Posted on 05/26/2007 1:55:38 PM PDT by Coleus
At least three deaths and more than 1,600 adverse reactions including spontaneous abortion and paralysis have been connected to Merck & Co.'s new vaccine for the human papilloma virus, a treatment the company has lobbied state lawmakers to make mandatory for young girls across the nation. The report comes from Judicial Watch, the Washington-based public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption. "The FDA adverse event reports on the HPV vaccine read like a catalog of horrors," said Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president. "Any state or local government now beset by Merck's lobbying campaigns to mandate this HPV vaccine for young girls ought to take a look at these adverse health reports. It looks as if an unproven vaccine with dangerous side effects is being pushed as a miracle drug."
One report, No. 275438-1, describes the reaction as coronary artery thrombosis, sudden cardiac death. "Given Gardasil vaccine dose #1 3/12/07. Collapsed and died on 3/26/07… Echocardiogram revealed very enlarged right ventricle, small left ventricle as well as large blood clots within both the right atrium & right ventricle." A second report noted that the woman was vaccinated and "died of a blood clot 8 hours after getting the Gardasil vaccine."
It was being facilitated by donations from Merck to Women in Government, whose members are women state lawmakers across the country, who in turn often were introducing legislation that would require young girls to be given the brand new vaccine in order to be enrolled in school. Judicial Watch said documents it obtained from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration under the provisions of the Freedom of Information provided information on 1,637 reports of adverse reactions. The reports of the deaths cited myocarditis, coronary artery thrombosis and pulmonary embolism as causes for the deaths. Besides the only hours-long lapse between vaccination and death, two other reports, on girls 12 and 19, reported deaths relating to heart problems and/or blood clotting, the Judicial Watch analysis said.
Jill Farrell, a spokeswoman with Judicial Watch, said its own tabulation uncovered 371 serious reactions among the 1,637 total reported. She said JW found more cases of serious situations than did the official government report, because of the way reactions were classified. "Stopped breathing later revived. … 13-year-old developed pain, sought physical therapy, later could not tolerate therapy due to pain. … Hives, sent home, found unresponsive by mother, who called 911, revived at ER…" Farrell noted. "You decide. If these were your children, would you consider these non-serious?" Of the 42 women who got the vaccine while pregnant, 18 experienced side effects ranging from spontaneous abortion to fetal abnormities, the report said.
"Side effects published by Merck & Co. warn the public about potential pain, fever, nausea, dizziness and itching after receiving the vaccine. Indeed, 77 percent of the adverse reactions reported are typical side effects to vaccinations. But other more serious side effects reported include paralysis, Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre syndrome (a disorder in which the body's immune system attacks part of the peripheral nervous system), and seizures," Judicial Watch said. Merck declined an opportunity to respond to WND requests for comment on the report. WND also reported earlier a researcher who worked on a vaccine for HPV is warning it hasn't been tested on young girls, is "silly" for states to mandate, and in a worst-case scenario even could increase cervical cancer rates. Researcher Diane M. Harper said giving such a vaccine to 11-year-olds "is a great big public health experiment."
The target of the vaccine is cervical cancer, since studies show that those who have HPV have a higher chance of later developing cervical cancer. However, opponents note that such cancers develop most often in older women, while the plan is to require girls as young as 11 or 12 years old to be inoculated. They cite the lack of evidence that the vaccine would have an impact later in life. They also question the imposition of a vaccine against a condition that is spread only by sexual contact. Merck's vaccine was approved last year by the Food and Drug Administration, but a doctor at the Centers for Disease Control's advisory committee on immunizations has reported that while the vaccine may be helpful, it should not be mandatory.
Merck has lobbied for its product by contributing financially to Women in Government, an organization for women state lawmakers, and at least partly because of that effort, almost three dozen state legislatures have been given proposals regarding Gardasil. Harper noted that the vaccine is not a cancer vaccine or cure – it just is thought to prevent development of a virus that could lead to cancer. She earlier had warned that Guillian-Barre syndrome had been reported among those who got the vaccine. The National Conference of State Legislatures set up a special website just to track and update the various campaigns. That site confirms that about three dozen states have had such plans introduced. But it shows slow progress in many locations. Officials with the Abstinence Clearinghouse noted in a position paper that groups including the Texas Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and the American Academy of Environmental Medicine have come out publicly against mandatory vaccination.
