Dr. Diane Harper, lead researcher in the development of two human papilloma virus vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, said the controversial drugs will do little to reduce cervical cancer rates and, even though they’re being recommended for girls as young as nine, there have been no efficacy trials in children under the age of 15.Please do yourself the justice of reading the entire article here.
Showing posts with label HPV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HPV. Show all posts
10.29.2009
Gardasil makes the news again
The opening lines of an article by Susan Brinkmann for The Bulletin, an locally-owned, independent Philadelphia newspaper, read:
8.19.2009
Vaccines: a product marketed for profit
I came across an article today regarding the HPV vaccine: "New study examines safety of HPV vaccine." One of many, I am sure, because of new information just released from the CDC regarding Gardasil.
I was interested to read the background and findings of this study as I am always in pursuit of new information regarding vaccines, their effectiveness, and their safety. I was shocked to discover that this study was not a careful examination and observation of the cause and effect on a controlled subject but rather a simple review of information reported to VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
Regardless of the side of the controversy on which you stand, most agree that the accuracy of the information reported to the VAERS system is left wanting. In fact, the VAERS brochure as published by the CDC and the FDA, co-sponsors of VAERS reads:
Further, the Minnesota Department of Health, in an attempt to quell fears regarding reports to VAERS on Gardasil wrote in a Special Issue of Got Your Shots? News dated July 9, 2008:
While the author of the article I read, Renee Tessman of KARE, was clearly trying to put a positive spin on the findings, it was also clear that members of the medical community were attempting to downplay the legitimacy of VAERS for fear the report may stir up concern regarding the vaccine. Kris Ehresmann of the Minnesota Department of Health is quoted in the article by Tessman saying: "I do think that the data is very useful but we do sort of have to keep it in context." The article goes on to say:
I won't get derailed on the foolishness of her comments. My question is: How can we, therefore, rely on such dynamic, uncontrolled data as a source for significant information regarding vaccines whether we are looking to the system in favor of vaccines or against them? And therein lies the crux of the issue.
There are two parties at play in this controversy - those that are in favor of vaccines and those that are against them. There is truly little room for a middle ground as I, and others, have discovered through this struggle.
So ask yourself this, what do those that are against vaccines have to gain by releasing information and studies regarding the concern of a vaccine? And what does the government or Merck, in the case of Gardasil, stand to gain when a study is released regarding the safety of a vaccine?
Just like every other product on the market, a company doesn't stay in business if their product doesn't sell. While the CDC, the FDA, and Merck would like to rely on data from VAERS as evidence of the safety, or lack of sufficient evidence regarding concern, of the HPV vaccine they are also quick to shirk off the information as insufficient when numbers and findings start pointing to concerns. But how many deaths is enough? And if the information is unreliable then why isn't the government looking to implement a more effective system? Why? Because when you start asking questions, you start getting answers, and you aren't always going to like what you hear.
I was interested to read the background and findings of this study as I am always in pursuit of new information regarding vaccines, their effectiveness, and their safety. I was shocked to discover that this study was not a careful examination and observation of the cause and effect on a controlled subject but rather a simple review of information reported to VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
Regardless of the side of the controversy on which you stand, most agree that the accuracy of the information reported to the VAERS system is left wanting. In fact, the VAERS brochure as published by the CDC and the FDA, co-sponsors of VAERS reads:
VAERS is unable to determine that a vaccine caused or did not cause an adverse event.
Further, the Minnesota Department of Health, in an attempt to quell fears regarding reports to VAERS on Gardasil wrote in a Special Issue of Got Your Shots? News dated July 9, 2008:
VAERS data are updated continuously and the number of reports and the type of adverse events will vary depending on the date of analysis.
While the author of the article I read, Renee Tessman of KARE, was clearly trying to put a positive spin on the findings, it was also clear that members of the medical community were attempting to downplay the legitimacy of VAERS for fear the report may stir up concern regarding the vaccine. Kris Ehresmann of the Minnesota Department of Health is quoted in the article by Tessman saying: "I do think that the data is very useful but we do sort of have to keep it in context." The article goes on to say:
Ehresmann, who is division director for infectious disease, says that VAERS is set up so that anybody, a parent, a doctor, anyone, can call in to report a problem. Details of those reports are investigated later. So, she says, its possible problems and deaths reported may not always be a direct result of the vaccine. She says, "Is it really because the child was vaccinated or were they hit by a car?
And literally those kinds of things are in that system."
