HPV Vaccine Mandates Risky and Expensive (Vaccine Safety Group Finds Serious Reactions, High Costs)

PR Newswire ^ | Feb 1, 2007 | Unknown

[Marie]

~snip~

since the CDC's July 2006 universal use recommendation for all young girls, NVIC found reports of loss of consciousness, seizures, joint pain and Guillain-Barre Syndrome. In a separate evaluation of costs for young girls being vaccinated in private pediatrician offices, NVIC discovered that parents living in the Washington, D.C. area will be paying between $500 and $900 to have their daughters receive three doses of GARDASIL.

"GARDASIL safety appears to have been studied in fewer than 2,000 girls aged 9 to 15 years pre-licensure clinical trials and it is unclear how long they were followed up. VAERS is now receiving reports of loss of consciousness, seizures, arthritis and other neurological problems in young girls who have received the shot," said NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher. "At the same time, parents who take their daughters to private pediatricians are going to be shocked to find that they will be paying two to three times the widely publicized $360 cost for the three-dose series. The cost is going to break the pocketbooks of parents and break the banks of both insurance companies and taxpayers, when the reality is that almost all cases of HPV- associated cervical cancer can be prevented with annual pap screening of girls who are sexually active."

~end snip~ (click the link above for the full story)

[SamuraiScot]

In its product manufacturer insert, Merck states that "Vaccination does not substitute for routine cervical cancer screening. Women who receive GARDASIL should continue to undergo cervical cancer screening per standard of care." Merck also states that "The duration of immunity following a complete schedule of immunization with GARDASIL has not been established."

This says it all. They don't know jack about this product for the use described (young girls). Merck has been a company in trouble for several years, and they've hired lobbyists to make this product mandatory in as many places as possible to get them over the hump.

Funny. Pfizer didn't have to pay anyone to get Viagra made mandatory to make a bundle on it . . .

[rwfromkansas]

And I can't believe I just said that on a website, but oh well.

[Old_Mil]

If you won't believe Merck, perhaps you'll believe the UT-Galveston medical school..

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is the known cause of almost all cases of cervical cancer. An understanding of the HPV genome has allowed the development of two prophylactic vaccines capable of protecting against both persistent HPV infection and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) with 100% efficacy in fully vaccinated women. The vaccines, manufactured by Merck (Gardasil, which was approved by the US FDA in June, 2006) and GlaxoSmithKline (Cervarix, which will be submitted for US FDA approval by the end of 2006), both target HPV types 16 and 18, which together account for 70% of cervical cancer. Merck vaccine also targets HPV 6 and 11, covering =90% of genital warts. These vaccines are highly immunogenic and have an excellent safety profile.

In 1772, a Rev. Edward Massey, preached and published a sermon entitled The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation. In this he declared that Job's distemper was probably confluent smallpox; that he had been inoculated doubtless by the devil; that diseases are sent by Providence for the punishment of sin; and that the proposed attempt to prevent them is ``a diabolical operation.''

We need not be like Muslims and start falling back on such archaic views.

[Marie]

However, we've vaccinated millions of people over almost three generations now and there simply isn't any serious scientific evidence that vaccination is harmful to one's health...I'd say that track record puts Gardasil in a different category than the other things you cite. Certainly medicine isn't perfect, but vaccination has a long and respected track record when it comes to preventing disease.

In 5 or ten years, when this vaccine has proven itself safe and effective, I'll pay out-of-pocket for my daughter to get jabbed.

Part of my resistance to vaccines comes from a family physician we had several years ago. I wanted to get the chicken pox vaccine for my kids and he was *very* against it.

My daughter contracted measles after being fully vaccinated. Makes me wonder how effective they really are.

My best friend's son had grand mal seizures a few hours after his first shots. The docs convinced her it was a fluke, he recovered and she brought him back for the next round a few months later. Again he seized.

Because there are side effects and consequences to all medical procedures and medications, it should be up to the patient (or their parents) and their doctors to make these decisions. Not politicians.

[Marie]

So are you going to do it?

No. Not now.

[Old_Mil]

My daughter contracted measles after being fully vaccinated. Makes me wonder how effective they really are.

Certain vaccines (influenza and the MMR), partial immunity can be conferred through a process that's a bit too long for me to get into here. In such cases, though you come down with the disease, you get a much milder form. For instance, in the case of mumps, you might end up with a transient illness measured in weeks instead of lifelong infertility as a consequences.

[TheDon]

It's amazing how many Freepers are running to the defense of this "little Eichman", the governor of Texas. It's disgusting. Is it because he is Republican? Or have these FReepers become infected by nanny state fever. Next they'll be saying socialized medicine is the way to go.

