This Will Be My ONLY Thread Regarding The Gardasil Vaccine

[matcom]

and depending on how crazy this gets I might not even reply.

You sit in a doctor's office whom you have never met before and have him coldly tell you and your wife she has stage 3 cancer and tell me every girl in the world shouldn't be given this vaccine.

You sit in ANOTHER doctor's office whom you have never met before and listen as he tells you that all cancer treatments are experimental and there are no guarantees and tell me every girl in the world shouldn't be given this vaccine.

You watch as your wife is 'tattooed' with markings so the radiation machine knows where to 'zap' her every day for the next 12 weeks and tell me every girl in the world shouldn't be given this vaccine.

You take your wife every day of the week at noon so they can 'radiate her' and tell me every girl in the world shouldn't be given this vaccine.

You spend 8 hours every friday for weeks watching your wife get drugged up so her body MIGHT be more tollerant of the METALS they are pumping into her and tell me every girl in the world shouldn't be given this vaccine.

You spend every Friday night for weeks holding your wife's hair out of the toilet bowl so she doesn't vomit on it and tell me every girl in the world shouldn't be given this vaccine.

You spend every weekend for weeks begging (sometimes fighting) your wife to eat something, anything so she can regain SOME of her strength and tell me every girl in the world shouldn't be given this vaccine.

You wake up every Monday morning, with your wife feeling JUST like she has a bad flu and not REALLY wanting to die anymore, and tell her she has to do it all over again and tell me every girl in the world shouldn't be given this vaccine.

You take her to be admitted for 4 days in a hospital, after all of the above and KNOWING you won't be allowed to visit, so she can have radiation pellets INSERTED into her and tell me every girl in the world shouldn't be given this vaccine.

You pick her up after those 4 days and because she can't stop vomiting, watch as she is told she might not be able to leave the hospital until she can eat solid foods. You look into her eyes and see the PLEADING, TEARFUL look she gives you. You effectively lie to the nurses that she is well enough to go home and CARRY her across the parking lot because she is too weak to stand and tell me every girl in the world shouldn't be given this vaccine.

And before you get all 'parents choice' on me, how many parents DON'T believe in OBGYN's due to some whacked-out moral philosophy OR are simply too lazy.

7 years cancer free.

I'm done.

[xmas74]

1. In about 2 years.

They said the minimum age is 9 for the vaccine. In a bit over two years my baby will be nine. She's getting the vaccine.

My brother's stepdaughter is getting the vaccine. She's ten. He and her mother (who has custody) fully believe that all who can should have this.

And I'm happy to say that my local free clinic is now offering it.

[helderheid]

37. My daughter is 4 - I am so glad she will get this vaccine.

[xmas74]

44. My daughter will get this

and she will be told what it is and what it can prevent. She will also be told how lucky she really is-she'll be in the first generation of woman who hopefully will never have to worry about this.

[central scrutinizer]

147. my daughter has one shot to go

We called the day after FDA approval and got her started as soon as the vaccine was available. First shot last fall, second one about a month ago and the third one around April 1. She is 16 now.

[xmas74]

148. Any side effects?

Just curious.

[central scrutinizer]

155. Her shoulder is a little sore for a day afterwards

but that seems to happen with most vaccinations.

[xmas74]

156. So a bit sore.

She can live w/ that.

[Liberal Veteran]

231. Same thing with my Hep B shot.

No big thing really.

[Midlodemocrat]

2. .

:applause:

And, I'm sorry you guys had to go through that, but I'm glad my BFF is okay. My SIL wasn't as lucky. She died 16 months after giving birth to her only child.

You bet your fucking life my daughters got this vaccine and frankly, I don't care who makes a profit on it if it keeps them from getting cervical cancer.

[matcom]

7. I hope they make a Brazillion $$$ off of this

for once, they will have deserved it

[Midlodemocrat]

11. No kidding. Watching her die was horrific. No one should ever

have to go through that. FFS, her baby was 16 months old!!!! She never got to know her, to be her mom.

So fucking unfair.

[AZBlue]

365. I can't agree more - I don't get the "logic" in leaving your daughters exposed to spite Merck.

eom

[Nikki Stone1]

380. Exactly.

./.

[wryter2000]

3. To the greatest page with you

As soon as I stop crying.

[Hekate]

4. KnR I hear you loud and clear, Matcom

My only qualms are about the corporate-benefitting way in which this story is unfolding. Otherwise it is a godsend.

Grandbaby wiggling on my lap -- gotta go. :-)

Hekate

edited to add: I seem to have dodged the bullet (fingers crossed).

I got the bad news about HPV around 20 years ago, and for a number of years had iffy Pap smears with evidence of inflammation and visits to the gyn every three to four months. Then my Paps became normal -- I still have evidence of the warts exteriorly, which I can't feel but my gyn can see, but my Pap smears are good.

There are different strains of HPV, and I seem to have lucked out (fingers crossed).

My young neice is not so lucky. She had to have a culposcopy with freezing, and there was some talk of having a coning if that didn't help. But okay for now.

[Jackpine Radical]

377. A coning? A Michelle Small Wright MAP coning?

Why not that FIRST?

[Stuckinthebush]

5. Amen, brother

I'm amazed at the anti-science/anti-vaccine/anti-pharm posts on other threads.

My daughters are 5,7, and 9 and they will be receiving this vaccine.

[WilliamPitt]

6. Amen

No one with brain one is going to challenge your experiences or wisdom on this.

I've stayed out of those threads, but will kick yours all day.

The main issue I *did* have with this thing, and I may be wrong on it, has to do with side-effects.

I saw the commercial for this stuff, grabbed my girlfriend, and said "Watch This!" A cure for HPV? Thank freaking God! A good friend of mine, last summer, had to get pre-cancerous cells burned off her cervix because of HPV, and I had to basically carry her home in agony from the doc.

The thing is a no-brainer in theory...but then the commercial got into side-effects.

Now, I always listen for the side-effects when these drug ads come on. This commercial described side-effects that were way beyond any others I'd heard for a publicly-offered drug. I can't remember them specifically, but they were so bad that if "May experience partial or complete spontaneous combustion" was mentioned at the end, it would not have surprised me.

I also know that the FDA, several years ago, dramatically loosened its testing requirements - which was about when all these new drugs came out - and that worries me. I was a paralegal in the Phen-Fen litigation, and handled some 5,000 complaints from women who died, and 10,000 more complaints from women who will be permanently damaged, from taking a drug that was widely available before the true effects were known. I have a sense that there will be more such suits filed by people taking these new drugs, once the true effects become known.

So, my question: is it OK to require children to take a new drug with really severe side-effects, whose long-term effect is still unknown? If they never get HPV but have to endure the collapse of all cardio-pulmonary arteries (which was what Phgen-Fen did), what good is the cure if it kills them with something else?

I've seen this happen. The corporate crap, the nanny-state crap, all that can be left aside. What if the cure is worse than the disease? Even the possibility must be considered.

Yours is maybe the only answer I'd listen to with full attention.

[Midlodemocrat]

9. Well, you might not listen to me, but my brother is having his

daughter vaccinated when she turns 9. Her mother died of cervical cancer sixteen months after she was born.

Side effects aren't even entering into the picture with him. He will do anything to try to prevent his child from going through what his wife did.

[matcom]

14. everything 'WE" have read about this

Tells me the side effects really aren't bad at all in MOST people. a very few % might have minor ones.

That said. The alternative to some side effects can be found in my OP.

[WilliamPitt]

16. Thanks

[redqueen]

27. Yes, exactly... the risks are mostly unknown.

They should inform people that this has not been widely used.

Then again, perhaps we have seen enough of the harmful side effects coming around to bite people in the ass... that people who aren't willing to take that risk will just opt-out.

Everyone makes that risk/reward judgment for themselves.

[sybylla]

100. If you actually read the side effects for other vaccinations

you'd never take them either without knowing that they occur in relatively few people with enough strength to be a problem.

Don't equate side effects with risks - they are not the same.

Before my baby boy could receive his vaccinations in 1986 the clinic made me read a list of side effects for standard vaccines like diptheria, pertussus, tetanus, polio, measles and more - all "required" vaccines if they ever wanted to attend school. One side effect on every one of the vaccines is death. It happens rarely, but some people can have an extreme reaction to a vaccine - even the safest vaccines - and die.

Because a pharma company is required to list side effects in an advertisement, doesn't mean there is a very high risk of experiencing any one of them.

This is where you visit your doctor/your child's doctor and you ask questions.

Be an educated consumer. Sometimes having half the information is more dangerous than the whole.


edited for clarity and to add that we take vaccines not because they are a cure-all but because they give us better odds at a long and happy life than going without. When the chances of dying or suffering severe side effects are placed beside the chance of getting cervical cancer as well as coping with annual pap smears and their shoddy results, the vaccine is going to win out.

[Nikki Stone1]

160. true

..

[Horse with no Name]

171. The caveat with Phen-Fen was (even though you may not be listening)

that is was two different drugs that each of them by themselves was safe.
Each had passed FDA approval and had been on the market without much adieu, but they were never required to be tested together since they had been tested apart and proved safe.
Then...when they combined them...eegads.
They weren't made to be given together. The dead bodies left in the wake of that fiasco are the testament to that.:(
One of them was a friend of mine. She took the deadly combo for less than a month. A few months later she got a cold and then was ultimately diagnosed with Primary Pulmonary Hypertension.
She was one of the ones that received at least a million (not sure how much).
It wasn't lost on her that she wouldn't be the one spending it.
Here is what seems to be a pretty neutral site regarding the stats on what appears to be a safe drug
http://www.womentowomen.com/sexualityandfertility/garda ...
>>>snip
The data submitted to the FDA represented tests conducted on 27,000 girls and women ages 9 through 26 and boys ages 9 through 15. The makers are now lobbying to mandate vaccination for little girls, while the FDA reports that the data are insufficient to support approval for boys and that separate trials for men and boys are currently under way.

Initial reports of the vaccine’s efficacy first came in 2002 when the New England Journal of Medicine described a trial (funded by Merck) in which nearly 1200 young women (ages 16–23) were vaccinated and an equivalent number given placebo injections. After following the subjects for a median of 17 months, the researchers found the vaccine to be 100% effective: none of the vaccinated women developed either infection or precancerous changes, while 41 of the nonvaccinated women did become infected, and nine of the latter developed precancerous cervical growths.

Since then, Merck has tested the vaccine on approximately 25,000 additional males and females in 33 countries, ages 9–26 and declared the drug to be safe and 100% effective. Richard Haupt, executive director of medical affairs with Merck’s Vaccine Division, says the vaccine is most effective when given to girls as young as nine years of age, before they become sexually active. That’s because trial subjects who had already had exposure to the four strains showed higher rates of cervical neoplasia (abnormal cancer cell precursors), raising questions as to whether the vaccine impairs immune response under such circumstances, or whether there were demographic factors at play, or both.
>>>snip Meanwhile, on a global scale, cervical cancer continues to rank as the number-two cancer-related cause of death in women — 80% of all cases occur in developing nations (morbidity is highest in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America). And while most insurance carriers in the US are expected to cover the cost of vaccination in young female subscribers, and Merck plans to provide free vaccines to uninsured adults meeting low-income guidelines, there remain billions of women worldwide for whom access to the vaccine is doubtful.

According to a 2005 article in New Scientist, the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, estimates that by 2050 deaths from cervical cancer could “reach a million a year in poor countries if rates of infection, and of cancer detection and treatment, do not improve.” According to their own press release, Merck is partnering with India’s Council of Medical Research to study Gardasil, and also has plans to collaborate with PATH and the Gates Foundation to facilitate introduction of Gardasil to impoverished nations. Adequate cervical screening programs can control HPV-caused cervical neoplasia, but if vaccines are more cost-effective in preventing cervical cancer than regular gyn exams and routine Pap screening — another healthcare “luxury” few women worldwide have access to — to what lengths are we prepared to go to ensure affordable global distribution of this vaccine?

[mzmolly]

186. The LONG term side effects are unknown at this time and the long term effectiveness is not yet

established. And, given vaccines have a passive "side effect" reporting system "VAERS" which is strictly voluntary, we may not know the full extent of any side effects on this medication for many years, if ever.

Here is some info on short term side effects from drugs.com > http://www.drugs.com/gardasil.html

What are the possible side effects of Gardasil?

Get emergency medical help if you have any of these signs of an allergic reaction: hives; difficulty breathing; swelling of your face, lips, tongue, or throat.

Call your doctor at once if you have any of these serious side effects:

* pelvic pain;
* severe stomach pain; or
* pain, swelling, or stiffness in your joints.

Other less serious side effects are more likely to occur, such as:

* pain, swelling, redness, or itching where the shot was given;
* mild fever;
* nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, upset stomach;
* dizziness;
* runny or stuffy nose, sore throat, cough; or
* muscle pain.

Side effects other than those listed here may also occur. Talk to your doctor about any side effect that seems unusual or that is especially bothersome.

Keep in mind that Merck brought us vioxx, and tell your girlfriend to research the issue and make certain she's comfortable with her choice.

That just my .02

:hi:

[crim son]

320. I agree with you.

I'm not ready to accept the idea that I should by law be compelled to have my daughter vaccinated. If, in two or three years there is clear evidence that any side effects are minimal or non life-threatening, then I will have her vaccinated but not before.

[Robbien]

8. We all have stories about cancer care

I do not believe there is a person alive whose life has not been touched by cancer.

Yes, I've endured cancer deaths of people dear to me.

Because of this, I am strongly not in favor of mandated drugs.

[Katherine Brengle]

10. Thank you.

You didn't have to share this, but I am glad you did. I'm so sorry you and your wife had to go through that.

I'm glad that she made it.

[Sequoia]

12. I'm so sorry Matcom. Here's an email I was sent:

Dear Reader,

Is "travesty" too strong a word? Maybe "sham" would be less dramatic. Or "mockery" might be more accurate.

Let's compromise. Let's say all three words accurately describe the shocking order that Texas Governor Rick Perry issued last week, making his state the first in the union to mandate that all girls entering sixth grade receive a vaccine that protects against certain strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV).

But in addition to travesty, sham, and mockery, let's add the word "generous," because Gov. Perry's order turns out to be a very generous gift to...the people of Texas? No. Not even close. It's a generous gift to Merck, the maker of the vaccine.

--------------------------------------------
Easy to avoid
--------------------------------------------

Gardasil is the name of the vaccine, and it's been shown to be very effective against HPV strains that cause the majority of cervical
cancers.

Seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it? And that's exactly what the TV ads for Gardasil would have you believe. Give a girl the vaccine when she's young and not yet sexually active, and you'll sharply reduce the chances that she'll pick up the sexually transmitted HPV.

But it's one thing for a parent to decide to have their daughter vaccinated, and it's quite another to have that decision MANDATED by the government. And here are three reasons why:

1) When women have annual gynecological exams, HPV is easily detected and treated. So it's not as if every woman is at risk for this cancer - only those who neglect to schedule regular exams.

2) Each vaccine costs $360, which will quickly add up to millions, paid for by insurance companies or by the state of Texas in cases where young girls are not insured.

3) The possible long-term side effects of Gardasil are not yet known.

--------------------------------------------
All tied up
--------------------------------------------

So given the unknown long-term side effects, the exorbitant cost of Gardasil, and the fact that HPV cervical cancer is easily avoided, why would Gov. Perry mandate that every female sixth-grader in Texas receive the vaccine? And why would he do it in such a way that would completely bypass the Texas Legislature (overriding debate and oversight)?

Could the ties that Gov. Perry has with Merck have a little something to do with it?

According to the Associated Press, Merck's political action committee donated $6,000 to Gov. Perry's recent campaign for re-election. But that's just part of the picture. An advocacy group called Women in Government is heading up the effort to persuade state legislatures across the country to make Gardasil vaccinations mandatory, and Merck is funding the Women in Government efforts.

This is where it all gets more than a little sticky for Gov. Perry. The AP reports that his former chief of staff is a Texas lobbyist for Merck, and the mother-in-law of Perry's current chief of staff is a state director for Women in Government.

--------------------------------------------
Texas hotline
--------------------------------------------

I don't know about you, but I find all of this infuriating. It's bad enough that this unnecessary vaccine will be mandatory in Texas. But the fact that Gov. Perry seems to have Merck's best interests in mind - at the expense of his Texas constituents - is intolerable.

According to the AP, the Texas Legislature cannot repeal Gov. Perry's order, so it will be in effect until the governor or his successor changes it. Nevertheless, I've already written an e-mail to the Governor's office (and I hope you will too) at this address: [e-mail]. You can also call the Citizen's Opinion Hotline at 800-252-9600 (for Texas residents), or 512-463-1782 (for out-of-state callers).

But that's just a start.

If you know a parent of a young girl in Texas, I'm sure they've heard all about this controversy. What they may not have heard, however, is that parents in Texas can avoid any mandatory vaccine by asking their doctor how to file an affidavit stating that they object to the vaccine.

And finally, you can contact the legislature in your state to voice your opinion about Merck's efforts to make Gardasil a mandatory vaccine. On the web site for Women in Government (womeningovernment.org) you'll find a U.S. map that details the status of the Merck initiative in your state.

You can read more about the HPV vaccine in Michele Cagan's blog on the HSI web site. You'll find her insightful posting on this topic - titled "Cancer Vaccine Push Gets Merck-y" - at this link: http://hsi.sharpseo.com

*_*_*_*_*

Don't know what to make of it.

[matcom]

I don't care if Perry PERSONALLY makes so much $$ off of this he can BUY Texas

I don't care he is a slime-ball repuke.

I don't care about any of it.

[Robbien]

26. What if there is a great drug out there in the testing phase

which will be 1000 times better than the one pushed by Perry. But now that the Perry drug is the drug which is mandated, the 1000 times better drug sits collecting dust on a shelf. It cannot get noticed because of the Perry drug mandate.

There are many more what ifs.

Having one drug mandated makes the cancer cure field a lot smaller.

[matcom]

28. read my post again and ask me if I care about 'what ifs'

really.

[Bridget Burke]

48. Many have pointed out that pharmaceutical companies are profit driven.....

That's got plenty of bad aspects.

But there is at least one good aspect: If a better drug is made, the manufacturer will by God get it out on the market. Cancer treatment regimens change constantly, as new options appear. But--this drug is not a "cure"--it's prevention. Not for all cases of cervical cancer. But quite possibly for the kind that almost killed Mrs Matcom.

And just because our wretched Governor Perry made the news, you needn't refer to "the Perry drug mandate." Gardasil will be mandated in more states than Texas. And parents can always opt out.

[Robbien]

64. Such scary words

Gardasil will be mandated in more states than Texas.

Even scarier, people thinking this is a good thing. And there is that "opt out" again, like that is the silver lining on the golden madate.

I truly hope this drug doesn't do too much damage to the American population.

[gulfcoastliberal]

69. Practically all of big pharma's "research" comes from the NIH

Which is funded by you and me.

[Bridget Burke]

81. Well, do you think the NIH will "sit on" promising new vaccines?

And the pharmaceutical companies do pay for some of their research. Of course, they pay far more for promotion--& make obscene profits.

I'd love more of my tax dollar going directly to medical & scientific research. Too bad that Bush keeps cutting the funding.

[seemunkee]

140. NCI is looking at significant cuts this year

My wife works on contract with them opening and monitoring clinical trials. They have had to scale down the number of trials that they will open this year and limit enrollment to already open trials.

[Nikki Stone1]

321. Taxpayer supported research is welfare for private R&D departments

:kick:

[seemunkee]

49. This isn't a cure, this is prevention.

Matcoms wife was cured, this will prevent woman from having to endure a cure.

[mainer]

57. I don't even think he owns that much Merck anyway

Heck, anyone who has a stock portfolio is bound to own pharmaceutical shares. I own stock in about three different drug companies. It's just normal investor strategy. To claim that Perry's doing this just to make money is stupid.

And by the way, vaccines aren't big money makers for companies. In fact, many of them have given up making them because the profit margins aren't as great as with a drug that consumers must take for a lifetime.

[antigop]

313. I DO care what his next executive order will be

and the precedent that it sets.

And if we don't question it now, we may very well regret those next executive orders.

<edit to add> and there may not be an "opt out" for the next executive order.

[Mandate My Ass]

21. did you even read the OP?

:eyes:

[Nikki Stone1]

382. prolly not

...

[hedgehog]

24. As far as I know, there is no treatment for HPV, only for cancer.

Matcom has doneus all a service in reminding us what women are going throughto bring the mortality rate down once the cancer is found.

[Recursion]

32. Most sexually active Americans have HPV of some form

Even among those who have the dangerous strains the lifetime risk of cervical or penile cancer is something like 2.5% vs a 1% risk without the virus. I take a lot of hate and flames on this because people think I don't care about people like the OP; instead I just am not convinced that removing the HPV virus is going to lessen that 2.5%. This isn't like cholera where you get an infection and then immediately get a disease; this is a virus that is one factor among many in the onset of a cancer, decades after the contraction of the virus. And people who question whether or not a vaccination against one of those factors will actually lessen the overall risk of cancer don't deserve being tarred as luddites or misogynists.

[Katherine Brengle]

43. Not flaming, but 70% of cervical cancer is caused by HPV.

That's not something to sneeze at.

[Recursion]

50. 70% of cervical tumors have HPV DNA in them

They also have DNA from other viruses, too. HPV just seems the strongest link.