I won't get derailed on the foolishness of her comments. My question is: How can we, therefore, rely on such dynamic, uncontrolled data as a source for significant information regarding vaccines whether we are looking to the system in favor of vaccines or against them? And therein lies the crux of the issue.
There are two parties at play in this controversy - those that are in favor of vaccines and those that are against them. There is truly little room for a middle ground as I, and others, have discovered through this struggle.
So ask yourself this, what do those that are against vaccines have to gain by releasing information and studies regarding the concern of a vaccine? And what does the government or Merck, in the case of Gardasil, stand to gain when a study is released regarding the safety of a vaccine?
Just like every other product on the market, a company doesn't stay in business if their product doesn't sell. While the CDC, the FDA, and Merck would like to rely on data from VAERS as evidence of the safety, or lack of sufficient evidence regarding concern, of the HPV vaccine they are also quick to shirk off the information as insufficient when numbers and findings start pointing to concerns. But how many deaths is enough? And if the information is unreliable then why isn't the government looking to implement a more effective system? Why? Because when you start asking questions, you start getting answers, and you aren't always going to like what you hear.
9.06.2007
New Edition of The Sanctity of Human Blood
Did you know?
* that there are now some 36 vaccines mandated by the time your child is 18 months old? And 68 by age 18?
* that the 2007 Mandated Schedule contains the Rotateq and Human Papilloma Virus vaccines in multiple doses?
* that U.S. children are the most vaccinated group not only in the world, but in all of history?
* that vaccines are not thoroughly tested before they are put on the market?
* that most infectious diseases had already declined 90% by the time vaccines became mandated?
* that only one country in Europe still has mandatory DPT vaccination, whereas the U.S. requires five separate shots?
* that Hepatitis B vaccine was halted in France after 15,000 citizens filed a class action suit against the government?
* that there is a simple exemption form in most states, which when signed by a parent exempts the child for life?
* that all 696,000 Gulf War personnel were inoculated with three completely untested vaccines, resulting in 80,000 of them contracting a permanent disease known as Gulf War Syndrome?
* that many pediatricians will not inoculate their own children?
* that vaccines are a multibillion dollar business in the U.S.?
* that vaccination is not immunization?
* that mercury in vaccines is dozens of times in excess of EPA safety levels?
To learn more about these and other topics related to vaccination, read The Sanctity of Human Blood by Tim O'Shea. To find out more about how to order your copy, send us an email and we'll get you the info.
* that there are now some 36 vaccines mandated by the time your child is 18 months old? And 68 by age 18?
* that the 2007 Mandated Schedule contains the Rotateq and Human Papilloma Virus vaccines in multiple doses?
* that U.S. children are the most vaccinated group not only in the world, but in all of history?
* that vaccines are not thoroughly tested before they are put on the market?
* that most infectious diseases had already declined 90% by the time vaccines became mandated?
* that only one country in Europe still has mandatory DPT vaccination, whereas the U.S. requires five separate shots?
* that Hepatitis B vaccine was halted in France after 15,000 citizens filed a class action suit against the government?
* that there is a simple exemption form in most states, which when signed by a parent exempts the child for life?
* that all 696,000 Gulf War personnel were inoculated with three completely untested vaccines, resulting in 80,000 of them contracting a permanent disease known as Gulf War Syndrome?
* that many pediatricians will not inoculate their own children?
* that vaccines are a multibillion dollar business in the U.S.?
* that vaccination is not immunization?
* that mercury in vaccines is dozens of times in excess of EPA safety levels?
To learn more about these and other topics related to vaccination, read The Sanctity of Human Blood by Tim O'Shea. To find out more about how to order your copy, send us an email and we'll get you the info.
4.22.2007
Why we've declined
My son is 4 months old. At this point in his life he should have received 13 inoculations according to the 2007 immunization schedule released by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). He hasn’t received any, however, because my husband and I have chosen not to have him vaccinated. The short answer as to why we have made this decision is because we believe that the risks of vaccination outweigh the benefits. We continue to research and formulate our opinion on vaccination but thus far continue to find further evidence to support our decision and have not found reason to reverse it. What follows are some of the reasons that we see vaccination as a greater risk than a benefit.