[Mrs. Ranger]

"*IF* this vaccine is safe and truly protects women from cervical cancer... *WHOOPEE*!! I'm there."

Ahh, but therein lies the rub - According to the latest Merck commercial, even they *don't* guarantee this vaccine will be 100% effective. "May prevent" is hardly a rousing endorsement.

Given the exorbitant cost, the apparent lack of long-term clinical trials, the increasing number of reported "side effects" that go far beyond those that Merck acknowledges, and the *fact* that Merck will only say that it *might* prevent only 4 types of HPV in *some* of those who receive the vaccine, I'd say you're wise to be wary. Sadly, this does not appear to be the "magic bullet" some appear to think it is.

[originalbuckeye]

This is my field. If I had a daughter I wouldn't have her get it. This will protect against a good many strains of HPV but not all. It hasn't had it's long term effects established. Most vaccines are for diseases that people get just by being near an infected person. Getting this virus is absolutely preventable. Meanwhile, HPV has been on the scene for a good many years but 40 years ago most cervical cancers were not caused by HPV. And there were a lot of cervical cancers then. This vaccine is not a silver bullet.

[Alter Kaker]

Gordon Liddy today agreed; called it the "slut shot" because by mandating it for all young girls it assumed they would all become sexually active as young teens.

Then Gordon Liddy is a horse's ass. 80% of American women have been infected with HPV at least once by their fiftieth birthday. 80% of American women are not sluts.

[Marie]

Thank you, buckeye.

As a mom, it's *my* job to be cautions. I have to question everything. My daughter *has* been vaccinated against MMR, polio, etc. and I don't regret that. ON DOCTOR'S ORDERS we didn't get her vaccinated with the chickenpox vaccine and she got through it the ol' fashioned way. I'm not against modern medicine, but I've learned the hard way not to blindly applaud drug reps' propaganda.

[Alter Kaker]

This will protect against a good many strains of HPV but not all.

Not all, just the strains that cause 70% of cervical cancer cases. That's not insignificant.

Getting this virus is absolutely preventable.

The only surefire way to prevent HPV is to join a nunnery.

40 years ago most cervical cancers were not caused by HPV.

That's just nonsense. This is your field?

[originalbuckeye]

Yes, a girl who is raped by an HPV positive man may get it. I do get tired of people trotting out a scenario that is mostly rare to use for making public policy. It's like the abortion lobby using the rape argument when most abortions aren't connected to a rape at all.

[originalbuckeye]

Yes, this is my field. When I went into this field the description of an altered cell with the name 'koilocytotic atypia' was fairly new. Those cells are now recognized as HPV.

[Kryptonite]

Getting this virus is absolutely preventable.

But getting the vaccine is mandatory.

Go figure.

[Old_Mil]

Clearly, this is not your field; if it were, you would be making accurate statements. It is the mortality from cervical cancer that has gone down...and that too, only in the US because of the early detection that pap smears provide.

Furthermore, the issue of preventability of this disease has been addressed already.

[Marie]

This is *not* my field; however, I'd like to throw in my 2 cents.

1. 40 years ago, sexual promiscuity wasn't was widespread as it is today.

2. If many cervical cancers are *not* caused by a virus, it would stand to reason:

3. ... that 40 years ago most cervical cancers weren't caused by a virus. 40 years ago, the viruses that cause cervical cancer weren't allowed the opportunity to spread. Most cases of CC would be caused by other means.

OB isn't wrong. 40 years ago viral-caused cervical cancers probably were rare because 40 years ago people primarily had sex with lawful mates who lived by the same moral codes.

[Old_Mil]

1. 40 years ago, sexual promiscuity wasn't was widespread as it is today.

I have no reason to believe that this is in fact the case. 40 years ago was 1967. Regardless, we treat what we find today, not what was found 40 years ago...

2. If many cervical cancers are *not* caused by a virus, it would stand to reason:

...and the vast majority of cervical cancer *is* caused by HPV. Cancers of the oropharynx are also caused by HPV, btw.

3. ... that 40 years ago most cervical cancers weren't caused by a virus. 40 years ago, the viruses that cause cervical cancer weren't allowed the opportunity to spread. Most cases of CC would be caused by other means.

Smoking does cause cervical cancer as well. While it is possible that it was the leading cause 40 years ago (which I seriously doubt), that still has no bearing on reality today.

[Sarajevo]

Mr. Perry is obviously seriously lacking in common sense or is just outright stupid as a rock

I think I'll need to flip a coin on that one...:-)