Without a model of carcinogenesis none of us can say whether or not it "causes" it. One could also say 60% of persons with cervical cancer carry the two relevant HPV strains (16 and 18, I believe) vs. about 50% in the broader population. Clearly, that's a link. Is it causal? That's still a topic of research -- the fact that DNA is in the tumor is hardly dispositive; other viruses' DNA is in the tumor too. We can't rule out that the strains of HPV and cervical cancer simply have common risk factors.

In fact, we know one such common risk factor: early sexual activity resulting in cervical trauma. This is a risk factor in both HPV acquisition and cervical cancer. I don't have numbers at hand but I remember that factor is not enough to account for the increased risk associated with carrying HPV, but it's an example.

[hedgehog]

112. Are you sure that you're not thinking of the fact that the vaccine

protects against the four viruses that cause 70% of the cases?

[hedgehog]

111. Take another look at your numbers:

Most people have the virus; at least 51% of 300,000,000?

Call that 150,000,000

Say half of them are women,

75,000,000

The virus is responsible for 1.5% of them getting cervical cancer; call that 1,125,000 lifetime cases of cervical cancer from the virus.

The vaccine should prevent 70% of those cases, so that's 787,500 women who will not have to deal with cervical cancer.

Not bad, I'd say.

[Recursion]

129. You're missing the if

That's only true if that virus is the sole cause for the 1.5% increase, which I'm not convinced it is (nor am I remotely alone in that, even in a biomed lab). Some portion of that 1.5% is a marker for common causality.

As an example I have used already, early sexual activity that is traumatic to the cervix (and most early sexual activity is) is a risk factor for both HPV and cervical cancer. That means at least some of that 1.5% is not from the HPV, because we know in that case it's common causality (again, like yellow fingernails and emphysema). If the cancer's cause is primarily environmental (and we think that about many other cancers), it could well be the entire 1.5% increase represents a marker for a common environmental cause.

I'm not one of those mercury/aluminum/whatever people who is against vaccinations. I'm disturbed somewhat at how few safety studies have been done on this, especially given the age of girls it's indicated for, but I'm not terribly worried about that either. My biggest concern is how much money is being spent on a proposed mandated treatment when we haven't even established that the virus it's preventing is anything more than a marker for another environmental (or toxic, or behavioral, or...) pathogen rather than the cause itself.

[PetraPooh]

144. I agree with your perspective here. No one will really know

till years from now whether it really helps cut cancer rates; or if some other latent side effect may show its ugly head. Or as with hormone therapy they find it actually increases problems associated with cervical cancer even though the concept of it reducing problems seems well grounded intellectually. I think it should stay by choice of the family and the girls involved, not mandatory, till more evidence is in.
I for one am very glad that I put gaining weight, depression, and acne side effects from hormones above the doctor's instructions and only took hormones for two weeks after my hysterectomy. Otherwise I would be pretty torqued now if he had managed to force hormones on me for the sole positive reason of reduced cancer rates. When I chose against his "demands" (yes, he pretty much demanded that I take the hormones or he wouldn't be my doctor anymore; I haven't had a any doctor since, that was 1991); I did so accepting the concept that it might mean an increase in cancer possibility; but turns out to have been just the opposite.
And I was/am an adult with the right to choose. This idea that a NEW concept and a NEW drug to support that concept should be mandatory before we have hard facts?!?!? . . . just plain stupid. My kids are too old to be affected by these types of rulings; but were they involved I would fight hard to refuse the vaccine for my children even if I knew for a fact they were intending on promiscuous teen years.

The other thing that bothers me is . . .since it is an STD; why are only women/girls to get this vaccine. It would seem that clearing it from all individuals would be the wisest even if only girls can get cervical cancer.

[Katherine Brengle]

29. THERE IS NO TREATMENT FOR HPV. NONE. NADA. IT DOES NOT EXIST.

"1) When women have annual gynecological exams, HPV is easily detected and treated. So it's not as if every woman is at risk for this cancer - only those who neglect to schedule regular exams."

This is a FLAT OUT LIE.

There is NO treatment in existence for ANY STRAIN of HPV.

NO TREATMENT.

HPV either resolves itself within a few years, or it doesn't. It cannot be "treated." It cannot be cured. There is no medicine in the world that does this.

HPV "symptoms" such as genital warts can be treated. The HPV does NOT go away with the warts.

The vaccine, on the other hand, can prevent a person from getting HPV in the first place. It is the closest thing we have, as of now, to a treatment for HPV.

I repeat, THERE IS NO TREATMENT FOR HPV.

HVP can be diagnosed after a Pap smear comes back abnormal and more testing is done. It cannot, cannot, cannot, cannot be cured.

Don't post things you don't know to be true.

[Recursion]

42. Wish I could rec a single post

HPV is something you carry your whole life; in fact most of us do carry one strain or another (if you have ever had a wart, you probably carry a strain of HPV). Two strains of HPV are associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer (something like 2.5% in those who carry the strains vs. 1% in those who don't); the hypothesis is that vaccination against HPV will remove that increased risk.

I'm worried about calling this a "cancer vaccine". It does not prevent cervical cancer. If it works completely as advertised it will lower the lifetime chances of cervical cancer in the target population from 2.5% to 1% -- saving tens of thousands of lives. But it remains unknown why most women who carry the two dangerous strains never develop cervical cancer, nor why many women who do not carry the strains do develop cervical cancer. It is unknown if the increase of 1.5% is actually because of the virus or whether the virus and the cancer simply share common risk factors -- if they do, vaccinating against the virus wouldn't lower that 2.5% risk to 1%. Without an actual model of carcinogenesis from HPV, it's all kind of speculation and we're using the population as guinea pigs to see.

[Katherine Brengle]

46. One tiny correction --

not everyone carries HPV for life. Most cases resolve themselves within 3 years or so. So to say, "Why don't all women who carry the cancer causing strains get cancer?" is slightly disingenuous. Most women who carry the cancer causing strains will fight it off at some point and no longer carry HPV.

Those whose bodies do not resolve the virus are the ones at risk.

[Recursion]

52. My understanding is they still carry the virus in mucusoid tissue, just not in fluids

But I'll need to check on that... off to pubmed....

[sybylla]

105. Thank you!

I can't believe how much disinformation is out there on this.

[iverglas]

318. Where do they get this bullshit ... and how can they keep spreading it?

And how big a manure spreader does the anti-vaccine lobby have ... and how much are *they* spending to keep it operating?

"When women have annual gynecological exams, HPV is easily detected and treated."

Lordy jayzus. My dysplasia was easily treated -- by excising the inner portion of my cervix, which in my case required general anaesthesia, much loss of blood, and 3 days in hosp. And may have made me unable to carry a pregnancy to term. And left me worried about recurrences for life.

Thanks to matcom for the thread, of course.

And a big fuck you to everybody who keeps yammering about how the death rate from cervical cancer - in the developed world - is falling / negligible, and all we need to do is keep having our Pap smears done ...

[Nikki Stone1]

381. Thanks! Great catch!

:kick:

[Bridget Burke]

36. Matcom told us a true story from his life (& his wife's)

But you respond with anonymous Internet spam. The link at the end of the message takes us to a blogger at the The Health Sciences Institute. Where they sell herbal remedies, which they want people to use instead of seeking medical help. (Herbal medicine does have its place.) And cancer is one of the diseases they claim to cure.

Gosh--this is the second time you've posted this, too!

I especially enjoyed: When women have annual gynecological exams, HPV is easily detected and treated. So it's not as if every woman is at risk for this cancer - only those who neglect to schedule regular exams.

So--anyone who gets cervical cancer deserves it, since she was neglectful.

By the way: Any parent in any state that mandates Gardasil can request their daughters opt out.

[xchrom]

58. you are passing misinformation -- deadly at that --

there is a provision in the texas mandate that allows parents to opt out.

i assume that because you're so quick to pass out this BAD information -- you know that.

Texas HPV vaccine mandate in the news

There has been a great deal in the news this week about Gardasil (and a corresponding spike in our traffic), much of which has been triggered by Texas Gov. Rick Perry's executive order on Friday requiring sixth-grade girls to be vaccinated against HPV. Here's the text of the executive order and an accompanying press release from the governor's office. Quoting Perry, "Requiring young girls to get vaccinated before they come into contact with HPV is responsible health and fiscal policy that has the potential to significantly reduce cases of cervical cancer and mitigate future medical costs."
Perry, a Republican, has received criticism for this decision from members of his own political party and conservative organizations, as this AP story and this Houston Chronicle story explain. Perry released a second statement over the weekend, saying, in part,



"Providing the HPV vaccine doesn’t promote sexual promiscuity anymore than providing the Hepatitis B vaccine promotes drug use. If the medical community developed a vaccine for lung cancer, would the same critics oppose it claiming it would encourage smoking?

"Finally, parents need to know that they have the final decision about whether or not their daughter is vaccinated. I am a strong believer in protecting parental rights, which is why this executive order allows them to opt out."


Indeed, likely lost in the headlines pointing to a "mandate" is the important point that the exemption policies already in place in Texas will apply to HPV vaccination in the same way, including parents having the ability to decline vaccination for 'philosophical reasons'. In fact, proponents of vaccine mandates will likely be disappointed to learn that the executive order also instructs state officials to make the exemption process easier by creating a system in which parents can decline vaccination online.
Today's New York Times includes an editorial praising Perry for the decision. In fairness, it argues far more convincingly for HPV vaccination generally than it does for a state mandate (though strong arguments can certainly be made for it.)
Independent of discussions about the appropriateness of philosophical exemptions from vaccination (such as Paul Offit's op-ed we noted here), the current state mandate system means that no parents will be forced to vaccinate their children against their will. However, years of experience have shown that state mandates provide the structures and encouragement necessary to maximize a vaccine's benefit across communities, particularly reaching those without regular access to medical care whom cervical cancer targets disproportionately.
When considering vaccine mandates, we should not focus our attention on those with strong beliefs opposing vaccination, as the exemption procedures provide, for better or worse, a relatively simple remedy. Instead, we must consider those silent in these debates, those not receiving even basic medical care, much less tracking the minute-by-minute developments regarding Gardasil. For them, state mandates have been shown repeatedly to provide the awareness and stimulus needed for the vaccine to reach all who could benefit from it.

Labels: Gardasil, HPV, Mandates, Merck, Policy

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

[Horse with no Name]

173. That was discussed in this thread

That particular website they link to recommends that women don't do self-breast exams or mammograms.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3101597&mesg_id=3101597

[mzmolly]

185. 4) It us unknown how long any protection will last or if a booster will be needed.

5) The vaccine may give a false sense of security, given #4 and women may avoid current preventive measures PROVEN to save lifes.

Thanks for the post.

[Liberal Veteran]

347. And it might also encourage them to engage in premarital sex?

The argument that it may give a "false sense of security" is EXACTLY the same mindset that says giving women the vaccine will encourage women to engage in premarital sex.

[ninkasi]

13. I'm sitting here crying

I can't add much except to say that you are right. My grown daughter has HPV, but hasn't gotten cancer. Ask me, as a mother, if I would have had her vaccinated against this when she was yong, and my answer would be, "Damn right I am." I'm sick to death of the morality monitors dictating matters of life and death. I hope your wife lives a long, happy life, entirely cancer free. I'm still crying, Matcom. Peace to you and your wife.

[northzax]

18. yes, statistically

3 out of 4 people over the age of 25 who have ever had sex have HPV.

[northzax]

15. in fact, I would agree

with the idea that girls can protect themselves from HPV, except for one little thing. You can't. there is no realistic test for men, and frankly, why should the health of women ever be dependant on believing another person? even if you only have sex with one person, and they only had sex with one other person, and used Condoms, you can STILL get it.

the only otherwise healthy people in the world who shouldn't get it are nuns. or, I suppose most lesbians, since it's pretty hard to pass on HPV without penetration, you simply have to be unlucky.

So all the parents who refuse it are saying their daughters will die virgins or become lesbians without ever having sex with a man. Good times (of course it is, but then I don't think this is the actual impression they intend to give)

yes, it's a sensitive subject for me (I am male) since I am a carrier, apparently, of several strands of HPV, including one that would be protected by this vaccine. I apparently picked them up in college from a girlfriend who was assaulted (we used protection still, and she was tested for the big STDs) I only know this because the second person I had sex with, who was a virgin then, later tested positive for the strains. I did nothing wrong, and surely SHE did nothing wrong, before we had sex I was tested for the big ones (HIV, etc) and came back negative. we still used condoms. simple bad luck, doesn't mean she is a bad person, right? and having that vaccine would have greatly reduced her fears. it sucks.

[Midlodemocrat]

19. So many men carry HPV with no idea that they do,

and no idea where they got it when they find out.

You're a good guy for being so concerned about your ex.

[matcom]

20. from what I have read, they want to vaccinate boys too

i think starting in 2 or 3 years

[sandnsea]

47. Do in Europe and Australia, can do it here

"HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States, with 6.2 million people infected each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, though many people clear the virus without having symptoms or knowing that they were infected...

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...

"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 STD prevention at the San Francisco Department of Public Health..."



http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/31/healthscience/sncancer.php

[Recursion]

56. Unfortunately they separated the trials

Frankly because they wanted multiple patents on the treatment. It probably would have been better for everybody if they had run a single trial and submitted it simply for HPV prevention -- that would have removed the whole gender issue from the discussion (and, after all, it's linked to penile and prostate cancer as well as to cervical cancer).

As in most STDs, the real vector of concern here is men; the virus won't stop spreading until male behavior changes.

[sandnsea]

142. I don't think they could

It wouldn't make sense to do cervical cancer testing on men. My guess would be that they did women first because society would be sympathetic to cervical cancer. If it had come through as an HPV vaccine that prevents cancer in gay men, the wing nuts would fight it for 20 years, HPV would be a 'gay' disease, and women would continue dying from cervical cancer. Considering our nutty society, I think it's good they rolled it out like they did. Interestingly, males in other countries are already being protected.

[Katherine Brengle]

31. It is actually incredibly easy to transmit HPV without "penetration" --

it is very easily transmitted. That is why condoms provide little protection against it.

It is the only STD I am aware of that can actually be "caught" without even engaging in sexual activity - it can live for quite some time away from the body.

[northzax]

45. not according to the CDC

which says that genital contact is the primary vector. and NIH says it requires skin to skin contact.

[mzmolly]

188. You're correct. Lots of myths circulating about HPV all of a sudden.

:hi:

[Richard Steele]

17. Thanks for the SANITY, Matcom. I needed some. recommended.

[Solly Mack]

22. Thank you from the both us

[immoderate]

23. K&R, matcom

--IMM

[emcguffie]

25. You live with a chronic disease for 20 years.

Do you know anything about gulf war syndrome? Those vets, many of whom died, were made sick with a genetically modified mycoplasma. Where did it come from?

As far as I know, there are two possibilities: Either it was created as a biological weapon by a private company associated with MD Anderson Medical Center, and sold to Saddam, or it somehow got in the vaccine the vets were given.

The company that did the creating and testing just happens to be affiliated with guess what family?

A very respectable scientist and his wife were both made violently ill because she did not want to do research for biological weapons, and he has been forced to move his lab at least two times. Why? Because he found this mycoplasma in the sick vets and told them what to do to get better.

For years, the US Government would cut off a vet's benefits if he so much as tried to get a prescription filled for an antibiotic to stop the infection. I don't know how many years of advocacy it took to change this situation, but a lot of vets died during that time.

This isn't well know, no. Gee, I wonder why?

I know I've been pretty darn sick for a long time. My life has been pretty well wrecked. I don't know what I have or where I got it, not really. And the US Gov't has been most uncooperative regarding all research around the disease that I have. What disease? Well, the CDC or the NIH, I forget which, got a panel of docs together to name this disease, but not one of them had ever treated anyone with this disease. And they named it chronic fatigue syndrome. It is a terrible disease, screws up your immune system, makes you sick as hell. It isn't fatigue.

So I do not trust this gov't to give me or my daughter any vaccines. And I think people should be very suspicious. Mycoplasmas get into vaccines accidently pretty commonly, I think. I won't even go near the other possibility.

edited to correct typo.

Tin hat for me? Be me, be sick for this long, and see how the gov't treats you, you'd get pretty suspicious too.

[AX10]

133. kick

A good read.

[file83]

194. kick

:kick:

Voice of reason! All this mentality around here from people who are usually "pro choice" and suddenly want NO CHOICE in the matter of trusting the unproven vaccines of Big Pharma and the U.S. government...wtf?

Good post :thumbsup:

[Giant Robot]

30. I want to yell at you for making me cry like this

But I certainly would be a true cad if I did. When my girl is old enough she will be vaccinated, no questions, and with all our money problems, I will just not eat or beg for food so that we can afford it. I don't care who made or their reasons for pushing it either. The reality is that ANY medication, vaccine, hell anything you put in your body is a RISK. ANYTHING. At some point some percentage of the population will have a reaction to the vaccine. Some will be horrible. From what I have read, it is statistically very small, and I am ok with that risk if it prevents a lifetime of hell for my baby. Just make it not ever be.

[PLF]

33. Hence mandatory injections?

You are presenting a false choice here. Nobody is saying you shouldn't have access to it if you want.

[Bridget Burke]

38. Nothing is mandatory.

Parents can opt out of the program.

[PLF]

53. only after they have entered your name in a database

[Bridget Burke]

91. Gosh, a "database"!

I'm terrified.

[PLF]

99. hence your lack of any real understanding of what this is all about

[hedgehog]

114. Data base? We should be so lucky.

Try talking to any school nurse about trying to maintain a data base of required immunizations!

[bpeale]

256. you should be terrified

what will they do with this info. if healthcare is not revamped, will they then use this info to deny people healthcare coverage? the database stuff scares me shitless. and you should be too. they can "recommend" girls get vaccinated but no one should be mandating vaccinations. no one. or keeping track of those who elect not to for whatever reason.

[donco6]

118. Uh, hate to tell you, but you're already in the database.

I mean, if you have kids. They're in there. You're in there.

[file83]

195. Why not make parents "Opt in"?

That is, if it is as you say, not mandatory?

[ContraBass Black]

297. Because then, insurance won't have to cover it.

[bmbmd]

34. You forgot to mention

radiation colitis, vaginal atrophy, pelvic adhesions, interstitial cystitis, lichen sclerosis, and all of the other permanent souvenirs or pelvic radiation. The cancer is gone in many women, but the radiation is the gift that just keeps on giving.

[Horse with no Name]

176. I was hoping to see you in this debate

:hi:
It's nice to see a doctor in here.

[rhino47]

35. Thanks for posting this.My girl`s doc refused to give it to her.

A fundie asshole that implied I am raising "sluts"(ages 9 and 14).My daughter wants to get the vaccine.I am arranging it with a different doctor.

[helderheid]

39. Thrilled to hear you're getting a different doctor.

[xmas74]

55. Call your local health department.

I live in a "fundified" state (Missouri) and my local dept/clinic is offering it on a sliding scale fee for any family wanting their daughters vaccinated.

That might be an easy way to get access to the vaccination.

[Justitia]

65. Man, that is really disturbing. Glad to hear you found another doc. -eom

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

183. I would not continue to see that doctor. Why would you?

[Warren Stupidity]

40. Thank you.

[sandnsea]

41. Thank you so so so much

My sister is two years cancer free. I cannot believe some of these threads. Anyway, :hug: to you and your wife.

[Gelliebeans]

51. I am sorry your wife had to go through this

I feel the same way you do. I have been shocked at the different types of resistance to the vaccine. If I had a girl I would want her to get it, hell, if this vaccine was around 20 years ago I would of wanted to take it myself.

I have had many false positives over the years which is probably due to the auto-immune disease that I have. I have had to go for further testing including a colposcopy on more than one occasion. http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/cevicalconditions/a/colposcopy.htm

The time and anxiety can't be measured with money. If there is a way to significantly reduce the next generation of women from being subjected to cervical cancer then it would be well worth it.

[underpants]

54. I was wondering where this thread was

Here is a post I had on another thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=165981&mesg_id=166157

I simply don't understand people on BOTH SIDES who can't see that this ENDS CANCER!

We have the available affordable readily available means to end a CANCER what could possibly be wrong with that?

"Girls" get Hep3 shots too don't they? How is Hep3 spread? Anyone?

Companies that are in the business of making mony BY making such drugs makes some money and the fact that they have the ability to END A CANCER only means they get to make some more of that money. What is wrong with that?

[matcom]

59. well, TECHNICALLY it isn't 'Ending Cancer', rather it is PREVENTION

this will PREVENT the development of most HPV

but you're right. i can't understand it either.

[underpants]

62. Seatbelts and crying Indians

Same thing. Prevention and gee guess what...it worked!!

Auto deaths are WAY down and litter doesn't exist...well I didn't think litter existed much until I moved out to the 'burbs.

Amazing how a little progressive thinking helps.

[underpants]

66. Oh and lets not forget this element

:wow::eyes:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=164655&mesg_id=164655

[matcom]

67. THAT tripe is what prompted this thread

:eyes:

[Horse with no Name]

178. ......

:spank:

[PetraPooh]

149. "this ENDS CANCER" ????....... Prove it! It is a HOPE to end ...

a few types of cancer. Nothing more, yet.

[xchrom]

60. ...

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[Morgana LaFey]

61. I'll tell you that no little girl should get it

before it's better tested unless her parents affirmatively CHOOSE to get it for her. Yes, I most certainly will.

Why? Because of things like:

* Thalidimide
* DES

and many others not specific to women (does Vioxx ring a bell?). I do not trust the FDA any more -- at all. And I do not trust Rick Perry. And I do not trust the drug companies -- esp. since there's a competitor drug almost ready for market and Merck appears to be hellbent on positioning itself very prominently BEFORE the competitor drug is out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x165981

Nope. These are -- or should be -- public health policy decisions, not decisions imposed by a corporatist governor to help his corporate friends.