"The reasoning of these medical associations is clear. They are not opposed to medical progress, and certainly support all efforts to combat life-threatening diseases. The problem, as these organizations see it, lies in the fact that the drug only went through three and a half years of testing, leaving the medical community somewhat in the dark as to what serious adverse effects might result in the long term," the group said. "Along with the potential of serious adverse effects is the question of efficacy. There is evidence that after approximately four years, the vaccine's potency significantly declines. The long-term value of the vaccine has yet to be determined; if it wears off within six years, will girls and women need to repeat the battery of injections they originally received?" the organization wondered. "It is negligent to require any person, especially a child, to receive a treatment which might in the future prove to be dangerous," the group said. "It is pertinent to note that by mandating a vaccine, the state assumes all liability. If it causes harm to patients, to whatever extent, Merck is immune to legal retribution. No state ought to be so ethically or fiscally irresponsible as to mandate this vaccine."
Leslee Unruh, chief of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, told WND her organization's research shows that such vaccines actually can increase cervical cancer rates, because women believe they are "protected" by the vaccine, and fail to follow up with their physicians for routine exams. She also said Merck's campaign has extended far beyond state lawmakers, reaching into school districts and other organizations that are pressured to advocate for the vaccines. "They come in and shame these poor teachers and schools into sending out letters that make it sound like the best thing since sliced bread," she said. The NCSL said federal studies show HPV infects about 20 million people in the U.S. and 10,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer annually. Texas Gov. Rick Perry in February issued an executive order requiring those vaccinations, but the state legislature rescinded it, citing those concerns. Perry's reaction was to describe the lawmakers' policy as "social Darwinism."
"Banning widespread access to a vaccine that can prevent cancer is short-sighted policy," he said. Michigan was the first state to introduce a plan to require the vaccine to be given to young girls, but the proposal failed. Ohio also considered a failed plan in 2006. Then in 2007, after Merck's aggressive lobbying campaign and contributions to WIG, lawmakers in at least 39 states and the District of Columbia worked on sponsoring such plans. The Merck campaign's results so far include New Hampshire and South Dakota, which have announced they will provide the vaccine on a voluntary basis, and Virginia's requirement for the vaccine, although that was heavily marked up with exceptions.
The NCSL also confirms that Colorado also set up a fund to provide the vaccine, Indiana set up a plan to require the vaccinations and New Mexico is requiring that insurance plans cover the costs. A plan there to require the inoculations was vetoed. In Maryland a plan to require the vaccine was withdrawn, and a similar proposal was killed Mississippi. Utah has approved an awareness campaign. In California, the requirement is being set up for girls as young as 11. Lawmakers, instead of setting the requirement in the law, decided that an administrator shall adopt federal recommendations to impose the HPV vaccine.
There is something in logic that is a 'classic' fallacy, and it goes like this:
A follows B; therefore B caused A (in latin 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' I think).
Some lady has a vaccine and then 2 weeks later dies of 'coronary artery thrombosis' with changes highly suggestive of a chronic heart condition...and the vaccine is necessarily to blame? It might be, but it wouldn't be first on my differential diagnosis.
Vaccines all have risks...if you want the vaccine to try and get the protective benefit, you have to accept the risks (like possible Guillan-Barre with an attenuated/live virus base). For something like this that is not a public health menace the government should have no business dictating it's necessity...but still, people need to accept that NO vaccine is 100% safe.
The evidence that the vaccine caused the deaths listed in this case is circumspect at this point to say the least...but that doesn't keep those opposed to the vaccine (and the lawyers) from trumpeting the association in the furtherance of their agenda.
Be careful people...there may come a time that a vaccine is needed (and everyone will be clamoring for assuming the associated risk as the disease will be far worse)...and running the vaccine businesses out of business is not a prudent course.
You are defending Merck.
First the ‘ladies’ you claim were MINORS some of them
13 and 14. The normally die of accidents.
Second, vaccines ought to be about 100% safe if they
are used for a disease which otherwise generally
CURABLE (like cervical cancer) and which impacts only
a very small number of women.
Most of those vaccinated would have never got
cervical cancer in the first place, so there better
be almost NO risk.
Finally, since you are defending Merck, how many
women and little girls were treated to get about 1500
with reportable symptoms, signs and some deaths?
5000?, 20,000? [Do you think this number matters?]
ping
Thank God the Texas legislators refused to let our blow-dried idiot of a governor, Perry, endanger the lives of sixth-grade girls in Texas when he ruled this vaccine would be required in Texas schools.
We would not have had enough money in Texas to pay all the lawsuits this moron would have been responsible for.
Men are also getting cancer from HPV (see the articles on oral sex in recent months).
