Forced HPV immunizations ?comment (sorry, long)
AnonymousFebruary 11, 2007 at 2:05 pm
As a Texan and mother of 2 girls, I have become increasingly concerned that Texas Governor Rick Perry signed an executive order February 3, mandating that Gardasil be required for girls before entering the sixth grade. Texas is the first state in the union to mandate HPV immunizations for school-aged children, but other states are currently in debate over this issue. Fortunately, my children are grown, but I can’t help but have reservations of implementing drastic enforcement measures for such a new vaccine.
I believe Gardasil may be a terrific breakthrough in the fight against cancer. I do not believe forced vaccination is – considering cervical cancer is not a communicable (classroom) disease such as the flu.
There have been no long term tests done to see how long the vaccine will last. Viruses are notorious for adapting to their environment. If girls are vaccinated at age 12 and are exposed to the virus at age 30, it is quite possible mutations in the original virus could render the vaccination ineffective, leading to a false sense of security and a heightened rate of infection (or a lifetime of boosters). Additionally, women may feel regular gynecological exams are unnecessary. Some may say, look at polio and how effective that campaign has been. True, but in that instance, everyone is vaccinated in an effort to eradicate polio. Hpv is also present in men; yet leaving men unvaccinated allows the virus to thrive.
I also wonder if – immune reactions will emerge as these girls mature – a number of autoimmune illnesses are disproportionably higher in women, and I speculate on the possibility of a trigger mechanism intertwined with female hormones. I am assuming that safety studies were performed (largely) on adult women whose immune system and hormones levels are stabilized. I have seen no evidence that the current proposal of vaccinating young ladies just at the time their bodes will undergo a significant transformation has been considered. Time will tell – this is an experiment performed on every little Texan girl.
Sorry, if I did not state my concerns clearly; sometimes I have a hard time expressing those abstract thoughts in the back of my mind as I read these news articles -it is with the intent to raise awareness of the current situation regarding the health and well-being of our children and grandchildren. I am not making a political statement (although I clearly have opinions), but hope to contribute important health concepts for each parent of our unique community to consider. Parents should have the option to make an informed decision based on their individual needs.
Others have expressed their concerns, particularly in regard to GBS here:
A group called the National Vaccine Information Center said yesterday that its analysis of reports to U.S. regulators found cases of serious side effects to Gardasil. One was Guillain-Barre Syndrome, a disorder in which the body’s immune system attacks part of the nervous system. Kerins said that no cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome were seen in Merck’s research program of more than 25,000 individuals.
First, the vaccine is barely 8-months-old, scarcely enough time to know how it will work. The truth is, even Merck doesn’t know how long the vaccine would be effective. A year, five years, 10? . . . . Perry ignores the side effects we already know: in just six months, 82 cases reported to the government, involving neurologic symptoms, joint pain, fever and Guillain-Barre syndrome.
Too many other issues come to mind to enumerate. Hopefully, my discussion will be perceived as an intellectual debate of parent’s rights/patient’s choice. Disagreement with any of my assertions is welcome as I consider opposing views part of a healthy debate.
AnonymousFebruary 11, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Before I got GBS I would have felt/believed differently, but now I too would be concerned about anything that could possibly cause someone to get GBS.
Vaccines would be high on my list….I used to get the flu vaccine, but no longer.
It also bothers me that government would mandate a vaccine for something that is not communicable and clearly not a “public health” issue.
I also understand that leaving some things up to “some parents” might expose some children to risks they ought not to have…… On the other hand “government” seems to want to be more intrusive and more controlling of our private lives and preferences than ever before…..
So, it’s a tough call on vaccines…… I can’t imagine how I’d feel if I withheld a vaccine from my child and it contracted polio, or later cervical cancer. I do know how I would feel if I permitted a vaccine to be given and my child got GBS from it!
I’m glad I don’t have to make those choices for anyone but myself.