Sorry you went thru all that, but if I had a daughter (or granddaughter) -- no f'ing way I'd LET her get such a vaccine right now. No way.

[sinkingfeeling]

93. So I take it your children and grandchildren are not vaccinated for the following either?

Measles
Mumps
Rubella
Diphtheria
Tetanus
Polio
Hepatitis

All of these vaccines are produced by pharmaceutical companies and approved by the FDA.

[VelmaD]

63. Would you personally be willing...

to get a vaccine that had not been thoroughly tested on people like you? Even if the government and big pharma told you it was "good" for you? What if the company whose vaccine was being pimped just happened to be in the middle of massively expensive litigation over fudging testing and side effect data from one of it's other prodects? Would that impact your thinking?

The effects of this drug have not been adequately tested on young girls. They don't even know if it will confer immunity long enough to get a 10 year old to the age when she's likely to become sexually active. And Merck doesn't exactly have the best track record when it comes to safety trials right now. I object to the schoolgirls of Texas being used as unwitting human test subjects.

[foo_bar]

84. how many 10-18 year olds become "sexually active" against their will?

This (unconsciously) misogynist phraseology implies girls have a choice half the time about being exposed to HPV before they choose to become hussies with "many, many partners". If you know something about the clinical trials we don't, share it. If your source is WorldNet and Moonies (birth of the "Perry mandate" meme) pushing an amateur website as though the acronym implied a scientific organization, don't bother.

I object to turning little girls in Texas into human guinea pigs for purely feminist reasons.

Okay, that doesn't sound like something Limbaugh would say.

[VelmaD]

89. I know first-hand...

how often little girls are forced to become sexually active against their will. And the scary part is vaccinating at 10 or 11 would still be too late for some. Which is a sad and scary thought.

What I was referring to is the more normal experience. Let's use most of my friends growing up as an example...if we had been vaccinated at 10 or 11 and didn't start having sex til 15 or 16...would we still be protected by this vaccine? No one knows. And what about later down the line. Would I have still been protected in college in my 20s? Today when I'm 36? Again no one knows.

[foo_bar]

104. so the problem is booster shots?

Tetanus shots don't last 10 years, should we let people die until there's something perfect? It's their fault for stepping on rusty nails? I really can't fathom the objection to saving thousands, potentially millions of lives, from one of the most horrible deaths possible, unless you have some pretty solid documentation of the clinical trials being a sham, and the vaccine harming the public compared to a control group (or more to the point, doing more harm than the good in saving lives down the line, which is a risk inherent to all medicine). So far we have "eat" it, and an analysis in name only (i.e., without citations or supporting statistics except "If anyone wants the references, I can provide them"); is there something reasonable to read on the subject, or does the entire debate consist of knee jerk reactions like "guinea pigs for purely feminist reasons" and the right wing manipulation on which it's based?

[sybylla]

108. Yep, and no one knew when my 18 month toddler got the MMR vaccine

that it wouldn't be good for his entire childhood. Back then the MMR vaccine had only just become available. Turns out it wasn't good for "life" but lapsed in about 10 years. Both my sons got revaccinated because kids who'd had it at 18 months were starting to come down with measles and mumps at the age of 14 and beyond. So at the age of 12 my kids had to have a booster shot. Big deal. And the pharma companies adjusted the vaccine dosages and the ages they should be given at for younger children. Heck, way back when I was a kid they even used to give a vaccine of a live polio virus but they realized that in a small percentage of cases they were actually giving kids polio.

No vaccine is perfect. And, yes, we get to be guinea pigs when it comes to determining exactly how long it will last and how well it works. There's only so much that can be done in a lab. Regardless, it didn't prevent my parents from giving me vaccines. It didn't prevent me from giving my kids vaccines. It won't prevent my kids from giving their children vaccines.

It's called gambling. You pays your money and you takes your chances. Either you like the chances or you don't. If I had a daughter, I'd take my chances.



on edit: spelling

[mhatrw]

68. It's not about saving lives, it's about saving money on HPV screening tests.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x164655

[Hekate]

109. As tehre are several strains of the virus, screening will still be needed

Absolutely needed. Not to mention the vast numbers of women and girls who will remain unvaccinated for years to come. This epidemic is something that will take at least a generation to rein in.

The screenings themselves are problematic. Many women don't get regular Pap smears, and certainly girls even less so. It involves a doctor's visit and lab work, the costs you referred to, and which many women choose to forego.

In addition, I hope you have realized by now that screening cannot prevent HPV infection -- it can only catch an already existing infection.

HPV is EASY to get. Most men show no symptoms whatsoever, and they are the vectors. Condoms help, but the virus can be present in surrounding skin as well.

I rejoice that this vaccine is available now.

Hekate

[snappyturtle]

70. I hear you however,

just yesterday I read the following article. It makes me really "think" about all the vaccines we put into our bodies. Believe me I understand what cancer does....seen it, been there. It is horrible. If there were a vaccine I could take to prevent breast cancer (my mother had it) I would consider taking it but PLEASE read the following article:

http://worldvisionportal.org/wvpforum/viewtopic.php?t=621 Why You Should Avoid Taking Vaccines

[Bridget Burke]

73. Most us have read anti-vaccination crap before.

I did, in fact, skim through your link.

Nope, nothing new.

[Justitia]

74. DU is turning into Crazytown, USA. -eom

[matcom]

115. WHY? Just because Frosted Mini Wheats are homophobic?

:D

[Justitia]

126. Damn, are you, or have you ever been, a member of the cereal lobby, sir?

Have you no shame?:P

[snappyturtle]

145. "skim" ? Maybe you should READ it. eom

[matcom]

76. Welcome to the WVP Forum!

Welcome to the WVP Forum!
This is the place for those who want to enter into the Living Light and know the LifeCross. Join with us as we share our life experiences with one another. This is also where the Crux Visions and the Rising of the Southern Cross are now exclusively posted.

no thanks

[snappyturtle]

87. Vicious replies do not advance your cause.

Please give me your explanation to the huge increase in autism? cancer? I'm almost sixty and in my life-time I have never been as aware as I am now of the increases. Never have I known so many with cancer, austism, asthma etc. I also have two children who had severe reactions to DPT vaccines (one a code blue!) so I think it is prudent to think about what we are putting into our bodies. If you had totally read the article you would have been made aware of the additives to these vaccines:mercury,formaldehyde,and aluminum.....not one of which isn't toxic to human. It's obvious that we're doing something wrong. Prudent checkups will catch cervical cancer another alternative to vaccine protection.imho

I thought DU was an open forum for ideas. I thought wrong.

[matcom]

88. nothing viscious in my answer

i simply don't subscribe to that stuff

[snappyturtle]

146. Please believe me I AM NOT attacking you or

anything you said.....I just think that everyone needs to think about subjecting their children to more vaccines....all I am asking is to think about it.

[Sterling]

214. I disagree I think you and others have been extremely vicious

I understand your have personal feelings about this but why can't people be allowed to question the need to mandate kids get this thing? I am yet undecided but so far I see mostly people who assume they know and everyone else is stupid. It makes it hard to cut to the truth if people are so entrenched in their position that %50 of their posts are wasted insulting other posters for disagreeing with them.

[Heywood J]

98. Autism and cancer?

That might have something to do with the material being ejected into the water and the air we use to live. There are so many places that those can come from that it's very difficult to pin down. I mean, there are studies on water contaminants that cause fish and animals to change genders. God only knows what those provoke in humans - again, more conclusive research is needed, as is a general cleanup.

Aside from that, mercury, aluminum, etc. have many forms. Just because the metal form is toxic to humans does not mean the others are. Otherwise, salt would kill us on ingestion. There's all sorts of lead in pipes, but as long as the water chemistry is right, it won't dissolve and you don't drink it. I'm not apologizing or lobbying for for the insertion of these things, but you have to know what form it's coming in, in order to decide whether it's good, bad, or neither.


> Prudent checkups will catch cervical cancer another alternative to vaccine protection.imho

Okay, opinion noted. Then what? Mr. Matcom described exactly what then happens when you've "caught" cervical cancer. I sincerely doubt you're wishing that on women as an "alternative to vaccines", but that's exactly what it sounds like. If you've "caught" it, it's already there. What you describe as an alternative is none at all.

[snappyturtle]

110. My answer.....

may not be of a preventive nature but it does handle the problem....but either one "may" save one's life. Google the National Vaccine Information Centre and see what they say. My ONLY thought is that prudent people research what they can before making themselves or their daughters subjects to this vaccine. Are there guarantees that taking the vaccine absolutely precludes cancer?

Pharmaceutical companies are looking for drug answers....and unfortunately, money. Maybe research ought to look at preventing the cause in the first place. I am sorry for Matcom and what his wife suffered through. I am not attacking them. Also educate yourself in the number of cervical cancer cases in the U.S./year. Then think about how many girls are going to take this vaccine. I find it interesting that Blue Cross and Blue Shield will cover the three doses of this vaccine to the right age group but will not cover a mammogram for me, the daughter of a breast cancer patient! But there you have it. A mammogram is not a drug....thus no drug company profits no that only happens if I get breast cancer.

[snappyturtle]

150. I'm sorry but the last time I checked (high school chemistry)

NaCl=salt Aren't sodium (NA) and chloride (Cl) minerals! We all know that ingesting too much of just about anything, as we have seen in the news lately, even water, can kill a person. Salt will not kill you on ingestion unless you really,really, really over-dose. "Might" have something to do with what's being injected into the air and water? That's a far screwier premise than vaccines. Who's injecting what into the air and water? Who? What? For the good of mankind you ought to tell us if you have that sort of information.

I do think it's a very good idea to have a Pap smear.......yearly.....more if the doctor orders. Pap smears are VERY effective.....it does prevent FULL-BLOWN cancer if caught in time. I KNOW. I developed (not caught) pre-cancerous cervical lesions way back in the early seventies and was successfully treated.....so there is an alternative to vaccines..diagnostic vs. preventative, if there really is such a thing as absolutely preventative! Of course, if one doesn't have insurance, (did then, don't now), yearly screening might be prohibitive......why don't we all just agree to advocate a national health care program so everyone has every opportunity to choose from?

I HAVE to re-iterate what I have said in another reply to this post....somehow I "thought" DU was open to other opinions. I am always careful not to trample on others. But, after what I have seen today, I don't think I'm going to take such care in the future. I understand where Matcom is coming from? Why can't you see where I'm coming from....and let it be at that----like open- minded? We won't know for years IF anyone in today's discussion is right OR not....

[hedgehog]

113. Before I blame vaccines, I'd look into heavy metals in the environment,

pesticide use in the home, pesticide residue on food, exposure to tobacco smoke, steroid use in cattle, feeding animal protein to cattle, PCBs in the environment, chronic exposure to all sorts of petrochemicals, flame retardants on infant clothing, dyes and fragrances in laundry detergents, preservatives in processed foods, synergistic effects of all the above, etc,etc, etc.

Not to mention loss of trace elements and nutrients from eating food raised with chemicals instead of organic methods.

[snappyturtle]

141. You forgot aluminum in anti-perspirants!

Ignorance is bliss. I give up. You'd look into all your sources for our physical problems and NOT include vaccines! To exclude vaccines is, what can I say.........do you by any chance have scientific proof that vaccines do not cause or contribute to autism, alzheimer's, cancer, etc.? All the sources you list I believe are dangerous but so are vaccines. I wish I had let my children suffer through a full blown case of measles, mumps and rubella than what happened to each after their 18 month innoculation with MMR. My daughter went code blue. (I mis-stated it was DPT earlier....my mistake it was 28 years ago....so I had a lapse.) Your natural immune ability is great. If you stop and think about it, vaccines are something we've ALL been subjected to probably close to equally nation-wide....regardless of all the others listed. I can't keep fighting all of you so if you want to say that everything the drug companies comes up with is great-----have at it. I know better.

[AikidoSoul]

191. You GO girl!! Don't let them get you down

I know many parents whose kids were damaged from vaccines, drugs and chemicals. There are countless support groups all over the country that share information with each other about these issues. There are also many scientists and researchers who do so, such as Collaborative for Health and the Environment, which has many hundreds of health professionals who work hard to understand these issues.

Anyone who wants to see the truth can explore the conversations going on in the med / sci community. Many there complain about the enormous suppression of scientific data -- pressures from industry due to legal and economic issues.

Because I advocate for people who are chronically ill from toxic exposures -- I have a different perspective than many here.

I sympathize with anyone who has suffered from cancer, and can relate to the fear and the pain. My own father died of it, and two brothers have it now. I completely understand why people are afraid.

What worries me is that sadly there are many people with chronic illnesses like cancer that never spend a minute worrying about where it may have come from. Most of us now have been brainwashed to blame our DNA, and we've forgotten about the fact that there are things called "carcinogens", and suppressed immune systems. It's like the word "carcinogens" has been dropped from our vocabulary.

I'm surprised that DUers are so brainwashed and trusting of words spoken by folks wearing white smocks. I don't trust an industry that makes both toxic chemicals AND pharmaceuticals. I dislike the fact that this industry is continually being prosecuted for illegal and corrupt practices... and for corrupting medical institutions, journals, and even the doctors who are rewarded for doling out drugs and for putting their names on papers written by others.

We've been brainwashed and spiked with fear to believe that we need toxic chemicals and drugs or we will all die.

It's sad.

[RhodaGrits]

168. -- applause -- n/t

[donco6]

121. It's an open forum, just don't expect everyone to swallow . . .

what you're selling.

So because of an increase in cancer and autism, you've decided (with absolutely no scientific causality) that the reason is vaccinations.

:eyes:

[AikidoSoul]

278. If you were a scientist you'd know that establishing certainty of "causality" is almost impossible

and that it takes decades to even get the scientific community to agree on what is carcinogenic. It took science over 30 years to finally concede that dioxin, one of the most toxic substances in the world, is carcinogenic. And if you follow the trail of discussions, conferences and papers back over the decades you will see that industry funded "science" kept this topic highly controversial for much longer than was necessary. Except of course it kept its dioxin products on the market much longer.

Even today chlorine molecules used to create chemical compounds are known to create dioxin byproducts -- but the wisdom of the EPA states that since dioxin in these instances is an "unintended byproduct" -- these substances are allowed to remain without intervention from regulators.

Many of the kneejerk attacks I see by DUers contain phrases and descriptions that were promulgated by industry over the decades to make it seem as though concerns about chems and meds are made by wackos. Unfortunately, those kinds of ad hominem attacks and descriptions have succeeded in brainwashing a large segment of the public.

[donco6]

317. Who said anything about "absolute"?

Dioxin? The conversation was about vaccinations.

And I engaged in no ad hominem attacks. She complained about not being received uncritically. That's not going to happen here.

[sinkingfeeling]

137. The chemicals that are in everything we touch and eat today. Plus people's

extreme fear of any germ. I'm in a battle with my granddaughter's mother because she doesn't think children should ever touch any other living thing. No cats, dogs, plants, grass, fruit, anything! She runs around with her sanitizing wipes and the kid will never build up antibodies to anything. But she can't understand that there are chemicals coming from the carpet and that the dyes that are in kids' cereals aren't healthy.

Our whole environment is becoming more and more polluted. I just hope everyone is as worried about mercury in their drinking water, formaldehyde in the sofa, and aluminum in the dirt as they are about those things being used in vaccines.

[Sterling]

209. I am very undecided about the vac but blown away by the irrational

attitudes on both sides. I can't see why people are in such a rush to assume this stuff will work and is safe. I am not someone who thinks vacs must be some sort of gov conspiracy either but the idea that they are demanding kids take something like this is a little scary. I am more floored by the vitriol of those assume that it is safe directed at those that are not convinced

Seriously matcom what is the point of the attitude about this? I respect your personal experience with cancer but why do you think you have the right to be so aggressive and hateful to others who still want more info before they make up there minds?

[donco6]

120. And the topic your article is under: "Medical Quackery"

Unintentionally appropros

[Justitia]

71. Oh look, nutjobs. And things were going so well. This is not directed at matcom, of course. -eom

[Bridget Burke]

75. Matcom's OP makes the nutjobs look even worse than they did before.

Some are merely deluded. Others are virulent woman haters.

[Justitia]

78. See how determined they are? Their stamina is amazing. Scary. -eom

[Caoimhe]

134. I noticed as well

Actually it is nothing new. I do geneological research and you'd be amazed at how many cemeteries are filled with graves of victims of "pests" that have long been eradicated because of the miracle of science. My grandfather had polio as a child, and as he aged he instilled in his children the importance of getting what vaccinations they could. It's life insurance. My mother taught me the same way. There were always kids whose parents would toss tantrums at the idea. I'm sure their hearts were in the right place, but I think paranoia has become MORE instead of LESS prevalent. I think it is a crime not to vaccinate your children because of your own prejudice, just as it is a crime not to treat illnesses because of your religious beliefs. The only thing we can do is EDUCATE people and teach them about the history of viruses, plagues and communicable diseases that have been driven to near extinction because of forward thinking public policy.

It amazes me that every year when I get my flu shot at my work, there is at least one or two people here who are terrified of the vaccine. They are absolutely convinced that it will kill them, that they will get the flu from it, or that it will suppress their immune system. I just shake my head. You cannot educate people who refuse to listen. All I can say is, hey I've been getting a flu shot every year for 12 years and guess what? It's been 13 years since I had the flu. Go figure...

[PetraPooh]

151. I don't work where you do; but not getting a flu vaccine has nothing

to do with fear for me. I simply see so many get shots then come down with a different strain of flu anyway. I figure the best flu "vaccine" for my old (nearly 50) self is to stay active and generally healthy enough to not fear the flu in the first place.

So please don't color all anti-flu vaccine persons with your "terrified" brush.

[AirmensMom]

153. I've had one flu shot, several years ago.

And was never so sick in my life as I was after that ... for almost two months. I never had the flu before or since. My doctors told me to never get another flu shot. I'm not against vaccinations, but I am for individual choice. Just because you do well with a vaccination doesn't make it a perfect solution for everyone. FWIW, my daughter also had a severe reaction to a flu shot. Will you shake your head at us because we won't get another flu shot?

Being a DES baby, having an auto-immune disease, being sensitive to chemicals (including pharmaceuticals), and not knowing the long-term effect of gardasil, I would not feel 100% comfortable having my daughters vaccinated. However, I would certainly discuss the pros and cons with their doctor. (My daughters are grown, so I don't have to make the decision.)

[bpeale]

259. i also do genealogical research

and you'd be surprised how many diseases not only have not been eradicated by renamed something else over the years. so you can't really say that anything has been eradicated.

take for instance "apoplexy".

[PetraPooh]

261. Really?!? I haven't heard this. Could you give more info and maybe some links? nt

[bpeale]

263. you ever heard of apoplexy?

most have not & would assume it had been eradicated. but today that is known as "stroke".

[PetraPooh]

266. Hmmm, I didn't know that. Is this the only re-named disease/disorder?

I'm thinking the list would have to be longer for this concept to have validity.

[bpeale]

269. this was only one that i found. i am SURE there are many others

[VelmaD]

79. I'm not an anti-vaccine nutjob in general...however...

I object to turning little girls in Texas into human guinea pigs for purely feminist reasons.

Doesn't it qualify as "woman hating" that big pharma/big medicine has poured all sorts of crap into women's bodies for years without ever really investigating or caring about the side effects?

[matcom]

82. Velma, BOYS are supposed to get this in about a year as well

this ain't a feminist thing

[VelmaD]

86. And if they don't do adequate testing on that population I promise you...

I will yell just as loud and as long. I have a nephew here in Texas who is about to turn 8...I don't want him used as a lab rat either.

[BlackVelvet04]

123. Why aren't boys getting it now?

Why the lag of a year or two?

[AirmensMom]

154. That's what I was going to ask. n/t

[BlackVelvet04]

175. Looks like we aren't getting an answer.

What, are they waiting to see if it harms the girls before they give it to the boys?

[LostinVA]

96. I completely agree with you about big Pharam and women's health

However, having seen friends die horribly and slowly from cancer, I would get this vaccine myself if I could.

[hedgehog]

116. Yeah, everyone knows that we should use the little girls in

Puerto Rico and Africa as guinea pigs.How dare they use Texans!

[Sterling]

221. WTF? Woman haters?

Seriously, this thread has gotten way out of had. What a bunch of self righteous horse shit. People wonder if they should force their children to submit to some new shit the pharmacy companies are rolling out and they are women haters?

Sorry the 'nut jobs" are on both sides of this discussion. I was hoping to not be on a "side" but apparently I cannot be concerned about this vac and not be a "nut job" or women hater. I will obviously need to look elsewhere for intelligent unbiased information on this topic.

[Cleita]

167. I know what you are saying.

I went through a similar experience with my mother. She didn't beat it though. She got up one morning and decided staying alive was too hard and refused treatment after that. My heart goes out to you and what you and your wife endured.

[Horse with no Name]

180. Ahhh my partner in crime

:hi:

[Justitia]

205. Good Morning, Friend! This is The Thread That Would Not Die.

I am soooo behind on my housekeeping. :blush:

[sinkingfeeling]

72. Matcom, you broke my heart. I'm typing and crying at the same time.

I hope that you and your beloved will have 7 times 7 more years 'cancer free'.

[Shakespeare]

77. Thank you. I was fortunate just to be "precancerous"....

...but it still involved multiple hideously painful "outpatient" procedures to fix the situation. Thank god for this vaccine.

