Posted on 08/11/2007 7:54:18 PM PDT by monomaniac
By Elizabeth O'Brien
OTTAWA, August 7, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Two Canadian provinces are introducing vaccination for human papilloma virus (HPV) into grade schools this fall despite many uncertainties about the drug's side effects and possible long-term complications.
Nova Scotia became the first province to accept the HPV vaccination last month. Since then the governments of Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador have announced their commitment to providing the new drug that is heralded as a protection from cervical cancer caused by the sexually transmitted virus.
Newfoundland and Labrador announced yesterday that the province is introducing a $4.6 million program to vaccinate approximately 2,800 grade six girls beginning this September. "This vaccine is considered one of the first and most successful steps young women can take to prevent cervical cancer and we want them to have the best advantage to avoid this terrible disease," said Newfoundland Health Minister Ross Wiseman.
"Over the past few months, we have been working in cooperation with our regional health authorities to develop a sustainable program for the delivery of this vaccine and I am pleased to say that we are proceeding as planned for the upcoming school year."
Likewise, the Ontario government decided to offer the vaccination to all grade eight girls this coming fall. Unlike the states of Virginia and Texas where the vaccination is mandatory, the Merck drug company vaccination program will at least for now be offered "free" and "voluntary" within Ontario schools, reports CanWest News. At the cost of about $39 million per year, approximately 84,000 young women will have the choice to be vaccinated.
The provincial plan to roll ahead with the vaccination comes in spite of warnings from medical researchers. Abby Lippman, a professor of epidemiology at McGill University, and her colleagues, conducted a study of the vaccine and published their results in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. According to CTV News, the report stated that the vaccination is "premature and could have unintended negative consequences."
The study questioned how long the vaccinations would be effective and stated that the poorly followed-up tests lacked sufficient data. It also warned that of the thousands of women who were tested with the new vaccine, only a mere 1,200 were sampled from the main target group of girls aged 9 to 15. In a recipe for biased results, the tests were either partially or completely funded by the company that manufactures Gardasil.
In addition, HPV infections have been decreasing in Canada as a result of the increasing availability of PAP tests, the study notes. These test for a broader range of cervical problems than the 4 protected by the vaccination. In light of these facts, the study cautioned against the vaccine, concluding, "Individual girls and women, as well as policy-makers, can make truly informed decisions about vaccinations only when they have all the evidence, and today, there are more questions than answers."
A total of 1,637 adverse reactions to the drug were reported to the Food and Drug Administration as of May 11 this year. In what Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton called a "catalog of horrors," the 371 serious side effects reported in this list included spontaneous abortion and fetal abnormities in pregnant women, paralysis, Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome and seizures.
Fitton stated, "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."
Commenting on the vaccine making new headway in the provinces, National Organizer of Campaign Life Coalition Mary Ellen Douglas told LifeSiteNews.com, "I think they can't usurp the rights of the parents in these matters." In addition, "there is no definite proof that this vaccine is not dangerous," she continued. "It hasn't been proven, so I think parents should have some concern."
Douglas stated, "If they spent more time teaching chastity and morality, they might not have to resort to this type of action. But they don't."
Referring to the fact that HPV is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections in Canada, Douglas continued, "They target the results, but they don't target the action that leads to the results. If they would just spend more time teaching morality and encouraging morality rather than doing something after the fact." She added, "There are all kinds of terrible things that naturally result from a lifestyle that should be discouraged rather than band aids with possibly dangerous vaccines."
Read previous LifeSiteNews coverage:
Canada's Conservative Government Distributes $300 Million to Provinces for Controversial HPV Vaccination
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07032106.html
New Mexico Close to Mandating HPV Vaccine for 6th Grade Girls Despite Lingering Questions about Safety
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07031408.html
Drug Conglomerate funds campaign to impose Mandatory HPV Vaccine on Young Girls
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/feb/07020204.html
Merck Drug Company Drops Campaign for Mandatory HPV Vaccine
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/feb/07022109.html
Texas Gov. Issues Executive Order Approving Mandatory HPV Vaccines for Girls 9-11
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/feb/07020505.html
HPV leading STI: Latest CDC Findings Report that Condoms Not Protective
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/feb/04020305.html
Nova Scotia Offers Free Human Papilloma Virus Vaccine to Grade 7 Schoolgirls
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jun/07062111.html
There may be perfectly good arguments against the use of this vaccine. This isn't one of them.
Every treatment ever developed has side effects and patients who have bad reactions.
Unless the incidence of these is compared to the number of vaccinations performed and the number of health problems avoided by the use of the treatment, it is impossible to make a judgment whether the treatment is a good idea.
For example, the US had over 20,000 cases of polio in the year immediately before the vaccine became available. Unfortunately, the vaccine itself caused polio in something like one in 1M cases, resulting in about a dozen cases a year.
That was a horrible tragedy for the dozen who got the disease and their families. But which is worse, 21,000 cases a year or 12 cases a year?
Focusing solely on the side effects of a treatment can result in very bad decisions being made.
I guess people in those provinces need to wake up and do some research as to what this "wonder vaccine" actually protects against. It is NOT a cure for HPV, in fact even if it performs as claimed, only 60% of cancer causing HPV viruses are affected by this "vaccine".
Of those 60% of viruses, they are most common in black women; While white and hispanic women are more likely to develop HPV related cervical cancers from the other 40% of HPV viruses which this vaccine does NOT provide any kind of protection from at all.
This vaccine is NOT a cure against any other type of STD, nor does it negate the need for regular PAP testing.
It is not known whether this "vaccine" provides long term protection against the types of HPV it's supposed to guard against, or whether booster shots are needed, nor has it been determined how often this may be required. This Vaccine has not been around and tested enough to determine if there are serious side effects as well.
Instead of giving vaccines in schools to the next generation of sexually promiscuous teens, and teaching them that casual sex, gay sex, group sex is an "OK" social sporting event, perhaps it should be taught what HPV is, how it is spread, how to avoid getting it in the first place, and that a single HPV infection is NOT what causes cervical cancer, it's repeated exposure to HPV infection that causes changes to cervical skin cells, and increased risk of developing into cancer.
Abstenance, as usual, is the best "cure" for all STD's, which because of wrong-headed teaching in schools, spearheaded by gay interest and anti- Christian groups, isn't being taught. Instead, Children are being taught to think of sexual activity as a loveless, social sporting event, not part of maturing, falling in love, getting married (to a person of the opposite sex) and starting a family as nature intended.
Your case might have some merit IF the claims of this “vaccine” were accurate, which they are not.
The uneducated will have a false sense of security, and that is already evident when you ask anyone what they think of this vaccine.
In truth, it leaves white and Hispanic women UNPROTECTED against the types of HPV which after repeated exposure causes cervical cancer in them.
So what if it MAY help in protecting 10% of the population against 60% of HPV. NOT telling everyone ALL the FACTS leaves 90% of women unprotected against the HPV types which is most likely to effect them, but because they THINK they are protected, they will forego regular PAP testing.
The end result will be an INCREASE of cervical cancers causing death, as well as an increase of health problems resulting from side effects already known, and perhaps some that aren’t known as present.
The best “cure” is abstinence, and living a clean, moral life.
Another issue is, if you want it, PAY FOR IT YOURSELF. Don’t steal MY money to pay for something I don’t want or need.
All this info can be found at the CDC site.
My criticism was of the article, not of the theoretical case against this vaccine, which I don’t really know enough about to comment on.
IMHO, an argument is made more effective by including all relevant data and then explaining why your argument is accurate anyway, not by ignoring critical data.
Unless the critical data blows so big a hole in your argument that your best option is to resolutely ignore it.
This product does not reach the level of effectiveness to be called a vaccine, or treated as a vaccine, nor be considered as a vaccine that is paid for out of the public purse in the interest of all.
A vaccine is supposed to be 97% effective against the target disease. Not 33%
I know, they claim 66%, but that isn’t true when you consider the HPV variants claimed to be guarded against are specific to certain racial groups.
I directed you to the CDC site. You should take the time to read through it carefully in regards to HPV.
I won’t bother going into this argument again as it has already been done several times on FR treads, which someone above has probably given links to.
Thank you, but I’m not really interested enough to educate myself on this issue.
My comment was with regard to the article’s choice of data to include and exclude, with no intent to comment on whether the article’s conclusions are correct or not.
Band aids? What a terrible analogy.
Discourage the lifestyle all you want, at the end of the day virgin bride / virgin husband marriages in which both partners remain monogamous will be the exception.
Those who deny the vaccination to their daughters are taking a substantial risk with their daughters' health.
When parents choose whether or not to vaccinate, they should imagine a balance scale. On one side of the scale is the proven high risk of HPV infection and the significant risk of subsequent cervical cancer, on the other side is the potential risk of an apparently safe vaccine that has been approved by the CDC.
I have only known one woman who died from cervical cancer, but that was one too many. If I had a young daughter, I would make sure she was vaccinated.
Exactly! Thank GOD for reason! After all, you'd get your kids all their other mandatory shots (MMR, TD, polio), right?
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.