AnonymousFebruary 11, 2007 at 7:09 pm
I have been reading this same articles and I find it highly disturbing that our lawmakers are listening to big corporate America about this vaccine.:mad:
First off the vaccine only protects agianist 1 type of cervical cancer, so why put anyone’s daughters at risk for other health problems that the pharma companies don’t know about yet.Their theory, “always use the public” for testing their products. 😡 Children have died because of adverse reactions to vaccines. 😡
Always about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.:mad:
Those that developed GBS/CIDP from vaccines seem to be the only ones who understand how medications have affected their lives.
AnonymousFebruary 11, 2007 at 10:05 pm
I worry about the “forced” issue. When I was in the military I was obligated to take what ever shot they said, even if it was an experimental anthrax shot. When you take Caesar’s coin you play by Caesar’s rules.
However, this is a whole different can of worms.
AnonymousFebruary 15, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Hi to all and keep questioning and ranting.:mad:
I have been writing lots of letters to newspapers that have published articles questioning this forced policy of an under-tested vaccine (including Bloomberg). If you set up a “google alert,” you can get the daily articles on [B]vaccine reactions[/B] and [B]GBS[/B]. This keeps me up-to-date on what is going on in the world.
Merck spent months on subtle advertising aimed at young women and their mothers who “want to know.” Once the mind-set was completed, they went after the government. Great!:confused: The Governor of Texas has no right to eliminate “freedom of choice” and “informed consent” from Americans. The public also needs real information rather than flashy advertising.
Those of us who became ill due to vaccines and had to file for the Vaccine Compensation Program know that the government acts as if anything goes wrong, just file. It is a demeaning and lengthy process that is seldom won by anyone. Not only do we need to protect our health, we need to protect our freedoms.
Sorry that I have been away for so long, but life does move on. I have slowly been able to walk more and work a little. Six years and my life still is a struggle.
AnonymousFebruary 17, 2007 at 1:01 pm
[I]I havent been on this thread for a while. CD,this is VERY concerning to say the least! I’m not sure why Perry has signed the executive order to mandate this. I know its illegal for them to recieve kickbacks, but could there be something to that effect in it for him that nobody will know about, possibly when he retires???? or is that just my overactive immagination:confused: 😮 . I for one would not allow my 14year old to be vaccinated because of all the anunswered questions.[/I]
AnonymousFebruary 17, 2007 at 5:48 pm
You know, this has been on my mind the whole day, since reading this thread this morning. I am getting more and more upset 😡 . I just cant believe this is happening, and all for the sake of money. Do [B]these people[/B] have no conscience, do they not care what harm [I]could[/I] be done down the line? After reading the articles more carefully, it is [B]obvious[/B] to me that Perry does NOT have the welfare of all those young girls at heart, nor does he seem to care. This could be a wonderful, effective tool in helping fight cancer, but why use a whole generation of girls as test guinea pigs? I just dont know how to vent now, feel like a caged animal 😮 .
AnonymousFebruary 18, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Most times, I just skate through life being spoon-fed the current flavor of topics on auto-pilot, but then every once in a while, my brain “turns on, and “tunes in” to an issue, such as this one. When this happens, I surprise myself when I take a closer look at my mind. To me, this is an issue that concerns us all – just think, Perry is setting a precendence where any governor, from any state can mandate any action he deems best, without the legislative process that represents the people. One thing I can’t figure out, is how one person such as Perry, even if he were Governor of Infinity-And-Beyond, could make such a sweeping mandatory proclamation? No one, as it now stands, has the power to rescind such a mandate other than the governor. Other states are currently looking at Texas, and no doubt, some will follow Perry’s example ( they think it will save the state money; and Ali, yes, I believe Merck has a strong “influence” on their decision.) This is so important to me, I am looking for a national platform to air my concerns (aside from writing Perry – I doubt it will have any effect on his part – he is buried in an avalanche of responses already).
Really, I’m not picking on Merck, but . . . .