[Iris]

80. I'd hate to see a post 15 years from now that says "YOU sit in your living room and have your

daughter tell you she'll never have a child because of a vaccine YOU decided she needed 15 years ago."

How do we know this vaccine won't cause some unknown side afffects or even the very cancer you have just described, assuming your wife had a cancer other than cervical. Many people object to requiring the vaccine based on the idea that the drug has not been completely tested yet. I've read in a few places that it has not been tested on women under 18. If that is true, than I think any parent who DOESN'T consider that there could be side effects from this vaccine is being irresponsible.

[Bridget Burke]

83. Let the parents make any decision they want.

But the unscientific & woman-hating entries here are astounding.

[Iris]

85. I'm not a woman hater. Believe me.

How is being concerned about the safety of a substance that a state government is going to FORCE women to have injected into their bodies being a woman hater?

As for scientific. . .why don't you check with Merck or whatever pharmaceutical company is producing this vaccine and find out how much testing has been done on it. Also, maybe you can do some financial analysis while your at it and see how much MONEY they plan to make from it. Oh, and might as well see if they are preserving the vaccine with mercury. Er. . .well, maybe not for use in THIS country. . .

[Bridget Burke]

92. Woman hater is not the only category I mentioned.

And parents may opt out of the vaccine.

[Morgana LaFey]

106. You know what? It doesn't matter so much that parents can opt out

why? Because not all parents will take the time to do the research they need to do to make an INFORMED decision on this. And propaganda is pretty damned effective, as everyone here at DU can attest.

There has NOT been sufficient testing on this vaccine, and that means defenseless little girls are going to be used as guinea pigs and profit margins.

Here's a little more support for my position:

Last Friday, Governor Perry issued an executive order requiring girls entering the sixth grade to get the Gardasil shot. The Texas people are opposed to this, and so is their legislature. In fact, Perry’s political base is supported by religious conservatives who outright oppose the vaccine requirement. So why did Rick Perry literally circumvent everyone and throw down this edict?

Money: Merck contributed $6,000 to his reelection campaign. They’ve also doubled their lobbying funds in Texas through their main front,Women in Government. Connections: His former chief-of-staff is a Merck lobbyist, and his current chief’s mother-in-law is the state director for WIG. Cozy, huh?

The Texas legislature can’t repeal this order – it can only be changed by Perry himself or his successor. So what can ticked-off Texans do? Impeach their governor, or look for a back door to protect their daughters. I expect a lot of parents will suddenly file opt-out affadavits, which let their kids stay in school unvaccinated based on religious or philosophical grounds. Maybe all the extra cash funneled into the Texas government’s top tier can be used to process all the extra paperwork.


and more:


Doctors have known about it for decades, and have taken the right steps to keep women healthy. All it takes is a regular Pap test. That’s it, that’s what you can do for your daughter to protect her from cervical cancer. As soon as she becomes sexually active or hits age 18, whichever comes first, bring her to the gynecologist’s office for a Pap test.

In women who go for those annual exams – uncomfortable as they are – cervical cancer is almost unheard of. And those good ol’ folks at Merck know this. In fact, they recommend annual Pap tests – the only real way to prevent cervical cancer – in addition to their vaccine (for which, by the way, the potential long-term side effects remain unknown).

http://hsi.sharpseo.com/
-------------------------

It should be noted: even with this vaccine, there's no protection against annual pap smears forever. It doesn't save anybody any money in that regard, and it doesn't ensure against cancer. Annual pap smears are still going to be required. The only sure beneficiary of this is Merck's bottom line, and that's not just a travesty it's a crime (figuratively speaking, probably not literally, alas).

What surprises me is that DUers know -- and have known for years now -- that Republicans use government as corporate welfare. They are expert at finding ways to make government fill their coffers and make their profits. This is not unlike every other boondoggle including HAVA.

[foo_bar]

119. "All it takes is a regular Pap test" is false

Some women may be getting false negative results on their routine Pap tests -- the traditional method to detect cervical cancer early -- because aberrant tissue changes can keep abnormal cells from being picked up during the exam, according to a study released today.

Writing in the June issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, physicians at the Keck School of Medicine of USC and colleagues in California and Taiwan are the first to suggest this explanation for the frequent occurrence of false negative Pap smears.

Nationwide, physicians perform about 55 million Pap tests every year to look for cervical cells that are becoming abnormal, a precursor to cancer. To perform such a smear, a physician inserts a swab through a patient's vagina and scrapes the cervix to collect a sample of cells shed from its surface. Pathologists analyze the cells under a microscope to see if they are healthy.

Unfortunately, as many as four in 10 test results come back negative even when a biopsy shows abnormal lesions, and researchers have not been able to conclusively explain the inconsistencies.

http://unisci.com/stories/20022/0626024.htm

It should be noted: even with this vaccine, there's no protection against annual pap smears forever.

Even with a universal vaccine, pap smears would remain a routine part of gynecological exams; it's a test for cellular abnormality, not HPV. When it works correctly, it finds problems (dysplasia, cancer) after they've already occurred, so there's really no comparison with a prophylactic vaccine.

[sybylla]

122. My guess is mandating it will make that information more available

But perhaps that's only the experience in my state. Where I live, mandated vaccines area available through the county health departments and they provide loads of information on them. I would like to think that public health orgs in any state are all about information but I may be overestimating the free flow of information in the bible belt. Putting this vaccine on the radar screen, opt out info and all, will only help parents make informed decisions.

And isn't that what we all want?

[mainer]

94. Far more likely: "Mom, I have cancer. And it's your fault."

Vaccines have never been known to cause the sort of side-effect you mention (sterility.)

A vaccine only uses OUR OWN immune system to fight infection. It isn't a drug that you take repeatedly. The three shots are simply to boost your own natural immune cells to recognize an enemy.

The only thing new about this vaccine is the antigen -- specifically, the HPV antigen. The vehicle in which it's delivered will probably be standard, using solutions similar to measles, rubella, or any other vaccine.

Vaccines, in general, are NOT big money-makers for pharmaceutical companies. Many companies have gotten out of the vaccine-making business. With the HPV vaccine, a child gets three doses, plus the occasional booster, and that's it over his/her lifetime. Compare this to, say, an arthritis or pain med, which will be used many, many times in a patient's lifetime. THOSE are the money makers.

[Morgana LaFey]

101. What - is it also her mom's fault she didn't get annual pap smears?

Hmmmm?

Let's get really hysterical about this, shall we?

[matcom]

102. how about THIS scenario

how about she has no health insurance for quite some time.

how about she lives in a place that shut down (at the time) Planned Parenthood (Salt Lake City) so she really couldn't get a regular PAP?

how about that?

[Justitia]

103. Are you claiming that Pap Smears prevent cancer? -eom

[mzmolly]

192. Pap Smears save lives.-eom

[Justitia]

203. No doubt, but that's not what I asked of that poster. -eom

[mzmolly]

248. The vaccine has not been demonstrated to prevent "cancer."

It has been demonstrated to prevent HPV in people (who may or may not have been exposed to HPV) for an undetermined period of time.

[Justitia]

282. Here We Go Again, in circles. And what causes cervical cancer? -eom

[mzmolly]

289. And what is KNOWN to prevent cervical cancer?

And how long does this vaccine last?

[Justitia]

324. The HPV vaccine. 100% effective against 70% of all strains. Haven't we done this already? -eom

[Lurking Dem]

335. You forgot

remaining an untouched virgin. Even fondling spreads HPV but if women remain chaste then they won't be stricken.

:sarcasm:

[mzmolly]

346. That is a highly debatable claim. Indeed "haven't we been over this already?"

Taken from a debate at medblog:

I am a Board Certified Obstetrician Gynecologist and have several objections to the ACIP "recommendations".

Most of the following is taken Directly form the Gardisil package insert.

First, the endpoint is the preventions of "High Grade disease", this encompasses CIN II-III and adenocarcinoma insitu (AIS) which are "immediate and necessary precursors" for squamous cell and adenocarcinoma of the cervix. The MAXIMUM of the median follow-up in any of their studies is FOUR years. However, the time course from CIN III to invasive cancer averages between 8.1 to 12.6 years. To say that this vaccine "prevents cervical cancer" with the longest median study subject being 4 years is ludicrous.

Furthermore, the vast majority of women clear or supress the virus to levels not associated with CIN II or III and for most women this occurs promptly. The duration of HPV positivity (which is directly related to the likelihood of developing a high grade lesion or cervical cancer) is shorter, and the likelihood of clearance is higher, in younger women.

Therefore, vaccinating these children against HPV with a vaccine that is of unknown duration of efficacy will only postpone their exposure to an age which they are less likely clear the infection on their own and be subject to more severe disease. This would require an unknown number of boosters and is a setup for complacency in the older population that is a recipe for disaster. Furthermore the likelihood for regression to a normal pap from CIN II is 40%. This beats Gardisils "best" reduction of CIN 2-3 of only 12%. In this case, "first do no harm rules."

Furthermore the vaccine only "protects" against 4 high risk HPV subtypes. We are currently screening for 13 "high risk" HPV subtypes. This may lead to an increase in infection with other and possibly more aggressive subtypes.

The study of the vaccine in children and adolescents is limited to only measuring the development of antibodies to the HPV subtypes in the vaccine. There is absolutely no evidence that the vaccine prevents anything when administered at this young age. Merck expects you to extrapolate their adult data to the immune response in children. If they were really interested in vaccine efficacy in children, should it not be studied properly in children.

Currently, precancerous lesions are readily identifiable and treatable in the developed world. The only utility of this vaccine may be in third world countries in which regular screening is not available and cervical cancer is still a major cause of morbidity and mortality. All of the data reported and advertised by Merck is based on world wide morbidity and mortality related to cervical cancer. Nowhere will you find specific data related to developed nations.

I have personally witnessed the devastation caused by severe vaccine reaction, inculding patients, their children, nurses and my own family. To proceed with mass vaccination against this embelished "threat" is irresponsible.

Clayton Young, M.D., F.A.C.O.G.


http://blogs.chron.com/medblog/archives/2006/06/the_antivaccine_1.html

[Justitia]

353. Not according to legitimate medical & science sources. You are quoting a "blog". -eom

[mzmolly]

355. Who's legitimate Merck? I'm quoting a medical professional, who posted

on a blog. This post is from one of many professionals who take issue with Merck's claims. What you will find from so called "credible" sources is merely a regurgitation of the claims made by the manufacturer.

[Justitia]

356. Clayton Young is anti-vaccine, I've read his stuff. He claims his child is "vaccine injured" &

Excuse me, he claims "all 4" of his children are "vaccine injured".

That blog posting you cut & pasted has been spammed all over the internet, but it usually includes who Clayton Young cc'd on it: Three Anti-Vaccine Organizations.

His wife also posts prolifically on the same subject.

I never could find his Texas license to practice medicine.

I'm of the opinion he is a QUACK.

[mzmolly]

362. There are others in the medical community HERE that have trepidation

about this vaccine. Of course you think he's a QUACK, he goes against the vaccination grain. Anyone who has concerns is labeled accordingly. If you have any information about his "quackery" aside from his learning experience about vaccination, please share it. I'd like to note that he started out feeling like you do about vaccination. He has experienced a change of heart due to his personal experience. Quack or no quack, his concerns are valid. Here are the "quacks" credentials: http://www.peacehealth.org/apps/physicians/DMDetails.asp?Med_Prof_Record_No=595

Here's another bit of information you may or may not have noted?


An FDA review of the results of studies on the vaccine found two important concerns, according to the documents released ahead of Thursday's meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products advisory committee.

* The first is that the vaccine may lead to an increased number of cases of a cancer precursor among patients already infected by any of the four virus types at the time they receive the vaccine, and whose immune systems have not cleared the virus from their bodies.

* The second concern is that any advantage the vaccine provides in protecting against the four virus types could be offset by infection by any of the multiple other types of HPV that the vaccine does not cover, according to the FDA documents.

* FDA staff also asked that the committee examine five cases where children with birth defects were born to women who had received the vaccine around the time of conception.

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/newjersey/story/6364624p-6220794c.html

[Justitia]

363. Egads, that is the WRONG Clayton Young, MD, the QUACK is an ob/gyn!

And the QUACK is (unfortunately) in my state of Texas.

The doctor you linked to is a pediatrician in OR.

Read the first line of your own "blog" post, post # 346.

Good Lord :eyes:

I really think I am done with this thread. It has dissolved into absurdity.

[mzmolly]

368. Have a good day.

:hi:

[mainer]

107. Yes, it's her parents' fault. A minor can't make this decision.

Just as a minor can't decide to get the vaccine to protect her from tetanus, meningitis, or hepatitis B. Only the parents can decide this.

As a mom ( with a medical background) I chose to protect my kids from things that might threaten their lives. The same reason I buckled them into their car seats, took them in for check-ups, and forced them to wear helmets when they went biking and skiing.

If I didn't make sure they were vaccinated, I would have been negligent.

[mzmolly]

190. I've spent hours upon hours researching vaccination, and came to a different conculsion than you did

about vaccinating my child at this time. I am not negligent.

[mainer]

202. So you don't vaccinate your kids against anything?

Then you ARE negligent.

[mzmolly]

251. No, I'm not. Is negligence spending hours and in fact, YEAR making a decision about vaccination?

I looked at each vaccine individually and ruled them out one by one. Not only due to potential side effects, but because of our family history/health issues. I also considered the fact that we don't have a pressing epidemic that is worthy of taking a risk in our case.

Additionally, I recently considered the flumist, as the flu is far more deadly than the issues that vaccines are currently mandated for, however after a discussion with the manufacturer I have decided against it for now. The vaccine is not recommended for children with chronic neurological disorders, which happens to pertain to my child.

[PetraPooh]

264. On the other hand, I who am not a negligent parent,

chose not to vaccinate my children for meningitis or hepatitis B. The kids had already gotten their infant and toddler vaccines by the time these two came out and by that time I had had it with the medical community as a whole. So alternatively to vaccinations, we got information like symptoms and at what point one needed to get to a doctor for treatment if these illnesses were suspected; to date (both my children are grown and just out on their own the past few years and still know the sypmtoms and to be diligent in ovserving themselves and potential symptoms). My son even had one of his friends die from Meningitis three days after my son sat across a coffeetable playing dungeons and dragons for nearly 12 hours. The school demanded that all the kids that had been near this one boy get "treatments" and I refused to let my son even then. But we did our due diligence in education then in inspecting and checking for symptoms and he never showed any and was/is just fine.

In addition I stepped on a very rusty (40+ years old) roofing nail some years ago, straight through the flipflops I had on and a good inch into my foot. As we all know, if you never got a tetanus booster, you aren't covered for it anymore, and I wasn't. Again, rather than over-reacting and running to the doctors, I got an education and monitored myself. Again, nothing happened, no tetanus.

To suggest that vaccinations are the only non-negligent choices is just foolishness. However education and diligence in observations are more time consuming, no doubt.

[mzmolly]

189. It's a myth that vaccines don't make money. The Government picks up liability

on mandated vaccines and has since 1986. There was a time when manufacturers were considering backing off some vaccines due to the high rate of injury/compensation. That, in and of itself should beg a question or two about "safety."

However, back to the subject:

Merck is sharing this with stockholders regarding Gardasil in particular:

http://www.merck.com/newsroom/press_releases/financial/2007_0130.html

"The impressive sales performance of our newer and in-line products coupled with the rapid uptake of new, first-in-class vaccines and medicines like GARDASIL and JANUVIA, speaks to the strength of our underlying business and product portfolio," said Richard T. Clark, chief executive officer and president. "These results clearly set the stage for our performance in 2007 as well as continued progress toward our long-term financial targets."

Merck is out to make a buck, it's what corporations do.

I'll leave it at that. :hi:

[bpeale]

260. i beg to differ

<<Vaccines, in general, are NOT big money-makers for pharmaceutical companies. Many companies have gotten out of the vaccine-making business. With the HPV vaccine, a child gets three doses, plus the occasional booster, and that's it over his/her lifetime. Compare this to, say, an arthritis or pain med, which will be used many, many times in a patient's lifetime. THOSE are the money makers.>>

the cost of these 3 shots will be mega moneymakers for merck, especially if they are "mandated".

[file83]

196. Great point.

:kick: Nice to see people actually thinking around here instead of getting all knee-jerked about a rhetorical cancer piece (as if the plight of one "proves" the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine!?)

[REP]

199. Cervical Cancer Can Cause Infertility, Sterility or Death

First, let me reiterate that woman does not equal mother; not every woman wants to have a child. Sterility - an unheard-of side-effect from vaccines - may not cause the heartbreak you imagine.

Second, which is worse: to be childless (or to adopt) or to die? To be childless (or adopt) or to go through agonizing treatments that result in sterility/infertility to treat cervical cancer?

[Liberal Veteran]

336. The whole infertility argument is completely baseless and illogical.

Assuming that the drug does exactly what it says, which is to produce an immune response to produce memory t-cells that will be able to instantly respond to acute exposure to real HPV, and 50 percent of sexually active people are already infected with HPV which means their body is already mounting an immune response whether it is able to eradicate it or not, then how exactly would this vaccine do that.

It's not like they inject the vaccine into the uterus or the site of action for vaccine is in the reproductive organs.

You might as well say "What if causes the liver to shut down?" or "What if it causes brain damage?" or "What if it causes ring around the collar?"

It is completely illogical and flat-out bizarre to make claim it even might cause infertility and it based on some very faulty assumptions.

People are making that claim because this vaccine is designed to prevent infection with HPV which CAN lead to cervical cancer. But it is a complete leap of illogic to suggest that the vaccine therefore would somehow instantly travel to the uterus and destroy your reproductive potential.

It simply doesn't work that way. Your uterus is NOT a part of the immune system and is not the site of action of this vaccine. Your immune system is your thymus, lymph nodes, bone marrow, tcells, spleen, etc.

It is as silly to argue that it might cause infertility because it is designed to help prevent a virus associated with cervical cancer as it would be to argue that the measles vaccine causes pneumonia because measles is associated with a co-morbidity of pneumonia.

[Justitia]

90. This thread should come with this warning.......you know who you are.

[AX10]

125. If you are accusing we opponents of the mandate of being..

"weazels", that is a violation of DU posting rules.

[Justitia]

127. Quick, call the weazel police.

}(

[LostinVA]

95. I completely agree with you here

I wish there was a vaccine for EVERY form of cancer. I've had too many friends die from breast cancer. I bet there would love to have had a chance to have had a vaccine for that.

[xchrom]

128. there will soon be at least one breast cancer vaccine.

they are very close.

i was just reading a bio of a woman dr at one of the universities in the south that's working on this.

dr. liu i think.

any way it's going to use short strands of dna.

[LostinVA]

200. REally??? I've missed that

Short strands of DNA, huh?

[xchrom]

201. i've looked through SO MUCH info re: vaccines

over the last few days -- i didn't mark them all down.

but this site was a university website -- oh god was it georgia? -- and it was honouring a researcher who worked there -- a woman, which would make the vaccine all that much more cool.

and I THINK her name was dr. liu.

but much of the current research about cancer vaccines i think will involve using these short strands of dna.

the future as far as vaccines and really putting a dent in chronic and lethal disesas is looking really promising.

may we all live to see some of the breakthroughs.

[antigop]

97. matcom -- glad to hear she survived it -- but I will NOT give my daughter this vaccine

I'm sorry you and your wife had to go through this.

But I still will not give my daughter this vaccine.

[AX10]

131. I'm with you. And I will fully respect the right of those who...

want this vaccine to get it.

[Sterling]

228. Sure, that makes sense. so why all the insane attacks from

those that have decided they want this against those that still want to learn more? This thread blows my mind. That people would feel the need to get so personal and angry at someone for wanting more info about this drug? It's like a cult or something, scary. People need to calm down and show a little class/respect.

[Horse with no Name]

329. It is education

And the reason is because the ONLY way that ALL women can have access to this vaccine is to make it mandatory.
Anything short of that limits its use and effectiveness.
There isn't ONE person here that is in favor of this vaccine...NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON...that would advocate vaccinating someone against their will or beliefs.
That is why this particular vaccine has such a strong "opt out" clause. I feel I am a STRONG advocate for this vaccine...however, without an opting out clause, I wouldn't support it no matter what. Just as I believe in choice in other areas of reproductive health, I believe in choice for this vaccine.
However...what it comes down to...is that there is going to be someone "opt out" of this vaccine regardless of how it is done.
IF the people who don't want the vaccine don't agree with "opting out"...you can bet your ass that the insurance companies will opt out against paying for it. THIS will absolutely limit this vaccine--the MOST EXPENSIVE vaccine EVER--to women who do not have the funds to pay cash for it.

[Eurobabe]

291. My 25 y/o daughter just got word her test for cervical cancer was NEGATIVE

Thank the spirit!

HOWEVER, it is up to her and her 23 y/o sister if they want to get this vaccine. I don't know how I feel about it, but believe there needs to be more testing re: side-effects. I am not sure whether I would vaccinate a small child for this. Not enough known yet.

Just MHO.

People, don't crucify those who don't want to subject their kids to this vaccine just yet.

[LWolf]

117. Every girl in the world shouldn't be given this vaccine.

1. There is not enough research on long-term effects, and on the effects of the vaccine given to children. "Experimenting" on the entire female population without their permission is not okay.

2. This puts "choice," when it comes to the female reproductive system, on the table in a big way. How old does a female have to be before she should be able to choose birth control, abortion, etc.? The same age she should be able to choose, with all necessary information about pros and cons, whether to get a vaccine to protect her from hpv. At puberty.