Any reason why this vaccine was only being forced on women? Would it not work on men? Was it easier to shove it down the throats of Americans by claiming this is a “women’s issue” thereby taking it off the table for discussion?
not sure it was a man/woman thing rather than
a company seeking younger targets.
the vaccine was FORCED onto prepubertal girls because
the women who took it got painful menses, spontaneous
abortions, infertility, strokes, death.
the company thought younger, more docile girls
would be better candidates if FORCED to take it by the
state. another advantage, there were already thousands
of complaints in older women, so perhaps the prepubertal
girls would at least not have the painful periods.
My point in post 18 was that all the risk was borne by women, even though common sense tells us that women generally contract HPV through relations with men. If Merck, state governments, etc., are truly concerned, they would want the vaccine to be used by anyone who might contract the virus.
Iirc, one of the arguments against this vaccine is that, in spite of the warnings, women who receive the vaccine will believe they can’t get cervical cancer, and therefore won’t get Pap tests. With early detection, cervical cancer is highly treatable, but it won’t be detected if women don’t get the test.
People like you say “anecdotal evidence” when a perfectly healthy child gets a shot and keels over dead. NOTHING is EVER good enough evidence for you.
Don’t bother arguing with statists, they won’t listen.
It would indeed be well to compare the ill effects documented following administration of Gardasil to that for other vaccines, since as you point out there could be some nonzero possibility of the ill effects happening anyhow.
But given the vigorous opposition to virtually ALL vaccines by a certain segment of the body politic, especially where mercury is involved, it is strange indeed that few such problems have been publicized in connection with non-Gardasil vaccines. Gardasil is genuinely looking like it is a big problem.
i tend to doubt it. this vaccine is targeted
at very young girls, not likely to have been
exposed to the hpv virus.
our daughter is just 6 yrs old and i am not convinced
she will ever get the vaccine. i’m not a big fan of
vaccines, in general, so when a new vaccine pops up
with very little long term research and it’s being
forced down your throat, i get very resistant.
I was emailing and phoning our state legislators when it first came up. Then the day they were voting on it, the drug company pulled the lobbyists in DC and I was on the phone again! They didn't care.
They claim it is no big deal because it is optional in SD...however, I had a local clinic try to PUSH it on my 12 yo when we went in for something totally unrelated. optional?!
I would like to know how much money was given to each of the state's Governors to push this thing.
Thanks for posting this thread!
We do? Please share them with us.
but notice no one is suggesting that we force all males no matter the age to be circumcised. >>>
I hear the violins playing. There is a solution, don’t have sex with uncircumcised males. Don’t have more than one partner, there are also studies that women with multiple sex partners have a greater risk of cervical cancer. Women should keep their legs closed; it’s that simple. Monogamy is the way. No woman will get HPV if she and her husband stay monogamous with each other. Abstinence until marriage and monogamy through marriage, it works.
Unfortunately, there are states that have and are. I heard that DC was going to require it for girls at the age of 9!! I hope this information causes the states to STOP it!
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/346/15/1105
http://general-medicine.jwatch.org/cgi/content/citation/2002/430/4
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2817902.html
Now you know too.
So do we circumcise all the males in Texas?
I second that thought!!
the legislators also need to be held responsible for not digging into it before passing the bill! (especially when their constituents were raising a cry about it, and they were ignoring it!)
then lets get into long term effects! how long has the drug been available? have they studied it over a period of 20-30 years to know what effect it will have on the babies of girls that were given this drug? NO. Case in point...DES! It was available in about 40 different names, and given to women to stop their lactating, among other things. If given to a mother while a female baby is still in the womb, that drug then not only effected the mother it was given to but also the baby girl she was carrying AND -- the eggs in that baby girl's ovaries for the next generation! We are JUST NOW seeing the huge effects of DES.
so this vaccine was to help deal with a cancer issue that strikes women in their early to mid 20's...yet the vaccine will not even be strong enough, at that point in their life, to do what it was tauted to do.
further, this vaccine will only effect 4 out of 40 cancers...so how is there a justification for mandatory shots? it is not a virus nearing epidemic proportions that anyone can get(ie. measles, mumps, chickenpox).
then i wonder...why are they making a vaccine for girls, and not for guys?! wouldn't it make sense??
i am currently seeing the effects of DES given to my mother's generation...now effecting my children and grandchildren. i do NOT wish this an ANYONE. this drug (HPV SHOT) should not have been released at this time and MERCK knows it. why do you think they suddenly pulled their lobbyist?
children are precious. their lives should be guarded and protected. sometimes that means even protecting them from things like the HPV shot.
i am done ranting now. i will go sit down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.