According to the CDC fact sheet on the DTaP vaccine (which children are to receive 4 times before age 18 months), your child has a 1 in 14,000 chance of experiencing seizures caused by fever as a result of receiving that vaccine; and a 1 in 3,000 chance from the MMR vaccine (which a child is to receive twice before age 6)—that means your child is more likely to experience a convulsion from either of these vaccines than that they would die in a motor vehicle accident or by drowning (see childstats.gov). We do everything we can to prevent our child from dying in this manner (wearing seat belts and life preservers, only playing by the water when supervised, etc.) and yet we are willing to risk our children experiencing convulsions, which could potentially lead to life altering illnesses? According to a study on febrile convulsions published on pubmed.gov: “The results of this study indicate that even a single experimental febrile convulsion during infancy can exert a long-lasting, if not permanent, enhancement in seizure susceptibility.” Recurrent, unprovoked seizures are what define epilepsy, a chronic neurological condition that cannot be cured.
Additional potential side effects of the MMR vaccine include (as taken from the CDC Fact Sheet on the vaccine): fever (up to 1 person out of 6); mild rash (about 1 person out of 20); swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck; temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4); temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses); and serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses). The Fact Sheet goes on to say: “Several other severe problems have been known to occur after a child gets MMR vaccine but this happens so rarely, experts cannot be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not. These include: deafness, long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness, and permanent brain damage.” It is important to note here that though the CDC makes the statement that “experts cannot be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not” (referring to the most life-altering side effects listed) there is apparently enough of a correlation that the CDC feels they should include the possibility in the list of side effects. That alone gives me great pause. In addition, many of the mild side effects that occur frequently such as fever or rash, are symptoms that are generally considered cause for visiting a doctor because they indicate illness, not something that should be considered temporarily “normal.” If the body is responding to a vaccination in the same way that it responds to illness, is the presence of the foreign material found in the vaccine really to the body’s benefit?
This question leads me to another primary reason that I question the benefit of vaccination specifically in regards to its role in causing immunity. As Tim O’Shea writes in The Sanctity of Human Blood, “We're programmed to think of immunization and vaccination as synonyms…In actuality, there's a big difference. Immunization means to make someone immune to something. Vaccination, by contrast, just means to inject something into the bloodstream…True natural immunity happens only after one recovers from the disease itself. With the actual disease, the microorganism had to pass through many of the body's natural immune defense systems in the nose, throat, lungs, and digestive tract before it ever gets as far as the bloodstream.” By bypassing the body’s natural immune response we are risking creating strains of disease resistant to the body’s natural defenses and compromising a healthy system with the injection of foreign material including but not limited to: disease strains from animals and other toxins such as formaldehyde, aluminum, and mercury. As Tim O’ Shea goes on to write, “The thinking behind vaccination is that if the person gets a "minor" case of the disease under the "controlled" conditions of vaccination, he will produce his own antibodies to the disease agent, and this will confer immunity, since his immune system will remember what the "bad bug" looks like. The next time the bug shows up, immune defense cells will be ready to kill it. Unfortunately there is no general agreement that this is what vaccination really does.”
I also have concerns to the validity of vaccines serving to protect the population. According to a publication in Pharmaceutical News in May 2005: “The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, estimates there were almost 20,000 pertussis (whooping cough) cases in 2004 - the highest number of reported cases in more than 40 years.” And yet the pertussis vaccine has been around since the mid-1940’s and the DTaP vaccine specifically has been used readily since 1991. Other evidence also comes directly from the CDC in an article related to the mumps outbreak in Iowa in 2006. According to the article, of the individuals whose vaccine records could be assessed, 65% had been fully vaccination against mumps, while only 6% had not been vaccinated at all. How can one claim that vaccines are eliminating these diseases or at minimum, immunizing against them, with statistics like these direct from the primary proponent of vaccination?
Finally, I question whether it is the responsibility of my child to protect the population from diseases that result from lifestyle choices such as Hepatitis B and HPV? According to the CDC fact sheet on the Hep B vaccine, Hepatitis B is spread by “having unprotected sex with an infected person, sharing needles when injecting illegal drugs, being stuck with a used needle on the job, or during birth when the virus passes from an infected mother to her baby” and yet we administer this vaccine to children 3 times before the age of 6 months. I don’t know about you, but my four month old is not having unprotected sex or using illegal drugs. And the newly released HPV vaccine is another example. According to the CDC website: “Abstaining from sexual activity (i.e., refraining from any genital contact with another individual) is the surest way to prevent genital HPV infection. For those who choose to be sexually active, a monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner is the strategy most likely to prevent future genital HPV infections.” Perhaps instead of spending tax money passing laws that require all women to have the HPV vaccine we should spend our money educating people about the risks of risky behavior? We cannot eliminate immoral behavior or the consequences of that behavior by vaccinating an entire population.