If we're going to toss "choice" away and regulate sexual health choices of 100% of the pubescent population, I suggest this:

100% of pubescent boys should have a vasectomy. When they have finished college, trade school, apprenticeship or other training, have functioned in the world as a self-supporting adult, and have the resources to support and raise a healthy family, they can get the procedure reversed. Reversal won't work with 100% of them, of course. Still, that would address the population explosion as well as insure that there would be no unintended pregnancies, and that the only time a female would have to "choose" abortion would be for her own physical safety.

[xchrom]

130. boys WILL be given this vaccine as well.

this is a good thing -- wonderful in fact.

with the backing of the un and other nations.

this will relieve a tremendous amount of suffering and death.

and that's all there is to it.

[snappyturtle]

139. I agree with your number 1. Everybody jumped on me for the

first site I linked that cautioned the use of vaccines. The link below is from the Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation.....hope it's to everyone's liking. What it tells is that it was estimated at the time of the article that 9710 women in the U.S. in 2006 would be diagnosed with cervical cancer which has dramatically decreased over the last twenty years.....without Gardasil. It was also estimated that in that year 3700 would succumb to the disease. I realize this is a large number but in comparison how many females age 9-16 are there in the U.S.? I couldn't find an exact number on that one but I'm certain it's many times over 3700. ALL I'm trying to point out is 1)vaccines have their downsides and 2)to access the risk involved in taking three doses (well over a hundred dollars a dose)over not taking the vaccine. I know it's a decision all have to access for themselves but I do think before going and jumping on the bandwagon, risk assessment is prudent. Compare this to the 40,000 plus cases of breast cancer estimate for the same year.

We should also remember the drug companies have given us antibiotics.....wonderful for many years .....but diseases have become resistant.....many more die from the failure this "advancement" each year. Our immune systems are altered by vaccines....just think about it.

Again, as I said in an earlier reply, I am not in any way attacking the poster. I just lost my 52 year old brother in law to malignant melanoma .....it was dreadful, both the disease and the treatment....I can feel for this family.


http://www.preventcancer.org/healthyliving/cancerinfo/cervical.cfm

[LWolf]

159. I, too, feel for all cancer sufferers.

My sons lost their dad to a brain tumor; not cervical cancer, but some of the experience is similar.

I wouldn't want to tell people NOT to use a vaccine; I just don't want to legally mandate it.

[WolverineDG]

124. I've got your back on this one, Matcom

:hug:

My grandmother died of ovarian cancer back in the 60s, when all they did was watch you die. Another cousin had uterine or ovarian cancer & had to have a hysterectomy. I'm hypersensitive about this issue as well.

What this boils down to is malcontents upset that a Republican governor beat a Democratic governor to the punch on this vaccine. Until last week, the only complaints you heard about it on DU were about the crazy right-wing fundies blocking it from distribution because it would make girls have sex.

And that's all I'm going to say about this issue as well.

dg

[redwitch]

132. Excellent post!

Hooray for you and Mrs. Matcom! Cancer sucks, if there is a way to prevent this kind of suffering there is no excuse not to do it. I have sons but you bet if I had a daughter she would get the vaccine.

[matcom]

136. your sons will be able to get it in about a year

TAKE THEM

[redwitch]

138. I posted before I read all the responses.

In the last 10 years we have lost friends and family to colon cancer, breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, esophegeal cancer and non Hodgkins lymphoma. My best friend had thyroid cancer but is doing OK two years later. I HATE cancer!

My sons are 20 and 16. I will talk to them about this when it becomes available and hopefully they will be amenable. If they were little guys there would be no question of it, I would have them vaccinated.

[cally]

135. I knew some of this about your experience from previous posts

You influenced me to get on my daughter's doctors and get the vaccine as soon as I heard about it. Both my 16 and 19 year old have started the series. I appreciate that you shared your experience and I rejoice that your wife is 7 years cancer free.

[Marnieworld]

143. Matcom

You are absolutely right.

You are a very good man, a very good husband, a very good person. You clearly understand that love is everything and you have lived that. I've always liked your posts and now, after reading this, I'm always going to like you.

My mother went through surgery, chemo, and radiation for Stage 3 uterine cancer last year. I can't wait to tell her about "7 years cancer free".

Warmest thoughts for you and your wife. I bet she is one special lady. Congrats to you both!

:hug:

[Nikki Stone1]

161. good post

:kick:

[kickysnana]

152. I wish that the DHH were not corrupt but it is; no liability for big pharm on this

My apologies on the spelling tonight. I cannot make the test large enough in the editor to read proof read it. I can see the errors after I post but it I have to go and connot keep going back and forth. Lyme did a number on my eyes.

Matcom,

With all due respect. I have gone through successfully fighting the LymeRix vaccine 1995 or so that was ill-conceived and allowed lax oversight on testing. ***

The argument is not that vaccines are not a good idea. The argument is that there is absolutely no guarantee and a track record of late of sloppy research, trials and approvals and that the makers have so much power they may just try to say people do not need pap smears, just like they said that anyone who was sick after LymeRix did not have Lyme. They were proven wrong. Lots of people died. Lots of people were permanently disabled including children IN THE TRIALS. They covered it up. Google it. This has occurred over and over as of late as more and more real oversight vanishes.

The DHH (FDA, NIH and CDC) is corrupt and pharmaceutical companies are ruthless and the surest way to make a lot of money in a short time Right tn ow is through vaccination. The Congress made it so they have no liability even if they lied on the tests, lied on the paperwork to get it approved and a lot of people die either because there was an unknown side effect or it just did not work and people did not take other precautions.

My heart goes out to anyone suffering. I wish that the corruption in our government did not extend to our health care but it does. Do not shoot the messengers, people warning you what to look out for because I would not take this vaccine if I were young enough to need it nor would I urge my granddaughters to take it until it has been around for a few years. It is just too risky.

We have to have a reasoned discussion because there ARE risks either way. To have your loved one who may never get a disease become disabled or worse from a vaccine is a very real possibility. The next step and I can see it coming is mandatory vaccination before we know if this is safe or IF IT WORKS. Big pharm walks off with a billion taxpayer dollars and our Congress legally made it so they do not have to guarantee what they are selling is not snake oil or worse.


***Because in order to make a vaccine they had to tell who did and did not have Lyme they needed a test. Lyme mutates so a test in CT will not work in MO. The tests preLyme Rix were about 50-60% able to detect ACTIVE Lyme Disease (cousin to syphilis don't be fooled this is a terrible disease). Since they could not make a good test they decided to make a bad test (Dearborn MI) and Mayo Clinic made the first one and has the patent. The test you get when you walk into a doctors office with a tick in your hand and a rash will tell only 39% of the time that you are infected. Documented the FDA-CDD approved a test that only picks up 39% of active Lyme Disease. Lyme Disease goes inactive but recur rs regularly, worse each time (another cousin is relapsing fever) at about 6 months after infection. Then they have been allowing the HMOs and insurance companies to NOT treat anyone who does not test positive on this "test". BTW. Anyone who does test positive on the Mayo test at Mayo clinic will be told that they have a "false positive" and sent directly to the psych ward if they insist they are symptomatic. I now have about a hundred documented cases of this happing. People believing the great Mayo was going to help them with their Lyme. The disinformation put out and the lengths they ave gone to persecute and prosecute physicians who will not follow this protocol is unbelievable. Why? Because they made newly emerging diseases a National Security Treat. Because it is listed as one of 45 bio weapons by the DOD and because every disease is fighting for the same research and health care dollars. I can go on but will stop there.

Before LymeRix was approved research showed that the surface protein that was being used Osp-C could cause an incurable sever autoimmune arthritis in up to 20% of the population. There is a genetic test people should have had before they got the vaccine but that would be "too expensive" to do.

They withdrew the vaccine before we could get it banned. They are making noises like they want to bring it back and the new no fault vaccine legislation was no doubt lobbied for by this group.

We cannot blindly trust them. We have to do our own research and listen to others besides the ones making the noise trying to sell vaccines before we let them touch our children. And yes, I have a sister who survived cervical cancer so I do know how awful it is.

[xchrom]

162. i don't know of ANYONE on du who gives corporations a free pass.

and everyone cares about safety everyone -- and everyone here and every liberal i've ever met wants corporations held responsible for criminal negligence.
however you wouldn't live in the miracle that is out modern world if not for vaccines -- period -- ther can be no debating this.

and here's just some of that miracle:

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 and BETTER VACCINES.

[truedelphi]

166. Thank you for your well reasoned response to this.

The public keeps getting so much fear thrown at them about vaccines.

Does your baby ever BURP?!? Get a vaccine.

Know someone who died of cancer?!? Get a vaccine.

What the public is not told is:

1) If it is a vaccine that has been out there for awhile, and you personally think that the benefits outweigh the risks, make sure your child is NOT vaccinated on a day that they are visiting a clinic because of a cold, flu or feeling run-down.

2) Demand separate vaccinations - despite the inconvenience. Bundling these things makes them far more likely to affect the immune system

3) Consider this: In Japan, the government does not allow for children under the age of two to be vaccinated. Why? I mean, why wouldn't the nice, rational Japanese researchers insist that their kids be vaccinated early on if early vaccination was desirable.

Well, as one Japanese researcher told another at an international conference "We soon will have the database of the harm that is being done. Over the next few decades we will be analyzing it."

He was referring to Japanese researchers who are collecting and analyzing the database of vaccinated *American* youngsters - most of whom now receive 31 vaccinations before they are twelve months old.

4) Be aware that many of the risks are not proven now and may never be. Why are all the immune diseases skyrocketing - at the same time that the first several generations of vaccinated Americans
are reaching their middle age? Lupus, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's, chronic fatigue and other diseases are on a total upswing - so something is making our current generations different from the ones that proceeded ours.

[DemExpat]

198. I agree here as well....

as a successfully treated survivor of cervical cancer 15 years ago I would not give this vaccine to my daughter or son at this time.

DemEx

[mainer]

217. By all means, let's go back to the good old days

Back to the days when countless children died of whooping cough, diphtheria, and polio.

The fact that people now live through childhood, and get old enough to even get Parkinson's, is a triumph in and of itself.

[truedelphi]

331. there's a big difference between the *cautions* that I posted

and the sarcasm you are throwing at my remarks.

I did NOT say never, ever, ever, I said what I said above. The Japanese scientists hold a great deal of authority for me because unlike our Vaccine Oversight Committee, their's is NOT connected to the pharmaceutical industry

[blondeatlast]

157. A keen perspective, my friend. My very life is in the hands of Big Pharma.

I take insulin injections and I have for FORTY years. I don't like it, but the alternative is far worse--and the end is slow, painful and disgusting in the manner of cancer.

Thank you from one who has seen an uglier end to cervical cancer than your wife's experience which in NO WAY diminishes the pain you and she have experienced.

I welcome this vaccine and when it's available to boys will consult my beautiful son's pediatrician to make the call.

Proud to offer yet another kick and recommend.

[Nikki Stone1]

158. kick and recommend

:kick:

[Wheezy]

163. Oh shit.

You made me cry.

Excellent post. Thank you.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

164. You can bet my 15yr old daughter is getting this vaccine

For all of the reasons you understand so well.

The knee-jerk reactions of people on here drives me nuts. It's just not logical. It seems there are some people who are against anything that
a) makes someone else rich -- esp a big corporation, and esp a drug company, or
b) is supported by any Republican

Is it possible that JUST MAYBE this drug is a medical breakthrough that's good for our daughters (and sons, and selves...) AND makes the evil drug companies rich? Of course it is.

[antigop]

172. ...and my daughter won't ........ so there n/t

[PetraPooh]

250. If you think we nay sayers are "knee-jerking" because of riches and republicans . . .

Then you suffer from selective reading disorder. How annoying it is that so many here seem to think it is appropriate to misrepresent the opinions, experiences, and concerns of your fellow DU'ers and it makes you all sound just like the freepers.

I have noticed that not one nay sayer has implied that those wanting to get the vaccine for their daughters/sons are idiots, or knee jerking, or anything like that. I have found that those that have to demean the stances of others are usually the ones with the most insecurity of their own stance. So for all the nay sayers who are feeling attacked; fear not you apparently have the solid ground under you.

[bpeale]

265. i resent your implications

that i am just against this because it was advocated by a republican. i would be against it if it were mandated by ANYONE. given that our government, our FDA & our CDC cannot be trusted any longer to tell us the truth, what makes you think i would put my trust in big pharma who is being sued 6 ways from sunday over other bad drugs & research they've done? there is insufficient data to require anyone to be vaccinated.

[AwakeAtLast]

165. Most. Amazing. Post. Ever.

If we all had people in our world taking care of us like you, Mr. matcom, we would all live in a much better world. <snif> <wipes tears>

:hug: :hug: matcom and Mrs. matcom :hug: :hug:

[UTUSN]

169. NOTHING from Gov.Goodhair & his Merck dude is EVER for the common good n/t

[antigop]

174. I wonder what the reaction would be if Bu$h had issued an executive order instead of Perry n/t

[Horse with no Name]

170. I am so sorry.

I've watched the families go through what you describe.
Maybe that is why I am so passionate about it.
My prayers to you and your wife.

[AikidoSoul]

226. If you had "watched" families suffer from the consequences of some of these drugs

you might be more reserved in your enthusiasm.

Big Pharma (a/k/a Chem / Pharm) does everything it can to discount and dispute whether its vaccines can trigger chronic illness.

The huge increase in autoimmune diseases and chronic illness over the past few decades shows that something is terribly wrong. Vaccines, drugs, synthetic chemicals and heavy metals have been implicated by independent scientists -- especially those from other countries who have fewer political / economic influences controls exerted over their research.

Since Chem/ Pharm controls most of the research here in the U.S. with exceptional control over study designs, you will not find unbiased studies looking for damage caused by its drugs. When industry does stumble across damage, too often it works to suppress that information.

For that reason, it has repeatedly been caught manipulating the data and suppressing the bad news.

This industry is not always caught doing this of course, but the list of crimes it has been found guilty of is long and sobering.

Now with the gift from Congress of reduced liability, in some cases zero liability, we find ourselves in a system that in highly untrustworthy.

[Katherine Brengle]

339. I believe the person you are responding to is a nurse, or

works in a hospital in some capacity (sorry I am brain-farting right now), so probably has witnessed this...

:shrug:

[barb162]

177. Awesome. You convinced me

I have cancer in my family too and I know the story you are telling here. I wish there had been a vaccine for my mom's cancer.

[antigop]

179. Here are the LTTE's in today's Star-Telegram -- not one supports Perry

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/local2/16660835.htm

[Justitia]

206. So what? That is one of the most fundie parts of the Metroplex, it's just local opinion.

I used to live there, I would expect nothing less.

Who cares what they think? They don't have to get the vaccine.

Why are their opinions relevant to anyone else's on this forum?

:shrug:

[antigop]

210. because everyone realizes what this is -- it's a power grab by Perry n/t

[Justitia]

211. How the hell does Perry get any "power" from this? The TX GOP is eating him alive. -eom

[antigop]

213. Well, I'm sorry if you don't understand n/t

[tammywammy]

222. Well, I haven't talked to anyone in person

that isn't for what Perry did. And this spans hard-core democrats to religious right, they're all for it. They understand why he made it mandatory, for insurance purposes and that parents can opt-out if they want.

I'm definitely not a fan of Perry, but I agree with this.

[antigop]

235. well, you must float in different circle than I do -- because everyone I know is AGAINST what he did

n/t

[tammywammy]

246. Well of course we float in different circles

I don't even know your real name :)

I'm just wanted you to know that in my personal life I'm experiencing a completely different reaction. :)

[tandot]

181. Thanks, Matcom.

I am 42 and just had a biopsy done. I can't describe how it felt to wait for the results. I wish they had the vaccine back then, when I was young.

The biopsy turned out negative. But I have to think about all those girls who are as uneducated as I was back then. Protection is important...but a vaccine could save your life.

[Left Is Write]

182. Matcom....I didn't know.

Can you give Mrs. Matcom a hug for me?

I definitely want my 19-year-old daughter to have this vaccine, and I am more than willing to pay the cost for her. When my 7-year-old is old enough, I want her to have it too.

I'm too old, myself.

[mzmolly]

184. YOU are assuming that there is enough data to say that your wife would have been spared.

There isn't. Even the manufacturer doesn't claim to know how long immunity will last, so for now it's a freaking "crap shoot." Further, the long term effects are unknown at present. Under the circumstances I suggest people spare us the lectures and allow for CHOICE.

[Justitia]

204. Why do you think you have no "choice"? No one is forced to get vaccines. -eom

[mzmolly]

255. I do have a choice, and I know I do. However, to be belittled and called

negligent for exercising my judgment in this matter implies otherwise. Just because the government mandates a vaccine, does not mean a person who decides against it, is worthy of the mass derision we are subjected to here. Vaccines have consequences and benefits, and each person must weigh the decision for themselves. However, most people don't give vaccines a second thought. They take their two month old children in for jabs without batting an eye lash. Some regret doing so. Some regret not vaccinating. It's a very personal decision, and it is one I don't take lightly.

[Justitia]

283. Uh, that wasn't me. I've never called anyone "negligent", wrong poster. -eom

[mzmolly]

288. True, at least not directly.

;)

[Justitia]

325. More like not at all. -eom

[WindRavenX]

187. you rock

preach it brother matcom!

[vickitulsa]

193. This issue deserves calm examination and careful review

of the literature, so I've been doing that for the last couple of days before I spoke on DU about it. Then I called my brother who has worked as a pharmacist for 30 years at Tulsa's largest hospital.

Those 30 minutes on the phone with Steve tonight increased my understanding of everything I read about this vaccine, especially the risks involved in using it, while confirming my assessment of the literature that Gardasil "looks like a good thing -- if the clinical trials results were not 'fudged.'"

I wish I could boil everything I learned down into a few words, but alas that's not possible on this subject -- it's too complicated. I'll try to be as brief as I can, summarize what I learned and then tell you all what my brother said.

First, I found a great deal of useful information -- most of it positive toward the vaccine -- from what we usually think of as "reputable" sources by Googling "Gardasil clinical trials." I highly recommend that step to anyone wanting to do some detailed research on their own. All the links you really need are there on the first two pages of results.

I should mention, however, that what we usually think of as reputable sources might not be as reliable as they used to be. That's because, as my brother also confirmed, the "privatization" of what were formerly government (taxpayer funded) institutions such as the FDA and NIH has changed them substantially and in ways it's not hard to imagine.

Here's a link to what is by far the best article I found explaining the safety of drugs issue, from an excellent source:

http://www.usmedicine.com/article.cfm?articleID=1447&issueID=94

Here are a couple of excerpts from that December 2006 article:

WASHINGTON-A number of independent experts in the fields of health care and drug safety appeared before Congress last month to discuss the Food and Drug Administrations' (FDA's) ability to regulate the safety of drugs once they have been approved and are on the market. The hearing, held by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, was in response to an Institute of Medicine (IoM) report released in September stating that the agency is ill equipped to ensure postmarket safety, and to inquire whether legislation currently in the Congressional pipeline would address the issues raised in the report.

"IoM has done a valuable service to the nation by diagnosing the problem and prescribing a treatment," said Sen. Edward Kennedy (D., Mass.), the senior Democrat on the committee. "As the IoM report makes clear, FDA has a lot of problems that Congress must address."

<snip>

The report made a number of recommendations centered on the idea of a lifecycle approach to drug safety, one where a drug is scrutinized from creation to approval to its use after being released on the market. FDA has been under critical fire for several years now for not doing enough to track adverse events of approved drugs after a series of high-profile incidents, most notably those involving the use of antidepressants in adolescents and children, and the use of COX-2 inhibitors as pain relievers for arthritis patients.

<snip>

"When industry is funding more than 50 per cent of the agency's , that's a legitimate cause for public concern," added Dr. Adrian Thomas, vice-president, benefit-risk management, Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Group. "Congress must increase FDA's appropriated funding."

I had no idea that a large chunk of the FDA's funding now comes from Big Pharma, but it's true! And it turns out that the FDA also has very little "muscle" to enforce regulations and compel pharmaceutical companies to comply, either. Instead, the FDA has to negotiate with the drug companies for such steps as label changes. It took 18 months of negotiations to get the label changed on Vioxx, for example! (That was Merck also.)

Most disturbing is this last paragraph from the U.S Medicine article. It refers to a survey last year of FDA personnel about their morale. I really hope everyone reads the entire article -- I learned so much from it!

The 2006 survey showed hundreds of FDA scientists reporting interference with their work from superiors that they felt compromised the agency's ability to fulfill its public health mission. One-fifth of those surveyed said they had been explicitly asked by FDA decision makers to provide incomplete, inaccurate or misleading information to the public. And two in five said they could not publicly express concerns about public health without fear of retaliation.

This is at the FDA, we're talking about, for heaven's sake! What did we think they were there for?

My brother's first reaction when I mentioned Merck in particular was a skeptical "harumph!" He said Merck was one of the worst when it came to "manipulation of data" in their clinical trials, and that they had been caught doing it more than once in the past -- back when the FDA had more teeth and actually performed a public safety service.

Doesn't everyone find it as shocking as I do that drug companies are not compelled to reveal to the public the clinical trial results used as a basis for FDA approval to market their product?

And did you know it was two NIH doctors who worked on the HPV vaccine for over 20 years and came up with the VLP technology that finally worked? Merck did not pay for this research at all -- they were given it (as was GlaxoSmithKline) and only had to do clinical trials then. And even those were cut short and the vaccine fast-tracked to approval.

I really hope that both the HPV vaccines' promise is realized. Bill and Melinda Gates are funding an organization called "PATH"'s program that is preparing to provide it free to developing (poor) countries -- IF they can surmount the cultural/religious barriers.

