP cash connections, that made me go "Hmmmmmmmmm......"

the vaccine was developed for females and tested only on females, wouldn't you? It's discriminatory to develop a vaccine for girls when HPV affects both sexes. It's discriminatory to test an HPV vaccine on only female subjects when males also have HPV. "Jezebel thinking" is a great description of what we see here.

Men don't get cervical cancer but they transmit HPV sexually, ergo men have HPV. So it would make the most sense from a public health standpoint to suggest that boys and girls be vaccinated.

Since the vaccine is only 75% effective, vaccinating boys and girls wouldn't eradicate HPV but it would reduce it much more than only vaccinating girls.


What's better for controlling any STD: 75% immunity in one sex or 75% immunity in both sexes? You don't have to be a statistician to figure that out!


Women should file class-action suits against Merck for its discriminatory testing of Gardasil and against all states that want to force girls to be vaccinated without mandating vaccination for boys.

Wonder why Texas doesn't want to protect boys from cancer? Does Governor GoodHair have sons, by any chance?

Good job, MADem. I was going to do a search on HPV in men because I thought if it's a carcinogen in women, why wouldn't it be a carcinogen in men?

I'm going to start another thread with info from your link, giving you full credit.

See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=164655

But I just want to make sure that if you're really concerned with vaccinations and mercury that you haven't gotten your children vaccinated for ANYTHING. Gotta be consistent.

Also, as a scientist, I noticed that none of your links were to peer-review journals and that is probably because most of these "studies" are poorly controlled and, therefore, completely inconclusive. The studies that have been well-controlled regarding this issue haven't found much of a correlation at all.

Be careful when reading scientific reports. It's very easy to make the data fit the story you want to tell. If you want facts, stick to the respected journals. They're there to keep researchers honest. And no, there is no conspiracy to keep the real truth out. If a strong, well-controlled study came out showing a link between vaccinations and autism, the top journals would be FIGHTING to publish it.

Bottom line is that autism is poorly understood, at best. Therefore, the things that cause autism are, at this time, a complete mystery.

This is why we need laws to compel people to protect all of our children from preventable diseases.

Note that this isn't even on the radar screen abroad- only in America, land of the ignorant do things like this crop up.

Unless you're being subtly sarcastic, and I'm missing your irony completely.

You said "...we need laws to compel people to protect all of our children from preventable diseases."

What sort of laws should we have? Gee, STDs are "preventable.." Chastity belts for all until marriage, perhaps? HIV is preventable, as well. We can send them all to a prison island, perhaps, and they won't pass it on...

As said elsewhere, New Hampshire has one of the best vaccination rates in the nation, and their program is ENTIRELY voluntary. They really do "Live Free or Die."

They take seriously the concept of informed concent. What's to fear from INFORMING parents, rather than forcing them?