As I mentioned earlier, these thoughts are gathered from the research that we have begun in earnest regarding vaccination. We intend to continue seeking information for and against vaccination and will continue to formulate our opinion as we grow more educated.
References:
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2006). MMWR Weekly: Mumps Epidemic --- Iowa, 2006. Retrieved 22 April 2007 from http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5513a3.htm.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Immunization Program (2001). Diphtheria, Tetanus, & Pertussis Vaccines: What You Need To Know [Electronic version]. Retrieved16 February 2007 from http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-dtp.pdf.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Immunization Program (2001). Hepatitis B Vaccine: What You Need To Know [Electronic version]. Retrieved 16 February 2007 from http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-hep-b.pdf.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Immunization Program (2007). Human Papillomavirus [Electronic version]. Retrieved 24 April 2007 from http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/hpv.pdf.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Immunization Program (2003). Measles, Mumps & Rubella Vaccines: What You Need To Know [Electronic version]. Retrieved 22 April 2007 from http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-mmr.pdf.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Immunization Program (2007). Recommended Immunization Schedule for Ages 0-6 Years, United States, 2007 [Electronic version]. Retrieved 22 April 2007 from http://www.cispimmunize.org/IZSchedule_Childhood.pdf.
Forum on Child and Family Statistics (2006). America's Children in Brief: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2006 - Child Mortality. Retrieved 16 February 2007 from http://childstats.gov/americaschildren/hea8.asp.
McCaughran JA Jr, Schechter N. (1982). Experimental febrile convulsions: long-term effects of hyperthermia-induced convulsions in the developing rat. Retireved 16 February 1007 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/
O’Shea, Tim. (2001). The Sanctity of Human Blood excerpted from the third edition of The Sanctity of Human Blood: Vaccination Is Not Immunization by Tim O'Shea. Retrieved 22 April 2007 from http://www.mercola.com/2001/may/30/vaccine_safety.htm
Pharmaceutical News. (2005). Vaccine for whooping cough in teens. Retrieved 16 February 2007 from http://www.news-medical.net/?id=8476.
According to the CDC fact sheet on the DTaP vaccine (which children are to receive 4 times before age 18 months), your child has a 1 in 14,000 chance of experiencing seizures caused by fever as a result of receiving that vaccine; and a 1 in 3,000 chance from the MMR vaccine (which a child is to receive twice before age 6)—that means your child is more likely to experience a convulsion from either of these vaccines than that they would die in a motor vehicle accident or by drowning (see childstats.gov). We do everything we can to prevent our child from dying in this manner (wearing seat belts and life preservers, only playing by the water when supervised, etc.) and yet we are willing to risk our children experiencing convulsions, which could potentially lead to life altering illnesses? According to a study on febrile convulsions published on pubmed.gov: “The results of this study indicate that even a single experimental febrile convulsion during infancy can exert a long-lasting, if not permanent, enhancement in seizure susceptibility.” Recurrent, unprovoked seizures are what define epilepsy, a chronic neurological condition that cannot be cured.
Additional potential side effects of the MMR vaccine include (as taken from the CDC Fact Sheet on the vaccine): fever (up to 1 person out of 6); mild rash (about 1 person out of 20); swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck; temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4); temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses); and serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses). The Fact Sheet goes on to say: “Several other severe problems have been known to occur after a child gets MMR vaccine but this happens so rarely, experts cannot be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not. These include: deafness, long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness, and permanent brain damage.” It is important to note here that though the CDC makes the statement that “experts cannot be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not” (referring to the most life-altering side effects listed) there is apparently enough of a correlation that the CDC feels they should include the possibility in the list of side effects. That alone gives me great pause. In addition, many of the mild side effects that occur frequently such as fever or rash, are symptoms that are generally considered cause for visiting a doctor because they indicate illness, not something that should be considered temporarily “normal.” If the body is responding to a vaccination in the same way that it responds to illness, is the presence of the foreign material found in the vaccine really to the body’s benefit?