There certainly is a LOT of information on this out there on the Web, so I hope anyone involved in making a decision about using this vaccine for their loved ones takes the time to learn all they can about it first.

Here is just one very interesting article that raised a number of serious concerns about the safety of Gardasil, and I believe it's definitely NOT from a "questionable" organization.

http://www.inciid.org/article.php?cat=womansupport&id=433

INCIID is the InterNational Center for Infertility Information Dissemination, and this article is only six months old. It is the short version, but complete with many footnotes to sources, as well as links to the complete 2001 FDA meeting report on Merck's approval application for Gardasil, and the full version of the article at the NVIC (National Vaccine Information Center) Website.


Everything my brother told me seemed to shake down to "risk management," in the end, when it comes to our individual decisions to use any vaccines or medications. I have several serious chronic conditions and have to take no less than NINE prescription meds -- have for over five years. I worry a lot about the cumulative adverse effects over time, but like so many other people, I have to weigh the risks against the benefits and then hope for the best.


Oh, and lastly, I should say that what Kickysnana wrote in her post #152 in this thread was confirmed by my brother and in the research I read, too. Good post, my friend, and good work!

[AikidoSoul]

290. Excellent post! Here's a list of some of the crimes of drug companies, FDA and corrupted med/ sci

industry:

Here is PARTIAL documentation of this industry's criminal tactics:

Chem/ Pharm has now thoroughly corrupted the medical / science community at every level. Why anyone in this group would unquestioningly put trust in its vaccines --is worrisome.

The FDA has an extremely corrupted relationship with Chem/ Pharm. FDA's process of reviewing and approving drugs and vaccines that has become notorious for speed and greed.

Top FDA officials have actually colluded with Chem/ Pharm to HIDE problems with its products.

Top officials at FDA go to work for Chem/ Pharm after they leave FDA. It's a slippery revolving door with big paychecks on the Chem /Pharm side of that door.

And our U.S. tax dollars should fund this -- to the tune of over $350 per female?!

Here's a partial list of the documentation of corruption in this industry -- with its long tentacles in every area of science, politics and medicine.

The titles of the articles and reports are highly searchable by title and can be found in major medical / science journals, the Wall St. Journal, Alliance for Human Research Protection, The Lancet, and others:


Conflict of Interest: Profits vs Safety Congressional Investigations -- http://www.ahrp.org/ethical/CongInvestigat ...

US Senators Pharmaceutical industry holdings, 2004: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources /...

Oct 12: How Did the Vioxx Debacle Happen? USA Today / Lancet -- http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/10/12.php

Oct 4: Op Ed: Psychiatry on the Ropes--WP / Evidence-based Psychiatry -- http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/10/04.php

Oct 3: BBC PANORAMA TONIGHT - Taken on Trust - 13 years-Medical Deception -- http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/10/03.php

Sep 30: GSK Sales Reps told NOT to Divulge Paxil Data / Merck Withdraws Vioxx -- http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/09/30.php

Sep 28: SEC Focusing on Drug Makers Disclosure_ Continuing Medical Ed Changes

Sep 16: Black Box Warnings for Antidepressants - What's Next?

Sep 16: Tell the Truth About Antidepressants On Drug Labels & in Medical Journals

Sep 14: AHRP Press Briefing Re: Antidepressant Drug Risks

Sep 8: FDA Forced Wyeth to REMOVE Suicide Warning from Effexor Label

Sep 2: Antipsychotic Drug Use Doubled since 1996 in Tennessee Children - Why?

Aug 13: Time for a Drug Test Registry_Marcia Angell_Why NIH is Not Up to the Task

Aug 13: Bradshaw cancels appearance after SSRI-Citizen Press Release Announced Protest

Aug 5: Spitzer Expands drug Probe: Johnson & Johnson / New FDA analysis Confirms SSRI Risks to Kids - WSJ

Aug 4: FDA Approves Lilly's Cymbalta for Depression Despite Risk of Suicide

Aug 3: Drug safety Hearings-Sept-Congress/ FDA - Lilly Plans to Disclose Data

Jul 27: Bill Moyers: the Real Show...Congressional hearing was abruptly cancelled

Jul 26: Mosholder Suppressed Report Posted/ Bush Moves to Block Medical Suits - NYT

Jul 22: Concealed Drug Trial Results Mislead Doctors & Put Children's Lives at Risk - NYT

Jul 21: Cong Greenwood's version

Jul 21: Hearing on Antidepressants Canceled - Washington Post

Jul 20: Corruption of Cong by Pharma: Greenwood offered job / drops Pharma hearing

Jul 19: Clinical Trials Controversy Spotlights Flawed System - Psychiatric News

Jul 14: Statin-Cholesterol Guidelines--Industry influenced?

Jul 9: FDA Squelches an Article Raising Doubts on Safety Of Device to Repair Artery - WSJ

Jul 9: Paxil for Children: Safety, Efficacy Aren't Established - Letter WSJ

July 7: Pharma Influence: Penn Psychiatrist Files Whistleblower Lawsuit - Investigtion Confirms Medicare Chief Lied to Congress

Jul 6: FDA Failed to Enforce Law Requiring Drugmakers to Disclose Test Data - WashPost

June 30,2004: NYS AG Expands Pharmaceutical probe - Forest Labs

June 30, 2004: Response to Washington Post Editorial "Missing Drug Data"

Jun 28. 2004: Scientists Decode Secret of Getting NIH Grants - WSJ

Jun 27, 04: NIH Under Fire: Longtime Favorite of Congress - Wash Post / WSJ

Jun 26: Forest Labs Admits Concealment of data - Congressional Probe Expands

Jun 23: AHRP: Published NIMH Funded Prozac Trial Report Concealed Suicide Attempts by Teens

Jun 21: Antidepressants - USA Today Editorial / AHRP OpEd/ WSJ Editorial Bashes Spitzer

Jun 20: HMO physician applauds Spitzer's focus on information bias / NYT blind spot

Jun 7: Paxil induced suicides in US quantified - Glaxo Faces criminal action in UK over "suicide"
pills - Times

Jun 6, 2004: NY Times Editorial Gets it Right: When Drug Companies Hide Data

Jun 5: "Black Hole" of medical research--Negative Results Don't get Published - JAMA, WSJ

Jun 2, 2004: NYS Attorney General files suit against GlaxoSmithKline

Jun 2: NY Times Does it Again - Drug Advertisers Get Front Page Coverage to Boost SSRI Market

May 25, 2004: FDA role in suppressing damaging data - WSJ

May 24, 2004: More than 100 top regulatory officials represented industry as lobbyists, lawyers - Denver Post

May 18, 2004: Lawmakers accused leaders of the NIH of encouraging "the option of corruption."

May 17, 2004: Paxil Sales Plummet in UK (372K PDF)

May 16: Pfizer Admits Guilt in Promotion of Neurontin--Agrees to Pay $430 Million

May 7, 2004: NIH Panel Recommendations Fail to Resolve Conflicts of Interest

May 6, 2004: Interview with Shannon Brownlee (NPR)

Apr 13: Doctors Without Borders: Why you can't trust medical journals anymore

Mar 25: Antidepressant Controversy: Media Conflicts of Interest - New York Times

Mar 2, 2004: Ethics Policy Announced for NIH Officials - LAT

Jan 29, 2004: Antidepressant Makers Withhold Data on Children - Washington Post

Jan 25, 2004: ACNP Summary Report Criticized as "Junk Science"

Jan 21: ACNP - a pharmaceutical industry funded association of psychiatrists - claims SSRI Antidepressants don't increase suicidal behavior

Jan 7, 2004: FDA Sham Conflicts of Interest Policy

Dec 7, 2003: Stealth Merger: Drug Companies and Medical Research at NIH - LAT

Aug 15, 2003: Almost 1/2 of faculty on IRBs have ties to industry - Harvard Partners

Aug 3, 2003: Psychiatrist's Undisclosed Financial Ties Prompt Reproval - NYT

June 20, 2003: Time to put drug giants on trial - Scotsman (UK)

April 5, 2003: AHRP Comments: DHHS COI Guidance for Human Subject Protection

March 30, 2003: CNN: Drug Argument Embroils Psychiatrists, Pharma Companies

March 19, 2003: Conflicts of Interest Taint UK Gov panel investigating SSRI

November 22, 2002: Tonight PBS Is Science for Sale?

September 30: Ritalin Outrage: Congress_ Big Media Under the Influence of Big Drugs

August 25, 2002: Integrity in Scientific Research : Peer review ineffective - Institute of Medicine / Lancet / Science

August 1, 2002: Randomized Controlled Trials: Evidence Biased Psychiatry, an original article by David Healy MD, MRCPsych in which he challenges the scientific assumptions about the value of evidence obtained from randomized controlled clinical trials.
July 15, 2002: The Emperor's New Drugs: An Analysis of Antidepressant Medication Data Submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. By Irving Kirsch, Thomas J. Moore, and Alan Scoboria and Sarah S. Nicholls.

A meta-analysis of efficacy data submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval of the six most widely prescribed antidepressants approved between 1987 and 1999. They report that, although the difference in drug versus placebo response was statistically significant, approximately 80% of the medication response was duplicated in the placebo control. The accompanying expert commentaries reflect the broad range of reactions that such findings provoke. http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5 ...

Response to the commentaries Antidepressants and Placebos: Secrets, Revelations, and Unanswered Questions http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5 ...

July 15, 2002: Short Drug Tests, Fatal Flaws. Thomas J. Moore. Op Ed. Boston Globe

July 14, 2002: Corporate influence on medicine, budgets & investors

June 13, 2002: When Money Corrupts Medicine - Deaths Occur

June 13, 2002: In 1984 the NEJ M became the first of the major medical journals to require authors of original research articles to disclose any financial ties with companies that make products discussed in papers. In accordance with the NEJM policy, editorial reviewers could have no financial ties to the companies. In 2002, Dr. Jeffrey Drazen, the journal's new editor, abandoned the Journal's policy of containing conflicts of interest, claiming "it is becoming tough to find doctors to write such articles." The change, Drazen wrote in the June 13, 2002 issue of the Journal, is designed "to enhance the depth and breadth of the journal's content while ensuring that the articles we publish are not influenced by financial interests.'' The Boston Herald indicated that Drazen claimed: "We're strengthening the journal.'' But Dr. Jerome Kassirer, former editor of the NEJM, blasted the new policy.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_reg ...

June 8, 2002: Fraudulent Conduct that Takes Lives: Why Criminal Prosecution of Medical Researchers with Financial Conflicts, Who Fabricate Safety Data, has Become an Essential Component of Regaining the Integrity of Device and Drug Research in the United States
By James J. Neal, Copyright 2002

"Giant corporations are locked in a life and death struggle to provide one of a kind instrumentation with which a given operation 'must' be done." Editor, Michael Baggish M.D., Journal of Gynecologic Surgery.

"Rare is the disinterested researcher. It is a phenomenon found in every medical treatment using devices." "If you can't trust the studies, what happens to the profession and what happens to patients." John Wasson, M.D., Dartmouth, New York Times.

"We've lost our way. We've terribly, terribly lost our way. Science has been lost in the rush for money." Steven Nissen, M.D., Cleveland Clinic, New York Times.

"Organs punctured include bile ducts, bowel, small intestine, liver and arteries and veins. Data shows high morbidity." Pennsylvania Medical Society, comments on "hi tech" surgical devices.

Summary: In recent years, surgical instrument companies working through surgeons with concealed equity interests in devices, have created new procedures, to promote the sale of equipment. Corporations have created demand for new surgical procedures "through massive advertising campaigns to convince the public of necessity." Rutkow, IRA,

The Socioeconomic Tyranny of Surgical Technology. Archives of Surgery. Leading surgical researchers, with equity interests have fabricated surgical research to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of new procedures with device costs of $2,000-$5,000 per operation. One sales rep described his companies' philosophy as "dollars per procedure." Although the device industry has generated tens of billions of dollars in revenue using these tactics, serious surgical morbidity from many new device dependent operations has multiplied. Treating MD's and patients need law enforcement's assistance in deterring fabricated research data published by research surgeons with concealed equity interests in expensive medical devices, and new drugs. The question raised in this analysis is whether fraudulent medical research is taking lives, and if so, how many. For complete article go to:
http://www.redflagsweekly.com/new_frontier ...

June 5, 2002: APA Under the Influence of PhaRma

June 13, 2002: Vermont to Require Drug Makers to Disclose Payments to Doctors
By MELODY PETERSEN The New York Times. Vermont follows Minnesota in its efforts to contain the cost of medicine by requiring public disclosure of conflicts of interest. A law will require drug companies to disclose the gifts and cash payments they make to doctors. We have not heard of similar moves by states that have major medical centers such as: New York, Massachusetts, Maryland or California.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/13/business ...

May 30, 2002: Bitter Medicine: Pills, Profit & the Public Health - ABC News

May 23, 2002: FDA -Conflicts of Interest to be expanded - Washington Post

May 21, 2002: Bitter Pill for David Healy: academia under pharma influence

May 6, 2002: "Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Trials", a presentation by Vera Hassner Sharav before the U.S. Army Medical Department and Henry M. Jackson Foundation for Advancement of Military Medicine on Conflicts of Interest in Medical Research.

September 24, 2001: The American Prospect.
Pharma Buys a Conscience By Carl Elliott, MD, PhD

The issue of corporate money has become something of an embarrassment within the bioethics community. Bioethicists have written for years about conflicts of interest in scientific research or patient care yet have paid little attention to the ones that might compromise bioethics itself. Arthur Caplan, the director of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics, counsels doctors against accepting gifts from the drug industry. "The more you yield to economics," Caplan said last January, "the more you're falling to a business model that undercuts arguments for professionalism." Yet Caplan himself consults for the drug and biotech industries, recently coauthored an article with scientists for Advanced Cell Technology, and heads a bioethics center supported by Monsanto, de Code Genetics, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Geron Corporation, Pfizer, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Human Genome Sciences, and the Schering-Plough Corporation.

By no means does Caplan's center stand alone in its coziness with industry. The University of Toronto houses the Sun Life Chair in Bioethics; the Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics has a program in genetics funded by a $1-million gift from SmithKline Beecham Corporation; the Merck Company Foundation has financed a string of international ethics centers in cities from Ankara, Turkey, to Pretoria, South Africa. Last year the Midwest Bioethics Center announced a new $587,870 initiative funded by the Aventis Pharmaceuticals Foundation. That endeavor is titled, apparently without irony, the Research Integrity Project.

Bioethics appears set to borrow a funding model popular in the realm of business ethics. This model embraces partnership and collaboration with corporate sponsors as long as outright conflicts of interest can be managed. It is the model that allows the nonprofit Ethics Resource Center in Washington, D.C., to sponsor ethics and leadership programs funded by such weapons manufacturers as General Dynamics, United Technologies Corporation, and Raytheon. It also permits the former president of Princeton University, Harold Shapiro, to draw an annual director's salary from Dow Chemical Company while serving as chair of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Dow, of course, has been the defendant in a highly publicized lawsuit over the Dow Corning silicone breast implants as well as in numerous legal actions involving disposal of hazardous waste.

Part of the problem is aesthetic. It is unseemly for ethicists to share in the profits of arms dealers, industrial polluters, or multinationals that exploit the developing world. But credibility also is an issue. How can bioethicists continue to be taken seriously if they are on the payroll of the very corporations whose practices they are expected to assess?

Read complete article (free): http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/17/ellio ...

May 18, 2000. The New England Journal of Medicine. Is Academic Medicine for Sale?

By Marcia Angell, MD - Vol. 342, No. 20

Finding an editorialist to write about the article presented another problem. Our conflict-of-interest policy for editorialists, established in 1990, ( ) is stricter than that for authors of original research papers. Since editorialists do not provide data, but instead selectively review the literature and offer their judgments, we require that they have no important financial ties to companies that make products related to the issues they discuss. We do not believe disclosure is enough to deal with the problem of possible bias. This policy is analogous to the requirement that judges recuse themselves from hearing cases if they have financial ties to a litigant. Just as a judge's disclosure would not be sufficiently reassuring to the other side in a court case, so we believe that a policy of caveat emptor is not enough for readers who depend on the opinion of editorialists.

In this editorial, Angell discusses the extent to which academic medicine has become intertwined with the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, and the benefits and risks of this state of affairs. Bodenheimer, in his Health Policy Report elsewhere in this issue of the Journal, provides a detailed view of an overlapping issue -- the relations between clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry.

The ties between clinical researchers and industry include not only grant support, but also a host of other financial arrangements. Researchers serve as consultants to companies whose products they are studying, join advisory boards and speakers' bureaus, enter into patent and royalty arrangements, agree to be the listed authors of articles ghostwritten by interested companies, promote drugs and devices at company-sponsored symposiums, and allow themselves to be plied with expensive gifts and trips to luxurious settings. Many also have equity interest in the companies.

Read complete article (for pay) : http://www.nejm.org/content/2000/0342/0020 ...

May 18, 2000. The New England Journal of Medicine.
"Uneasy Alliance -- Clinical Investigators and the Pharmaceutical Industry"
By Thomas Bodenheimer, MD, MPH. Vol. 342, No. 20

How much influence does industry have over the work and products of the research community? Can practicing physicians trust the information they receive about the medications they are prescribing? Does the shift from the academic to the commercial research sector give industry too much control over clinical drug trials?

In this report, I discuss some of the problems raised by pharmaceutical-industry funding of drug trials, problems that may deepen as trials are increasingly conducted by commercial organizations. I interviewed 39 participants in the process: 6 pharmaceutical executives, 12 clinical investigators, 9 people from university research offices, 2 physicians with CROs, 8 people who have studied the process of clinical drug trials, and 2 professional medical writers. Each interview consisted of standard questions plus an opportunity for the interviewees to discuss the industry-investigator relationship in a general way. Several interviewees preferred not to allow the use of their names in the article.
Read complete article (for pay): http://www.nejm.org/content/2000/0342/0020 ...

May 22, 1999: This smashing NY Times editorial (below) should awaken the public and its elected policy makers to the need for reform our Federal human subject protection regulations so that patients don't become unwitting commodities.

THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL May 22, 1999 Patients for Hire, Doctors for Sale
People go to doctors because they assume the doctor will tell them what they need to do to stay healthy or get well. But in articles published in The Times on Sunday and Monday, the reporters Kurt Eichenwald and Gina Kolata have opened the door on a practice of medicine that few of us knew existed - a warped world in which patients have become commodities, lured into research projects for the profit of their doctors.

In pushing to create a supermarket of new pills, the pharmaceutical industry has created a frantic competition for patients on whom new drugs must be tested before they can be approved. A bounty system has evolved in which doctors are paid by drug companies to enroll research subjects with certain kinds of problems: $1,200 from Bayer for a patient with vaginitis; $2,955 from Merck for one with hypertension; $4,410 from SmithKline Beecham for a willing diabetic.

The devil's bargain is that the doctor knows that enrolling the patient is worth money, but the patient does not. It is a recruiting system with the potential to corrupt either the drug companies, because they are forced to outbid each other for patients, or the doctors, because they are tempted to enroll patients who may not be medically appropriate.

The articles reveal a whole research universe slipping out of control. A review by The Times of more than 300 recent drug studies, and more than 200,000 government research request files, found hundreds of thousands of patients involved and indications that some doctors make $500,000 to $1 million a year in recruitment bounties.

One Southern California doctor now in prison forged his patients' medical records and test results on a massive scale to boost his income.

In the past, most clinical trials of drugs were conducted by doctors at medical research institutions. But that system proved too slow at recruiting patients, so the drug companies and their contractors turned to doctors in private practice, tripling their number since 1990.
Meanwhile, the monitoring systems to protect patient welfare, already under fire for past performance, have shown no interest in the ethical conflict of doctors being paid to recruit their own patients.

Dr. Nancy Dickey, president of the American Medical Association, says that the bounty system is unethical by A.M.A. standards and that the organization will work with Federal regulators to try to end the practice.

They need to act expeditiously. The patient search has now begun to tap the poor populations of South America, threatening to corrupt the practice of medicine even more widely.

[xchrom]

314. and here's just SOME of what vaccines have given the world.

from polio and whooping cough to pneumonia -- vaccines have represented an engine so powerful moving modern civilization forward it's hard to quantify.

there problems in every aspect of society -- just hanf out for the dog threads.

liberals will continue to cut pharma off from the conduits of power -- but to say that pharma is evil that you seem to try to illustrate with your list is flat out wrong.

governments job is to look after the welfare of it's citizens -- that' one of it's first responsibilities -- if you have a child in school who's unvaccinated and he or she doesn't get deathly ill -- thank the parents of the kids who are.

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.


not hundreds -- not thousands -- but millions of people have been helped through vaccination.

[Liberal Veteran]

337. Hear! Hear! Could not agree more.

Every so often there is malfeasance by the pharmaceutical industry, but to use that as an argument to toss the baby out with the dishwater is ludicrous.

I'd be willing to be that pharmaceutical industry taken as a whole has saved more hundreds of millions more lives than they have ever killed if you take every mistake and cover-up of a particular drug put together.

Yes there have been mistakes and sometimes those mistakes had tragic consequences (thalidomide for example).

But those are the EXCEPTION....not even close to being the norm.

I'd be dead today if it wasn't for those evil pharmaceutical companies.

I have a disease that is nearly universally fatal when left untreated. It's called AIDS. Before 1981 and 1996 the death rate from HIV disease climbed EVERY SINGLE YEAR in the United States. Then those evil pharmaceutical companies came out with a few different drugs that taken together allowed people to control the replication of the virus and extend life to the point that HIV is now considered a serious, but chronic disease with treatment instead of a universally fatal disease.