Gardasil is Merck’s cash cow – they have taken a huge economical hit with their Vioxx. In addition, they are under current scrunity for another vaccine, RotaTeq, given to babies since its approval in Feb ’06. Gardasil could become a federally mandated vaccine if enough states show their support and this is the strategy that allows Merck to recoup their losses.
Concerning safety . . .
Check the VAERS database for reported events following Gardasil administration – no wait, here it is: ( over 400 to date)
Here also, is a summary of the findings:
I took a close look at the product approval information at FDA, and (surprise, surprise) here’s what I found:
“Each 0.5-mL dose of the vaccine contains approximately 225 mcg of aluminum (as amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate adjuvant)”
Aluminum is a neurotoxin:
BTW, did you notice, the clinical trials gave subjects placebo with aluminum adjuvant instead of just a harmless placebo (table 3). I was curious about this, and somewhere (sorry, lost link) it was explained this is a way pharmaceutical companies minimize ill effects of their product. It’s a numbers game – since there will be some possible side effects from placebo with aluminum, the range (of effects) to Gardasil is smaller than the range from harmless placebo (without aluminum) to Gardasil.
Table 5 is intended to show safety of the vaccine to girls in the 9 to 15 year old bracket. I hardly know where to start with this one – really, I believe Merck has not disclosed enough info for this to be truly useful. This statement bothers me:
“On the basis of this immunogenicity bridging, the efficacy of GARDASIL in 9- to 15-year-old girls is inferred.”
Also, note the different protocols used for the different age groups in this table – no info is provided to explain what this refers to. Anyone else think the small number of girls in this age group tested is sufficient? … or 14 days observation is enough to rule out adverse reactions?
“In all except 1 of the clinical trials, safety was evaluated using vaccination report card (VRC)-aided surveillance for 14 days after each injection of GARDASIL or placebo.”
One last thing, before I go back to sleep-walking through life (until I have another thought): if any serious harm results in the widespread adoption of this vaccine, Merck will be protected from liability.
All this time, energy, and money for an illness that has already been effectively reduced: cervical cancer, once a leading cause of death, is not even on the charts in the US, and is preventable by regular pap exams. Once HPV infected, it takes YEARS for cellular changes to develop, leading to pre-cancerous indications. In addition, having those regular exams will also provide you peace of mind concerning other serious infections (HIV, etc). Wouldn’t it be nice if Merck contributed this much of their resources to GBS/CIDP? We may be small in number of occurances, but I am certain that a substantial amount of Medicare/Medicaid resources are utilized in the long term care of illness and disability (not to mention loss of productivity from those who will never be able to work again).
I encourage your state to become “One Less” .(mandatory vaccination)
AnonymousFebruary 18, 2007 at 2:56 pm
I agree the vaccine should not be mandated but I’m also very excited about it. It will be on the Vaccine for Childrens program(already approved) for Arkansas-paid for with our tax dollars. But as an MD whose has seen the devestating conquences of cervical Ca I’m am more than glad to immunize my daughter. The plan is to offer it in the future for the boys but the funding is not there yet. It will cost the state millions already to vaccinate the girls. The cost savings in the future should pay off secondary to prevention. A lot of Medicaid(our tax) goes to pay for the TX of cervical Ca which is very common. I had GBS in 1/07 and I still believe in vaccine. We have virtually eliminated many childhood illnesses with vaccines and we and our children are better off. But, I do believe we should have an individual choice. And I agree Merck does want to profit- of coarse! But remember the pharmaceutical companies are funding the research for our future. Of course this research will be swayed by profit potential. Dr. Shawn
AnonymousMarch 30, 2007 at 10:35 am
Yesterday on Oprah, (March 29) the physician was pushing for mandating the HPV vaccine. But, she did admit that it only “protects” from the 2 most common strains (there are many more ~ just like the flu) AND that they “just don’t know yet” but may need to give a booster in 5 years. This same doctor has 3 sons ~ no daughters . . .
[I]The unknowns far outweigh the knowns.[/I]
AnonymousMarch 30, 2007 at 1:00 pm
[QUOTE=Judi Z]Yesterday on Oprah, (March 29) the physician was pushing for mandating the HPV vaccine. But, she did admit that it only “protects” from the 2 most common strains (there are many more ~ just like the flu) AND that they “just don’t know yet” but may need to give a booster in 5 years. This same doctor has 3 sons ~ no daughters . . .
[I]The unknowns far outweigh the knowns.[/I][/QUOTE]
Figures that she would push a vaccine for women when she doesn’t have any daughters. Wonder if the pharma company is paying her?????????????
AnonymousApril 3, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Dear Dr Shawn
I’ve a question if I may. I’m not trying to catch you, it’s just something that puzzles me lately. You mentioned that vaccines have all but wiped out some (childhood) diseases.
I was given to understand that this was the case for diptheria. Yet my child was recently offered a diptheria vaccine booster. When I made enquires, I was told that the vaccine given when children are around the age of 5 only offers immunity for 10 years. That would mean that anyone over the age of 15 has no immunity to diptheria. As I’d not heard of this booster before (though it may have been around longer than I know), I asked how there has not been a rise in diptheria and was told it was because of herd immunity. But herd immunity surely means that the majority are immune and, as the vaccine only lasted to the age of 15, most of the herd are surely not immune?
If it is a disease that ordinarily affects young children more than others, why give a booster at age 15? Has there perhaps been a rise in cases in those aged 15 to 25?
AnonymousApril 3, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Posted a second time so as to confuse the two and have Dr Shawn thinking I was addressing all my thoughts at him!
If this vaccine is to offered, why not offer it to the boys first? After all, as I understand, there are more unknowns within medical circles concerning the female than the male. Actually, to be fair, it perhaps would be best to offer it to adult males first.
When money and vaccines are mentioned in the same breath it raises my concerns. The more a company have spent on it, the more questions I would want to find answers too. In this rather material world, if you spend 500 on research you might be interested to discover whether that research is helpful or not. If you spend millions, you might be swayed in your eagerness to recoup your outlay and make more money at the same time.
That a country can enforce a vaccine without it going to the people to vote on is shocking to me.
This Perry chap -what medical credentials does he have?
If he makes a vaccine mandatory and it later proves to have been a serious error, who holds responsibility, after he is no longer in the same job? Is there a government department that would be answerable?
A doc who wants the vaccine made mandatory gets air time on the Oprah show that goes around the world I believe. When will other opinions be voiced on that show?
I don’t personally believe that pharmaceutical companies fund the research for our future. I suspect that a lot (not necessarily all, because I don’t know) of the research funded is far more concerned with their future., just as with any other business.
I also suspect that governments are in awe of some companies (particularly the big ones). After all, I doubt that most politicians are voted into office because of their medical expertise, their business acumen, their knowledge of particular fields or their ability to manage and glean the truth from rhetoric.
Those who received vaccinations were watched for 14 days? As GBS usually hits its worst in three to four weeks, I guess if you get GBS 3 weeks after the vaccine it couldn’t be caused by that so you’ve no come-back.
Didn’t someone mention that there was no GBS reported, or was it no adverse reactions? (I don’t seem to be able to find it now), in 25,000. As GBS apparently hits 1-2 people in 100,000, it would only have to hit one more person out of 100,000 who received the vaccine to show an increase.
If I wanted to avoid adverse reactions to a vaccine, I’d check out the vaccine. Then again, I run a trial for 14 days over 25,000 people as that might be an easier way of avoiding adverse reactions – well seeing them anyway.
Why did the company take a commercial hit with Vioxx?
Why is the same company under scrutiny regarding RotaTeq?
And why does a government want to make mandatory a new vaccine that comes from the same company that’s under scrutiny?
How come we again have a large company that makes something that proves not to do what it set out to do and then allow it to make something else, when that doesn’t exactly work, let it take over the part of the market it’s managed to mess up? We follow that up by allowing it new rights and ensure that those rights are protected under the law, no matter if it causes harm, distress or removes personal freedom.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.