This question leads me to another primary reason that I question the benefit of vaccination specifically in regards to its role in causing immunity. As Tim O’Shea writes in The Sanctity of Human Blood, “We're programmed to think of immunization and vaccination as synonyms…In actuality, there's a big difference. Immunization means to make someone immune to something. Vaccination, by contrast, just means to inject something into the bloodstream…True natural immunity happens only after one recovers from the disease itself. With the actual disease, the microorganism had to pass through many of the body's natural immune defense systems in the nose, throat, lungs, and digestive tract before it ever gets as far as the bloodstream.” By bypassing the body’s natural immune response we are risking creating strains of disease resistant to the body’s natural defenses and compromising a healthy system with the injection of foreign material including but not limited to: disease strains from animals and other toxins such as formaldehyde, aluminum, and mercury. As Tim O’ Shea goes on to write, “The thinking behind vaccination is that if the person gets a "minor" case of the disease under the "controlled" conditions of vaccination, he will produce his own antibodies to the disease agent, and this will confer immunity, since his immune system will remember what the "bad bug" looks like. The next time the bug shows up, immune defense cells will be ready to kill it. Unfortunately there is no general agreement that this is what vaccination really does.”
I also have concerns to the validity of vaccines serving to protect the population. According to a publication in Pharmaceutical News in May 2005: “The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, estimates there were almost 20,000 pertussis (whooping cough) cases in 2004 - the highest number of reported cases in more than 40 years.” And yet the pertussis vaccine has been around since the mid-1940’s and the DTaP vaccine specifically has been used readily since 1991. Other evidence also comes directly from the CDC in an article related to the mumps outbreak in Iowa in 2006. According to the article, of the individuals whose vaccine records could be assessed, 65% had been fully vaccination against mumps, while only 6% had not been vaccinated at all. How can one claim that vaccines are eliminating these diseases or at minimum, immunizing against them, with statistics like these direct from the primary proponent of vaccination?
Finally, I question whether it is the responsibility of my child to protect the population from diseases that result from lifestyle choices such as Hepatitis B and HPV? According to the CDC fact sheet on the Hep B vaccine, Hepatitis B is spread by “having unprotected sex with an infected person, sharing needles when injecting illegal drugs, being stuck with a used needle on the job, or during birth when the virus passes from an infected mother to her baby” and yet we administer this vaccine to children 3 times before the age of 6 months. I don’t know about you, but my four month old is not having unprotected sex or using illegal drugs. And the newly released HPV vaccine is another example. According to the CDC website: “Abstaining from sexual activity (i.e., refraining from any genital contact with another individual) is the surest way to prevent genital HPV infection. For those who choose to be sexually active, a monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner is the strategy most likely to prevent future genital HPV infections.” Perhaps instead of spending tax money passing laws that require all women to have the HPV vaccine we should spend our money educating people about the risks of risky behavior? We cannot eliminate immoral behavior or the consequences of that behavior by vaccinating an entire population.
As I mentioned earlier, these thoughts are gathered from the research that we have begun in earnest regarding vaccination. We intend to continue seeking information for and against vaccination and will continue to formulate our opinion as we grow more educated.
References:
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2006). MMWR Weekly: Mumps Epidemic --- Iowa, 2006. Retrieved 22 April 2007 from http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5513a3.htm.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Immunization Program (2001). Diphtheria, Tetanus, & Pertussis Vaccines: What You Need To Know [Electronic version]. Retrieved16 February 2007 from http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-dtp.pdf.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Immunization Program (2001). Hepatitis B Vaccine: What You Need To Know [Electronic version]. Retrieved 16 February 2007 from http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-hep-b.pdf.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Immunization Program (2007). Human Papillomavirus [Electronic version]. Retrieved 24 April 2007 from http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/hpv.pdf.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Immunization Program (2003). Measles, Mumps & Rubella Vaccines: What You Need To Know [Electronic version]. Retrieved 22 April 2007 from http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-mmr.pdf.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Immunization Program (2007). Recommended Immunization Schedule for Ages 0-6 Years, United States, 2007 [Electronic version]. Retrieved 22 April 2007 from http://www.cispimmunize.org/IZSchedule_Childhood.pdf.
Forum on Child and Family Statistics (2006). America's Children in Brief: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2006 - Child Mortality. Retrieved 16 February 2007 from http://childstats.gov/americaschildren/hea8.asp.
McCaughran JA Jr, Schechter N. (1982). Experimental febrile convulsions: long-term effects of hyperthermia-induced convulsions in the developing rat. Retireved 16 February 1007 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/
O’Shea, Tim. (2001). The Sanctity of Human Blood excerpted from the third edition of The Sanctity of Human Blood: Vaccination Is Not Immunization by Tim O'Shea. Retrieved 22 April 2007 from http://www.mercola.com/2001/may/30/vaccine_safety.htm
Pharmaceutical News. (2005). Vaccine for whooping cough in teens. Retrieved 16 February 2007 from http://www.news-medical.net/?id=8476.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)