I sometimes think the people who want to throw the baby out with the bathwater would rather the hundreds of millions of people that have benefited from pharmaceuticals would have died just to make their lousy point that the pharmaceutical companies are all just a bunch of evil parasites inflicting harm on the world.

[xchrom]

338. some people can't even figure out that they or their loved ones

are alive and healthy because the people AROUND THEM are vaccinated.

[rodeodance]

197. I have cared for women with cervical cancer. It is horrible way to die.

[mainer]

207. Why no similar uproar over meningitis vaccine?

Only in recent years has this vaccine been mandated for many incoming freshmen college students. Some states are mandating it as well, for all school-age children. It's a vaccine, just like Gardasil. Like all vaccines, it has possible side effects such as reported instances of Guillain-Barre. It's used to prevent an illness that strikes only 3,000 Americans a year, killing perhaps 300 and permanently disabling another 300. In other words, a fairly rare disease, albeit a devastating one. It's mandated in all U.S. military recruits.

Why scarcely a peep about this vaccine? Where was the outrage that some big Pharma company was making money off it?

Maybe someone can explain the difference in outrage between mengingitis vaccine and Gardasil. Is it all because rightwing moralists want girls to suffer for their sexuality? Is that what this is all about?

[Justitia]

208. Or over Hepatitis B? Which is also sexually transmitted. -eom

[mainer]

220. Maybe because MEN would die from hepatitis B?

Woo, if it means a man might die of it, out come the big guns to protect them. Full speed ahead with the vaccines.

But heck, these are just women's lives we're talking about. And we all know they deserve to die if they fool around.

[antigop]

212. What people seem to be missing from this whole debate...

Perry issued an executive order.

It's breathtaking to see the hypocrisy of people who are outraged over Bush's executive orders that ignore Congress.

Now Perry does the same thing and he's considered some sort of hero.

I asked the question above, and no one responded so I'll ask the question again....

Would the reaction be any different if Bu$h had issued the executive order instead of Perry?

[Justitia]

215. Not mine. -eom

[mainer]

216. Health rules are mandated all the time.

Public schools require immunizations before enrollment.

I don't see that this is different. Especially since there's an opt-out clause.

[xchrom]

218. absolutely.

this is about disease.

[antigop]

227. And the state legislature wants to examine the legality of Perry's order

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/legislature/16651586.htm

[antigop]

233. And are they mandated by EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR???? n/t

[matcom]

219. It's Saturday morning now and I'll answer your question directly

First. I would like you to reread my OP. Carefully.

As you are reading, I would like YOU to put yourself in the YOU position and REALLY imagine what it would be like if YOU were ME and YOUR wife was MY wife.

I'll wait........

Ok. Now that you have done that, tell me you really would care if it was an R or a D who was pushing this and tell me if you would care whether or not ANYONE got rich off of this.

Right now, as I type this, there is a team of scientists working on PRIVATE trials in Alberta for a cancer cure. They claim it costs less than $2/dose and will CURE breast, brain, rectal, and a host of other cancers. The Pharma companies won't touch it in this country because it cannot be patented.

If those trials turn out to be true, I won't care if Darth Fucking Cheney himself backs it.

Cancer doesn't descriminate based on political affiliation pal. I don't give a rats ass about 'motive' as long as it can save lives.

[Justitia]

223. Me, you & Dead-Eye Dick - LOL. But seriously, Pearls Before Swine, my friend.

You did a courageous thing with this thread, making a crystal clear illustration, yet hysteria still runs amok.

There will be a percentage of people, maybe a good percentage, that will stop, think & investigate.

Unfortunately, a very loud, different, percentage will run over your intentions like a Christmas Eve X-Box giveaway at WalMart.

For those cretins, I'm sorry.

I've about given up on this topic, I am soooo behind on real life trying to fight the good fight here.

Have a great weekend Matcom :hi:

[antigop]

224. sorry, matcom -- You don't know what their "motive" is n/t

[matcom]

225. Their 'motive' is to turn everyone gay with Frosted Mini-Wheats

but that isn't important right now

[antigop]

229. Well, some of us question what this vaccine will really do

And based on the characters and companies involved, those are valid questions to ask.

Again, I'm sorry you and your wife had to go through this.

But that doesn't change my mind that I will not allow my daughter to take this.

<edit to add> And Texans should be concerned if a precedent on executive orders is being set.

[Liberal Veteran]

243. Here's the answer.

The 4 non-infectious proteins in Gardasil will stimulate an immune response that will allow your body to produce antibodies that will destroy real hpv if you are exposed to it.

[antigop]

244. you didn't answer the question -- what precedent will Perry's executive order set n/t

[bpeale]

267. mine wouldn't be any different

[antigop]

279. and what is the NEXT executive order going to be?

Geez, I can't believe people are going along with this.

[tomp]

230. pure histrionics.

listen matcom, i'm really sorry you and your wife had to go through all that.

my wife died of breast cancer at age 38 after 2 years of hell, but i still would not want a MANDATED vaccine that might prevent it. i want absolute freedom over all health care decisions--period. i find your post offensive.

p.s.: i have hpv.
p.p.s.: i'm a nurse

[Justitia]

232. Wow - just wow!

:wow:

[matcom]

234. offensive?

instant ignore

[Liberal Veteran]

237. I work in the health care field also....it doesn't give you some special insight

...into everything health related.

I work in the health care field with lefties, righties, fundies, athiests, agnostics, moderates, etc.

Hell, I one of my instructors when I was in school said to me when she found out I had HIV that she could refer me to a naturopath who "cure" my HIV with herbs. (I politely declined that referral)

I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but 99.9% of the arguments AGAINST making the vaccine mandatory are based wholly on ideological reactions and junk science which I find a hell of a lot more offensive than someone sharing why they support this one hundred percent.

[PetraPooh]

252. Not junk science, just the lack of science. Proof before mandation.

[Sterling]

238. I find the overall tone of this thread to be offensive

offensive to the idea that DU is a place for intelligent, thoughtful discussion. The op in this thread and many of the people who support his op have been incredibly rude, condescending and several of the posts I see still up on this thread are a clear violation of DU rules.

I think people who want this should get it. I think those who still want more info should likewise be allowed to wait until they are comfortable with it or opt out altogether. The op and his supporters offered very little that made me feel better about this vac.. In fact I question from their behavior that they have done the necessary research to be in a position to know enough about the subject to be effective advocates for the drug.

The "peer pressure" ploy this thread turned out to be was an extreme disappointment to anyone who wanted to learn anything useful about the subject. I am unconvinced of anything by the op other than he is passionate about the subject to the point of losing the ability to be respectful of other view points.

[Justitia]

239. Pssst...your "shadow government" link doesn't work. -eom

[Liberal Veteran]

241. You want useful information: Here it is!

The ingredients of gardasil.


4 non-infectious proteins that stimulate the immune response which allows the body to recognize the real thing on acute exposure (which is how a vaccine works).\

Sodium chloride (aka SALT....gasp!)

l-histidine (an essential amino acid found in meat, dairy products, grains, mushrooms, and leaf vegetables.....don't want any of that stuff going in the body)


polysorbate 80 (an emulsifying agent found commonly in commercial ice creams)



sodium borate (a salt of boric acid.....but it's been used in biochemical technology for years without incident)

and get ready for the most shocking and controversial ingredient you could imagine:

WATER! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! (That's right folks!!!! The evil dihydrogen monoxide)


About the only component I can find in this that might be of any controversy would be the sodium borate, but at the doses it is in, it is hardly something to be alarmed about. You probably get more boric acid in your body by using it to clean your kitchen.

[AikidoSoul]

286. polysorbate 80 is not the innocent "ice cream" additive you describe. It has a history of problems

that are accumulating.

One thing that might shock DUers is that data on many chemicals are scarce. This includes chemicals used in drugs such as Polysorbate 80 --- (CAS NUMBER 9005-65-6):

One of the striking areas of study performed by Japanese scientists is based on the knowledge "....that this surfactant decreases the cellular content of glutathione."

Glutathione is extremely important. It's found in every cell of the body, and is essential for detoxification. Any reduction of glutathione would reduce the ability of humans to maintain health. Glutathione prevents oxidative stress in most cells and helps to trap free radicals that damage DNA and RNA. There is direct correlation with the speed of aging and the reduction of glutathione concentrations in intracellular fluids. As we grow older, levels drop, and the ability to detoxify decreases. Drugs and toxic chemicals reduce glutathione.

Here are two studies (of many) that found problems with Polysorbate 80 -- both deal with toxicity:

(1) ABSTRACT: Effect of simultaneous application of polysorbate 80, a nonionic surfactant widely used in pharmaceutical products, and hydrogen peroxide on rat thymocytes was examined to see if polysorbate 80 increases the susceptibility to oxidative stress because this surfactant decreases the cellular content of glutathione. Polysorbate 80 at clinically-relevant concentrations increases the cytotoxicity of hydrogen peroxide under the in vitro condition. Result suggests that polysorbate 80 may increase the susceptibility of cells to oxidative stress.

Polysorbate 80 increases the susceptibility to oxidative stress in rat thymocytes.
Authors: Tatsuishi T; Oyama Y; Iwase K; Yamaguchi JY; Kobayashi M; Nishimura Y; Kanada A; Hirama S.
Author Address: Laboratory of Cellular Signaling, Faculty of Integrated Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokushima, Tokushima 770-8502, Japan.Source: Toxicology. 2005, Feb 1; 207(1):7-14.

Abstract found at the National Library of Medicine at the National Institute of Health: link

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/f?./temp/~a5Lv2Z:10


(2): "Polysorbate 80 and E-Ferol Toxicity" - -- quote from that paper: "....especially the polysorbate 80. Concurrent with this suppression of PHA-induced mitogenesis was a decrease in the percentage of T11 lymphocytes." --Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Link:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/77/4/593

[Liberal Veteran]

294. Water is toxic in high dosages.

Some people seem to be unable to distinguish the fact that EVERYTHING is toxic in the wrong dosages.

[Justitia]

326. So, did I fuckin' tell you, or what? Do you work for Bluebell? -eom

[AikidoSoul]

334. That is a bogus argument. Water and synthetic chemicals are totally different

You are using an argument that was originally promulgated by the chemical industry itself. You're now singing one of the songs it wrote.

"The dose makes the poison" or "water too can kill" argument shouldn't change anyone's mind about the potential toxicity of synthetic chemicals. For starters, synthetic chemicals are made from petrochemicals and are completely different than water. Even in tiny amounts, some synthetic chemicals can have serious consequences on living organisms. Water in small amounts, unless it is contaminated, has never hurt anyone.


Big difference.:-)

[bpeale]

268. my problem is this

it should be an "opt in" not an "opt out" deal. that's my issue with this executive order.

[pitohui]

375. "opt in" is choosing to expose/infect/kill daughters of idiots through no fault of the young woman's

if it's "opt in" the baptists won't get it for their daughters, the mormons won't, the yahoos won't, every breed and brand of know-nothing will deny their daughter

you do not have to have penetration to get hpv, condoms don't protect (and who wears condoms with their husbands anyway) but the know-nothings aren't willing to understand this, as far as they are concerned only bad people get sick so they figure it won't affect them

most if not all adult women have some form of hpv, this is why we have to get pap smears every year and why almost all adult women "of a certain age" have had to have treatment for dysplasia ranging from simple freezing of the bad cells to surgery and chemotherapy

i think men have no idea how often this happens because i think most dysplasia is removed quietly by freezing and the man never even knows about it

it seems to me it pretty much happens to every woman if she lives long enough -- and i've had 2 friends who got full=blown cervival cancer in their twenties to boot!

so i can't support an "opt in" when i feel that "opt in" is sentencing those girls who have ninny parents to extra pain and expense -- and the increased chance of serious cancer

we presume that cervical cancer/dysplasia is easily treated at low cost, problem is not everyone can afford an annual pap smear because of the realities of poverty and lack of health insurance in our society, and sometimes young women feel healthy so don't even think of getting such a check-up if they are not currently sexually active, so the bad cells can progress to cancer -- cervical cancer is often very fast-growing, it is not like a brain tumor that can sit around for 5 years before anything much happens

[antigop]

236. matcom -- here is the danger that you don't seem to understand

You think the vaccine will save lives. Maybe it will -- maybe it won't.

Now let's say a year from now Perry claims by executive order that everyone needs to get an RFID chip implanted under their skin.

So where does this executive order business stop?

That's the part of this whole debate that people need to look at.

<emphasis not shouting> WHAT PRECEDENT IS PERRY'S ACTION SETTING?

I, frankly, don't trust Perry any farther than I can throw him. He and Bush are two peas in a pod.

What will Perry's next executive order be?

[antigop]

257. tapping foot -- still waiting for a reply from anyone n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

271. I agree with you entirely on this. eom

[antigop]

272. thank you -- I wish everyone would understand what is going on here n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

273. It is desensitizing us into becoming a slave society. They are doing it by the book.

Through fear.

btw... next step, if you don't innoculate your child, social services will be called for child abuse.

[antigop]

275. Thank you -- I am soo glad you see what is happening n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

276. Your welcome. I added something to that post on edit. Please read it.

[antigop]

277. OmmmSweetOmmm --- it's amazing that people don't question this

It's so obvious.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

280. People aren't aware of a lot of things that are going on. ie Real ID, the American Union,

The New Freedom Initiative (another great way to take your kids), cities placing cameras with microphones on every corner, etc. Big Brother is stretching his muscles and with slights of hand, will lull the populace into submission.

[antigop]

281. Absolutely! Orwell was about 23 years early...... GEEZ! Why don't people wake up? n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

284. It's called a block on information and also I believe that most people can only

assimilate a certain amount of information before their circuits blow. People are also so wrapped up in their day to day existence and just don't have a clue. Have you seen the video American's are Not Stupid? It's appalling! Here's the link
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE

I am also 55 years old and have seen the lies that government can perpetrate and how quickly people forget. Personally, I was very awake through Iran-Contra and the other atrocities our govt committed through the early 80s and then things happened (having a family and trying to cope) and I was lulled to sleep...until 9/11 and I had a rude wake-up call. I refuse to go back to sleep again.

Peace,
Ommmmmmmmmmm

[antigop]

302. Ommm -- I refuse to go back to sleep again, too

It's amazing that people want to subvert the constitution here.

I understand they have been through a lot -- but that doesn't mean we should subscribe to the "unitary executive" philosophy.

[antigop]

307. Ommm -- isn't it amazing that you are the only one who responded? n/t

[antigop]

308. Could some have a block on information because they are too emotionally attached? n/t

[Liberal Veteran]

270. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you seem more concerned...

...that this came from Perry than about any potential benefits or risks.

Would you be happier if an executive order came down from Dennis Kucinich?

[antigop]

274. it's the PRECEDENT that this sets

THAT'S THE ISSUE! <yes, I'm shouting>

Do we want ANY governor to issue executive orders on these matters?

The question remains: what precedent does this set?

And if we don't question it now -- what is the NEXT executive order going to be? Mandatory RFID implants?

[tammywammy]

295. ...

http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/press/exorders/

[antigop]

303. and I would strongly suggest that people read what executive orders are supposed to be used for n/

[BootinUp]

327. You are reminding me of a song by the Kinks...

Met a girl called lola and I took her back to my place
Feelin guilty, feelin scared, hidden cameras everywhere
Stop! hold on. stay in control

Girl, I want you here with me
But Im really not as cool as Id like to be
cause theres a red, under my bed
And theres a little yellow man in my head
And theres a true blue inside of me
That keeps stoppin me, touchin ya, watchin ya, lovin ya

Paranoia, the destroyer.
Paranoia, the destroyer.

Well I fell asleep, then I woke feelin kinda queer
Lola looked at me and said, ooh you look so weird.
She said, man, theres really something wrong with you.
One day youre gonna self-destruct.
Youre up, youre down, I cant work you out
You get a good thing goin then you blow yourself out.

Silly boy ya self-destroyer. silly boy ya self-destroyer

Silly boy you got so much to live for
So much to aim for, so much to try for
You blowing it all with paranoia
Youre so insecure you self-destroyer

(and it goes like this, here it goes)
Paranoia, the destroyer
(here it goes again)
Paranoia, the destroyer

Dr. dr. help me please, I know youll understand
Theres a time device inside of me, Im a self-destructin man
Theres a red, under my bed
And theres a little green man in my head
And he said, youre not goin crazy, youre just a bit sad
cause theres a man in ya, knawin ya, tearin ya into two.

Silly boy ya self-destroyer.
Paranoia, the destroyer

Self-destroyer, wreck your health
Destroy friends, destroy yourself
The time device of self-destruction
Light the fuse and start eruption

(yea, it goes like this, here it goes)
Paranoia, the destroyer
(heres to paranoia)
Paranoia, the destroyer
(hey hey, here it goes)
Paranoia, the destroyer
(and it goes like this)

Paranoia, the destroyer
(and it goes like this.)

[antigop]

330. some of us live in the reality-based community and know the dangers of what is going on n/t

[BootinUp]

332. sleep tight....n/t

[antigop]

333. Ignore what is going on at your own peril n/t

[Liberal Veteran]

240. And for the hysterical anti-vaccination group, here is the list of ingredients for gardasil.

4 non-infectious proteins that stimulate the immune response which allows the body to recognize the real thing on acute exposure (which is how a vaccine works).\

Sodium chloride (aka SALT....gasp!)

l-histidine (an essential amino acid found in meat, dairy products, grains, mushrooms, and leaf vegetables.....don't want any of that stuff going in the body)


polysorbate 80 (an emulsifying agent found commonly in commercial ice creams)



sodium borate (a salt of boric acid.....but it's been used in biochemical technology for years without incident)

and get ready for the most shocking and controversial ingredient you could imagine:

WATER! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! (That's right folks!!!! The evil dihydrogen monoxide)


About the only component I can find in this that might be of any controversy would be the sodium borate, but at the doses it is in, it is hardly something to be alarmed about. You probably get more boric acid in your body by using it to clean your kitchen.

[Justitia]

242. Oh Boy, are you asking for it. You must be a mbr of the ice cream lobby. -eom

[BootinUp]

254. lol.

This "debate" is ridiculous. Part of the governments job is to run public health programs to prevent the spread of disease. The benefits of having such programs far outweigh the negative aspects.

[antigop]

258. The issue is a governor's executive order and what precedent it will set

I'm sorry if people don't understand what is going on here.

[mzmolly]

287. Hey, you forgot aluminum!

;) :hi: But, I still love ya LV.

List of Gardasil ingredients: http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic4/gardasil.htm

"Aluminum in the bloodstream may lead to neurological symptoms and may be fatal."

Source: http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=39609

Also - Signs of aluminum toxicity include: http://www.med.nyu.edu/patientcare/library/article.html?ChunkIID=164929

* Muscle weakness
* Bone pain
* Fractures that do not heal
* Altered mental status
* Premature osteoporosis
* Anemia
* Impaired iron absorption
* Impaired immunity

Here is a recent study that may pertain to the discussion?

http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:1711482

Neuromolecular Med. 2007 ;9 (1):83-100 17114826

(NeuroMolecular Medicine, Volume 9, Number 1, February 2007)

Aluminum adjuvant linked to gulf war illness induces motor neuron death in mice.

Michael S Petrik , Margaret C Wong , Rena C Tabata , Robert F Garry , Christopher A Shaw
Gulf War illness (GWI) affects a significant percentage of veterans of the 1991 conflict, but its origin remains unknown. Associated with some cases of GWI are increased incidences of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and other neurological disorders. Whereas many environmental factors have been linked to GWI, the role of the anthrax vaccine has come under increasing scrutiny. Among the vaccine's potentially toxic components are the adjuvants aluminum hydroxide and squalene. To examine whether these compounds might contribute to neuronal deficits associated with GWI, an animal model for examining the potential neurological impact of aluminum hydroxide, squalene, or aluminum hydroxide combined with squalene was developed. Young, male colony CD-1 mice were injected with the adjuvants at doses equivalent to those given to US military service personnel. All mice were subjected to a battery of motor and cognitive-behavioral tests over a 6-mo period postinjections. Following sacrifice, central nervous system tissues were examined using immunohistochemistry for evidence of inflammation and cell death. Behavioral testing showed motor deficits in the aluminum treatment group that expressed as a progressive decrease in strength measured by the wire-mesh hang test (final deficit at 24 wk; about 50%). Significant cognitive deficits in water-maze learning were observed in the combined aluminum and squalene group (4.3 errors per trial) compared with the controls (0.2 errors per trial) after 20 wk. Apoptotic neurons were identified in aluminum-injected animals that showed significantly increased activated caspase-3 labeling in lumbar spinal cord (255%) and primary motor cortex (192%) compared with the controls. Aluminum-treated groups also showed significant motor neuron loss (35%) and increased numbers of astrocytes (350%) in the lumbar spinal cord. The findings suggest a possible role for the aluminum adjuvant in some neurological features associated with GWI and possibly an additional role for the combination of adjuvants.

More about Gulf War Illness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_syndrome

Symptoms of GWI: http://www.immed.org/illness/gulfwar_illness_research.html

> complex signs and symptoms characterized by disabling fatigue, intermittent fevers, night sweats, arthralgia, myalgia, impairments in short-term memory, headaches, skin rashes, intermittent diarrhea, abdominal bloating, chronic bronchitis, photophobia, confusion, transient visual scotomata, irritability and depression and other signs and symptoms that until recently have defied appropriate diagnoses (see publications). These symptoms are not localized to any one organ, and the signs and symptoms and routine laboratory test results are not consistent with a single, specific disease.

Although there is not yet a case definition for Gulf War Illness, the chronic signs and symptoms loosely fit the clinical criteria for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and/or Fibromyalgia Syndrome. Some patients have additionally what appears to be neurotoxicity and brainstem dysfunction that can result in autonomic, cranial and peripheral nerve demyelination, possibly due to complex chemical exposures.

I should note that "Aluminum Hyrdoxide" is not listed as an ingredient in Gardasil "Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate" is, however please note: "The Merck Aluminum Adjuvant is a proprietary aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate based adjuvant used in other vaccines manufactured by Merck & Co." http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1097753 In other words, Merck has either mixed up a new batch of aluminum or ... just changed what they call it? From their HEP B package insert All formulations contain approximately 0.5 mg of aluminum (provided as amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate, previously referred to as aluminum hydroxide) per mL of vaccine. Their insert for the HEP B vax can be found here http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/r/recombivax_hb/recombivax_pi.pdf The GARDAISL insert appears to overlook the specific clarification I noted above? At least I searched the doc, and can't find any mention of the "previous" name for Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate.

For those interested here is a run down of some of the reported adverse incidents related specifically to GARDASIL.

Syncopal Episodes and Seizures. One-quarter of all reports filed after GARDASIL vaccination were for neurologic adverse events including loss of consciousness, syncope, syncopal events and seizures. An additional five reports included symptoms of dizziness and feeling faint.

...

Arthralgia, Joint Pain and Fever. Arthralgia is defined as pain in the joints. Concerns about arthritis were raised during the GARDASIL clinical trials. Reports of arthralgia in one or more joints accompanied by fever were noted in five instances from four young girls and women in Wisconsin, Texas and New York, and one 18-year-old New York male.

Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Reports state that two recently vaccinated 16-year-old girls - one from Illinois and the other from Mississippi - were diagnosed with Guillian-Barre Syndrome (GBS) following vaccination with GARDASIL. In both cases, the onset of symptoms occurred 13 days after vaccination. According to the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke: * GBS is a serious disorder in which the body's immune system attacks part of the peripheral nervous system. The first symptoms of this disorder include varying degrees of weakness or tingling sensations in the legs. In many instances, the weakness and abnormal sensations spread to the arms and upper body. These symptoms can increase in intensity until certain muscles cannot be used at all and, when severe, the patient is almost totally paralyzed. … Vaccinations can trigger onset of GBS.<3>

Other Adverse Reactions. Additionally, a number of other reactions to GARDASIL are noted in VAERS reports and they include: urticaria (hives); pruritus (itching); macular and papular rashes; blisters and vesicles near the injection site; swollen arms; lymphadenopathy (swollen lymph nodes); red, hot swollen knots at injection site; burning, stabbing, severe and radiating pain at the injection site and in the affected limb during and after injection; nausea and vomiting; infections and skin ulcers, and other allergic reactions.

The Source for the info above is the National VAERS data base, and was compiled by - http://www.909shot.com/Diseases/HPV/HPVrpt.htm

I AM NOT DRAWING ANY CONCLUSIONS ON ALUMINUM AS IT IS USED IN THIS VACCINE. Obviously any interested party should research Gardasil and it's ingredients etc. before coming to their own decision on this matter.

PEACE.

[Liberal Veteran]

293. Gee....just like Hep B , DTaP, and Pneumococcis vaccine and...

...nearly everything you eat, drink, and breath contains aluminum.

So do many over the counter antacids.

And hell, I can I can buy chewable aluminum hydroxide tablets over the counter.

[mzmolly]

298. It's in the anthrax vaccine as well which I noted in my original reply and I mentioned the HEP B

vaccine also.

I'm aware that they use AH in a variety of vaccines. Potential "side effects" may be an issue regardless which vaccine is used, obviously.

Also, aluminum in the form of Rolaids is not injected. However some suggest cumulative effects may play a role in Alzheimer's in various forms?

I feel that the information I posted above should at least cause pause and respect for varied opinions on this issue.

[mzmolly]

319. Adding to the record:

http://www.anthrax.osd.mil/resource/qna/qaAll.asp?cID=308#1001



1) What are the ingredients of the anthrax vaccine?

Anthrax vaccine is a sterile product made from filtrates of microaerophilic cultures of an avirulent nonencapsulated strain of Bacillus anthracis. These bacteria are grown with very little oxygen (microaerophilic conditions). The bacteria cannot cause disease themselves (they are avirulent). They are from a strain of anthrax that does not have a capsule around the bacterial cells (they are nonencapsulated). This means that the vaccine is the solution that results after filtration of a culture of anthrax bacteria. If you’ve ever seen percolated coffee, you know that liquid coffee is the filtrate and the coffee grounds are what are left in the filter. In this example, the vaccine is like the cup of coffee. Anthrax vaccine is known officially to the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) as "Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed," generating its abbreviation "AVA." Adsorbed refers to the fact that the vaccine is deposited on the surface of ("adsorbed to") a chemical called aluminum hydroxide. Aluminum hydroxide is added as an adjuvant to the vaccine to increase the amount of antibodies that the body makes in response to vaccination. Anthrax vaccine is a cell-free filtrate vaccine, which means that it contains no whole bacteria, neither live nor dead. The bacteria used to make the vaccine cannot cause disease themselves. For these two reasons, it is impossible to contract the anthrax disease from the anthrax vaccine. The final product is formulated to contain 600 micrograms aluminum per 0.5ml, added as aluminum hydroxide in 0.85% sodium chloride. The product is formulated to contain 25 mg/mL benzethonium chloride and 100 mg/mL formaldehyde, added as preservatives.

2) Why is aluminum in anthrax and other vaccines?

Aluminum is an adjuvant. The word adjuvant comes from the Latin, meaning "to help." Adjuvants are added to vaccines to increase antibody responses to vaccination. Aluminum salts are the only kind of adjuvant so far licensed by the FDA and the only kind of adjuvant used in anthrax vaccines for humans in the United States. Anthrax vaccine contains aluminum hydroxide, as do FDA-licensed diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, Lyme disease, pertussis, and tetanus vaccines.

...

5) Formaldehyde is not approved for human consumption. Why is it used in the anthrax and other vaccines?

Material Safety Data Sheets correctly warn people not to swallow formaldehyde. Small amounts of formaldehyde are approved by the FDA for use in manufacturing several vaccines, including vaccines against anthrax, diphtheria, hepatitis A, influenza, Japanese encephalitis, and tetanus. A small amount of formaldehyde, less than 2 parts per 10,000 (0.02%), is permitted by FDA to remain in the anthrax vaccine. Formaldehyde has been used in vaccine manufacturing since the 1960s, if not earlier. Literally billions of people around the world have been given tetanus toxoid processed with formaldehyde (as anthrax vaccine is), which is recognized as safe. FDA closely monitors all the ingredients and processing steps of all vaccines and other medications before they can be distributed for widespread use. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) are a method to explain chemical hazards, according to OSHA standards (see http://www.osha-slc.gov/SLTC/smallbusiness/sec16.html). For any given chemical, health hazards vary by amount of chemical (concentration), duration of exposure (time), and route of exposure (skin, stomach, lungs, etc.). FDA’s decision to permit formaldehyde to be present as residues in vaccines is based, in part, on the low concentrations and infrequent exposures involved. While it might not be prudent to have formaldehyde contact the skin every day at work, or to inhale formaldehyde fumes repeatedly, a few minute doses of formaldehyde in vaccines are recognized as safe.

[BootinUp]

296. The adjuvant is apparently a key ingredient

to stimulate the desired immune system response. The vaccine is worthless without it.
http://www.jibtherapies.com/content/3/1/2#B32

[mzmolly]

299. I've heard that.

Thanks for the info. :hi:

[antigop]

245. What will Perry's next executive order be-- mandatory RFID implants?

Texans -- you really need to look at what is going on here.

[antigop]

247. Texans -- are you really going to let Perry get by with this?

Do you really want Perry to have the power to issue executive orders whenever he feels like it?

What will his next executive order be?

[Justitia]

285. He does about one a month. Here's a link to his last 65. You can sign up to have them e-mailed to

you if you like:

http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/press/exorders/

[tammywammy]

292. Oh no you didn't

You didn't post that the Governor can already do Executive Orders?!?!

:)

[antigop]

304. sorry, some of us don't subscribe to the "unitary executive" idea n/t

[Justitia]

323. I guess someone had the crazy idea this had never happened before...

:beer:

[antigop]

309. and you need to READ what executive orders are supposed to be used for

This nothing but an attempted power grab by Perry.

And people need to stand up to it now.

[Justitia]

328. Well, why don't you link me to the TX Constitution, the part about "what exec orders are supposed to

be for"?

I'm all about gettin' educated on my own State's Constitution. :think:

[Rising Phoenix]

249. well said, and I'm glad your wife is ok

I had a scare a couple years ago with pre-cancerous cells....

Every girl should get this vaccine.

[Irishonly]

253. Congratulations

Congratulations to all of the cervical cancer survivors who have written. I am (in July) an eight year survivor of stage 4 breast cancer.

I celebrate the vaccine. No one should ever have to go through the terror of cancer and its treatment. It is not only the patient that goes to hell and back everyday, it is the family and everyone who loves her/him. After all of this time my daughter's fear is finally leaving although every time I have to have my grip load of tests every year I can see the fear in her eyes. Long story but because of the advanced cancer I get checked from head to foot and have had multiple other cancer screenings. My daughter has one more injection left.

I know there are parents upset but for me, I can't imagine not doing something that will protect my child. I had eleven months of aggressive chemo and while I would do it again in a heartbeat to save my life, I live with the chemo crazies (yes, they are real and in a few cases like mine, permanent), and other health problems even my poor oncologist had to admit probably were caused by the months of poison I put into my system. If any vaccine can prevent a virus that will prevent a cancer-any cancer I can't imagine not wanting to have your child to have it. Cancer survivors of any kind may have a different perspective than the "normal" population and I admit that I have never understood the "morals" that prevent a parent from seeking medical treatment for their children or themselves for that matter.

[Connonym]

262. Matcom, that was very touching

I wish your wife continued good health.

I will be having my daughters vaccinated. I believe the premise behind vaccination has a solid scientific basis, far more so than many other medical practices. I support the notion of vaccination in general because I think the benefit is greater than the potential harm. Mandatory vaccination isn't really mandatory, at least not where I live. A parent can opt their child out of vaccination based on religious or other personal beliefs. If you don't believe in vaccinations, don't vaccinate your children. You're still free to make that choice. It's that simple. Just don't assume those of us who vaccinate are all sheeple going along with the flow. Remember that your unvaccinated child is made safer by my child's immunity.

[NotGivingUp]

300. Hail! Hail! King Perry! I can't believe the number of people here who are going along with this. eom

[antigop]

305. I can't either -- people should be screaming and Texans should especially scream

Texans --- so what's next?

What's Perry's next executive order? And are you going to regret not stopping him now?

[NotGivingUp]

301. This thread has made it quite obvious that there is little hope for this country.

[antigop]

306. there is little hope if people don't wake up SOON and figure out what Perry is REALLY doing n/t

[WindRavenX]

311. yup

I've now read it all: HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer, it's not an epidemic, blah blah blah

:puke:

[antigop]

312. The issue is a governor's executive order and what precedent it will set

and what the NEXT executive order will be.

[LisaL]

310. That vaccine is not a panacea. It protects against some strains

but not all. Of course put the way you did-either the girl gets the vaccine or she will get cancer, the choice seems obvious. But I do not think it's that simple.

[matcom]

315. My LAST Post Ever In This Thread AND On This Topic

My OP WAS meant to make you think AND to scare you.

I make no bones.

My beautiful wife went through hell. LUCKILY, she made it through.

We have made many a decision in our lives based on our experiences with this shit. We also, have ZERO regrets. The positive is we now do many different things without regard for other's. We live for US, for WE is really all we have.

We do not have children so we don't have to make this vaccine decision. Her cancer took that option away from us. Don't feel sorry though because she has a child from a previous marriage and frankly, I never really thought I wanted kids. If we change our minds later in life, we'll adopt. Really the only option we have.

My original goal was to tell you all about the horrors of this disease and to encourage you to educate yourselves. Many of you on BOTH sides of this issue HAVE educated yourselves and I applaud you all. If you have decided this is NOT for you or your kids, AND you are educated, rock on. If you have decided this IS something you want to do, rock on. If you are a reactionary based on what Texas is doing or if you have no idea what the facts are and are against this for the sake of it, well, good luck in life. The world doesn't evolve around Texas (thank Gawd).

For those of you who have accused me of being "offensive" in some way with this thread, go fuck yourselves. Cancer is a bitch and I really appreciate you making the personal attacks at the expense of our misfortune. Again, you can disagree without the bullshit (or maybe you cannot).

I asked my wife's permission BEFORE posting here about this because it has caused MUCH pain in our lives to relive it. SHE was the one who told me to TRY and help other's out there with her story. It is painful to relive. I/We did it for YOUR benefit. Whether or not you agree, I really had hoped for a more dignified response.

What I got was hate mail and accusations as if this is something I made up or contrived to 'enhance' a point of view. You freaks couldn't be further from the truth.

It's funny. In my reactionary youth, I might have responded to those who have sent me hate mail over this thread with a hope that you DO experience what "WE" have been through. Not now at the age of 37 however. I don't wish this on ANY of you; friend OR foe.

To those people I only wish the best and a happy and healthy life regardless of what your decision is. This is too horrible to deal with no matter what the decision you make for your own family.

We attended a Richie Havens concert last night. He was magnificent. So caring, so loving, so funny. He has made a living being a true 'friend' to all in this world through his music. I only hope to be half the man he is. I mention this because I walked away feeling nothing but love for my fellow human. Sympathy, empathy, forgiveness, love. Richie will do that to you. I wanted to share 'our' experiences with you in hopes that it might help those who maybe haven't been 'touched' by this thing called cancer.

I'm not sorry I did even though it meant opening up maybe more than 'we' should have. If it helped ONE of you then my thread was 100% successful.

To those of you who hate me because of my sharing, I love you too.

peace out GD. you need it. see you on the flip side.

[mzmolly]

316. "If you have decided this is NOT for you or your kids, AND you are educated, rock on."

Thanks Matcom, threads like these can get ugly, but they are always an opportunity to learn and grow. I appreciate so much your sharing your story, and I wish you and your lovely wife all the best.

:hug:

[antigop]

322. and my goal was to educate you and everyone on what is really going on here

God help us all.

It's not just about Texas. This could easily happen in any other state.

And if people STILL don't understand what is happening, then they deserve what the consequences are.

Funny, but I thought DU'ers really had a grasp of what was going on.

Some of us DO have children and we DO care about the consequences <of Perry's action>.

I will take no delight in saying, "I told you so".


<edit to add> Ignore what is going on at your own peril.

[xchrom]

340. then merck has managed a miracle for itself{Hardly}

because this vaccine is going to be a global tool in the battle for good health.

i guess merck -- which partnered with a french company to create this vaccine -- has infested the four corners of the world -- and you can bet that some very good socialist oriented countries will mandate this vaccine.

the mandate creates a pathway for insurance companies to cover the costs of this.

but here's some info regarding who's on board and coming on board with this vaccine.


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/

this about disease -- this advancing good health and wellbeing people -- not about a mandate -- that people can opt of anyway.

[antigop]

341. uh, no -- it's about whether a governor should be able to issue executive orders on health care

Nice try, though.

I'm sorry if you don't understand.

[xchrom]

342. uh no -- it's about good health policy.

sorry if you don't understand.

[antigop]

343. I'm sorry if you don't get it n/t

[xchrom]

344. and i'm sorry you WON'T get it and i'm not talking about the vaccine.

[antigop]

348. I'm talking about executive orders -- sorry you don't get it n/t

[xchrom]

361. sorry you won't understand good working public health policy.

[antigop]

364. sorry -- you don't understand "unitary executive" and power grabs n/t

[xchrom]

366. sorry you don't understand good public health policy.

[antigop]

367. Sorry- you don't understand how you are being manipulated n/t

[xchrom]

369. Sorry your backwards thinking dangers the public.

if we're going to be ridiculous.

[antigop]

370. Sorry -- your thinking endangers our democratic institutions n/t

[xchrom]

371. sorry you're paranoid and have to resort to lies.

[antigop]

372. Nope -- no lies -- the truth -- Perry usurped power that was not his n/t

[Liberal Veteran]

345. It's a kneejerk reaction.

Mandatory vaccination is evil in your eyes.

We get it.

Some of us, however, have read up on what life was like prior to vaccinations and disagree with you.

Preventing illness is a GOOD THING.

[antigop]

349. you never answered my question -- what precedent will it set? n/t

[Liberal Veteran]

351. I'm pretty sure that precedent was set in the 19th century.

It's in the history books. You can look it up.

[antigop]

357. NO-- you still don't understand, do you? -- you didn't answer it

This is about a GOVERNOR issuing an EXECUTIVE ORDER dictating health policy -- NOT A LEGISLATURE.

It's ONE GUY.

[Liberal Veteran]

359. Good lord! What is that thing in my teapot????

It looks like a.....a....a...a TEMPEST!!!!

I understand completely what you are saying.

I just think there might be more important things to freak out about. It's not like he's mandating re-education camps for all liberals or declaring illegal aliens can be shot on sight.

If someone does something good, it's worth supporting.

[antigop]

360. He's not doing those things --- YET! That's the whole point. Give him a pass now, regret it later

n/t

[mzmolly]

352. I've studied data dating back to the early 1900's.

So, you can include me in on the > "SOME of us have studied life before mandatory vaccination" statement.

That said, have those who studied "life before vaccination" bothered examine the trade off?

Here is a snip of info regarding the VICP.

During the early 1980s childhood immunization programs fell into chaos. Vaccine manufacturers and healthcare providers were overwhelmed with liability lawsuits from parents who believed that their children had been harmed by the DTP vaccine, which protects against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (whooping cough). Companies that developed and produced vaccines halted or threatened to halt production and serious vaccine shortages developed. Childhood immunization rates fell.

To address this problem, physicians, public health agencies, the pharmaceutical industry, government representatives, and the parent-founded and operated National Vaccine Information Center called for a no-fault alternative to litigation for resolving vaccine injury claims.

...

The act also requires that doctors report all adverse events occurring within 30 days of vaccination to the VAERS. About 12,000 vaccine-related adverse reactions are reported annually; however, it is estimated that less than 10 percent of doctors file such reports.

http://www.answers.com/topic/childhood-vaccine-injury-act

Here is some info on the "claims" submitted to the NVICP.

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statistics_report.htm

Peace LV. :hi:

[TZ]

378. good for you!

Nice post. As someone involved in vaccine research and someone who has a cancer like condition that requires occasional mild chemo I applaud you. Don't understand the virulence that a cancer preventing vaccine or any vaccine seems to bring out here. :hug:

[antigop]

350. Unplug yourselves from the matrix, folks! Stop Perry while you can! n/t

[truebrit71]

354. My daughter will be getting this vacine.

No question about it.

Great post my friend, great post.

[antigop]

358. Read, learn, understand --- it's about "unitary executive" -- first POTUS -- now governor

Read, learn, understand....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22665-2004Oct10.html

>>
Since he took office, Vice President Cheney has led the Bush administration's effort to increase the power of the presidency. "I have repeatedly seen an erosion of the powers and the ability of the president of the United States to do his job," he said after a year in office, calling it "wrong" for past presidents to yield to congressional demands. "We are weaker today as an institution because of the unwise compromises that have been made over the last 30 to 35 years."

Cheney has tried to increase executive power with a series of bold actions -- some so audacious that even conservatives on the Supreme Court sympathetic to Cheney's view have rejected them as overreaching. The vice president's point man in this is longtime aide David Addington, who serves as Cheney's top lawyer.
>>

[Bridget Burke]

383. So start a thread on the "unitary executive"....

Instead of cluttering up threads on health issues.

Repeating the same phrase 666 times does not make it more interesting.

[Upfront]

373. Powerfull!

Thankyou!

[pitohui]

374. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

one of the best posts i've ever read on this site, matcom

one of the best i've ever read on any site

[mhatrw]

376. And what if someone's little daughter gets childhood arthritis BECAUSE of this

vaccine? What do you tell her and her parents?

What do you tell these little kids?

http://www.nvic.org/Diseases/HPV/HPVrpt.htm

A 16-year-old Illinois girl was vaccinated July 7th and 13 days later developed symptoms eventually diagnosed as Guillian-Barre Syndrome. A 14-year-old girl in the District of Columbia was vaccinated on July 11th and complained of severe pain immediately following the injection, fell off the examining table and experienced a 10 to 15 second fainting spell ending up in the emergency room with a headache and speech problems.

Remember that unlike 98% of medicines, procedures and therapies, vaccines are administered to a huge number of otherwise healthy people -- and, at least in this case, 99.9%+ of whom would never contract cervical cancer even without GARDASIL's protection.

Do you realize that the "control placebo" in the GARDASIL studies was an aluminum adjuvant recently shown to cause neural death in mice? Both the "placebo" groups and the vaccination groups reported a myriad of short term and medium term health problems over the course of their evaluations.

NY Times: http://tinyurl.com/2cyzsj

Article about aluminum injections causing neural death in mice:

http://www.straight.com/article/vaccines-show-sinister-side

The now published and peer reviewed study:

http://tinyurl.com/3xhtdz

[Nikki Stone1]

379. Kicking because the propagandist is at it again

:kick: