Deaths Associated with HPV Vaccine Start Rolling In, Over 3500 Adverse Affects Reported

LifeSiteNews ^ | 9/20/07 | John-Henry Westen

[darkangel82]

Merck ain’t gonna like it too much when their employees start going to jail.

[hocndoc]

Right. The incidence of blood clots in teens is so low I couldn’t find info on it.

However, they do happen and a lot of girls are getting this vaccine. They’re getting it the same day as the meningitis vaccine and some are getting it the same day they start birth control. (Not by my orders - I’m wary of the meningitis vaccine and don’t like so many variables.)

I’m convinced that what we’re seeing is the “selection error” that seems to happen when any medicine is introduced in large numbers to the widely differing population of the United States. This vaccine is produced using time-tested recombinant DNA and the research has been ongoing for about 8 years, now, so I don’t expect any big surprises from it.

On the other hand, there is the happy surprise - not really unexpected in this type of virus - that the vaccine gives at least partial protection for 8 more strains of the virus.

http://www.lifeethics.org/www.lifeethics.org/2007/09/gardisil-protects-against-other-hpv.html

[r9etb]

1. I don't trust anything that involves Judicial Watch.

2. The numbers are presented without context. We have no idea of the total numbers of people involved, and if the reported rates are statistically significant.

3. It looks to me as if they're saying that anything bad that happened (e.g., spontaneous abortion and birth defects), was due to the vaccine. No proof of causation is provided.

It may be a bad vaccine. But I think it's more a matter of JW finally reaching for that unbeatable source for contributions, a Medical Scare Scandal.

[Zechariah_8_13]

It looks to me as if they're saying that anything bad that happened (e.g., spontaneous abortion and birth defects), was due to the vaccine. No proof of causation is provided.

You can easily do your own research -- check out the VAERS reports for starters.

Do you know anything about how vaccines are tested? You'd be shocked! The test subjects are followed for 2 weeks. Any reactions after that point are considered unrelated to the vax.

Many vaxes are tested against "placebos" that are actually other vaxes, or contain the same preservatives and additives (aluminum, formeldahyde) as the actual vax.

Ever read an insert? "This vaccine has not been tested for potential carcinogenic, mutagenic or reproductive effects."

Here's an article on Gardasil from Cancer Monthly:

FDA Approval Not Based On Actual Cancer Prevention

The FDA-approved cervical cancer vaccine "Gardasil," has been debated for a number of reasons including its cost of $360 (plus the cost of doctors visits to get the shots) and the fact that it is approved for young girls and the moral and sexual implications associated with this. Up until recently, however, no one challenged the vaccine on the grounds of its presumed safety and efficacy. The fact that it is FDA approved was considered prima facie evidence that the vaccine is both safe and effective. We must remember, however, that the FDA that approved Gardasil is an agency with countless conflicts of interest that has approved drugs and vaccines that were later found to be dangerous or deadly such as Vioxx and RotaShield.

When Cancer Monthly began looking at the research that enabled this "cervical cancer vaccine" to receive FDA approval we were astounded to find that this approval was not based on the vaccine's actual prevention of cervical cancer. Instead a surrogate was used - precancerous lesions. We were pleased to see a recent article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) that echoed these same issues - "Questions on Efficacy Cloud a Cancer Vaccine" April 16, 2007; Page A1. The WSJ stated, "The Food and Drug Administration didn't ask its panel of experts advising on Gardasil to rule on whether the vaccine specifically prevented the cancer itself."

Cancer Not Measured

How effective is Gardasil in decreasing the incidence of cervical cancer? 100%? 50%? No one really knows because this question has not yet been answered. As of today, the Gardasil vaccine has never been proven to decrease the actual incidence of cervical cancer. In the studies that led to the vaccine's approval, the incidence of cervical cancer was not measured. Instead CIN (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia) 2/3 and AIS (adenocarcinoma in situ) were used as the surrogate markers for prevention of cervical cancer because according to the vaccine's insert "CIN 2/3 and AIS are the immediate and necessary precursors of squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the cervix, respectively." While this is true it is also true that CIN 2/3 and AIS usually do not lead to cancer. For example, according to published data, CIN2 only leads to invasive carcinoma 5% of the time and CIN3 only leads to invasive carcinoma 12% of the time.1

HPV Alone Insufficient to Cause Cancer

In addition, Gardasil is targeted against Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) (types 6, 11, 16, and 18). However, during discussions at the FDA it was admitted that HPV alone is insufficient to cause cancer. Dr. Elizabeth Unger of the Centers for Disease Control stated, "So it is believed that infection alone is insufficient to cause cancer, and additional factors are required for neoplasia. There are certainly lots of questions about HPV infection…"2 This point is echoed in the medical text book Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology whose editors include Dr. Vincent DeVita, Jr. who was President of the National Cancer Institute and Dr. Steven Rosenberg, Chief of Surgery at the National Cancer Institute. According to this text, "HPV infection is not sufficient for cervical carcinogenesis…"3

HPV the Correct Target?

This is of course quite rational. If HPV alone caused cervical cancer than the number of cases in the U.S. would be the same as the number of women with HPV infections. Since only a relatively small percentage of HPV infected women get cervical cancer this raises the question whether a vaccine against HPV is the right target at all? In fact, according to the text Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology, "In most studies, HPV status was not a strong independent prognosticator of outcome in cervical cancer patients; however there appears to be a trend for HPV-negative tumors to do worse …those tumors containing HPV DNA tend to be of an early stage and low grade."4 This suggests that if the goal is to reduce deaths from cervical cancer the target should not be HPV at all because the tumors without HPV actually "do worse."

Concern at the FDA

Obviously a vaccine designed to prevent cervical cancer should have measured cervical cancer during testing, but it did not. During meetings at the FDA, Dr. Karen Goldenthal of the FDA discussed this very point. She said, "Now, here is some advantages of cervical cancer as an endpoint. Clearly the major concern is cervical cancer. This would be viewed as very, very definitive data, and it may be easier to identify any unanticipated vaccine associated problems."5 Nonetheless, the FDA did not require that the actual number of cervical cancers be measured. As a result we now have an FDA approved "cervical cancer vaccine" that is yet unproven to reduce or prevent cervical cancer.

Leap of Faith

As quoted in the Wall Street Journal article, Scott Emerson, a professor of biostatistics at the University of Washington who sat on the FDA advisory committee, says he's not persuaded the vaccine is worth the billions of dollars likely to be spent on it in coming years. "I do believe that Gardasil protects against HPV 16 and 18, but the effect it will have on cervical-cancer rates in this country is another question entirely…There is a leap of faith involved," Dr. Emerson said.

End Notes
(1) Arends MJ, et al., Aetiology, pathogenesis, and pathology of cervical neoplasia. J Clin Pathol. 1998 Feb;51(2):96-103. Available here: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=500501&blobtype=pdf (2) Dr. Beth Unger. See Minutes from: FDAVaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, November 28, 2001, p. 21 available here: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/cber01.htm#Vaccines%20&%20Related%20Biological (3) Vincent T. Devita, Jr., et al., editors, Cancer Principles & Practice of Oncology, 6th edition, volume2, p. 1523 (4) Vincent T. Devita, Jr., et al., editors, Cancer Principles & Practice of Oncology, 6th edition, volume2, p. 1523
(5) Dr. Karen Goldenthal. See Minutes from: FDAVaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, November 28, 2001, p. 83 available here:
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/cber01.htm#Vaccines%20&%20Related%20Biological

[Zechariah_8_13]

Here’s the Gardasil vax insert (note: GARDASIL has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity.) :

http://us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_engerixb.pdf

Here’s the CDC Pink Book chapter on HPV:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/hpv.pdf

Here’s a chart showing the incidence of Cervical Cancer over time (has greatly fallen due to increased pap smears):

http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/sites.php?stat=Incidence&site=Cervix+Uteri+Cancer&x=17&y=11

Vaccine Ingredients and their Chemical Profiles:

http://www.wnho.net/vaccine_ingredients.htm

Vaxes created from aborted fetal cell lines (click “Vaccine Sources:):

http://cogforlife.org/

[mbraynard]

I think it’s more of a money thing.

[unixfox]

Pinging Rick Perry!

[Freedom2specul8]

bumped & marked to read more later

[mbraynard]

Something I wonder about in the long discussions of whether the government or the parents get to make this decision...

I imagine that if I was a parent, I would let my daughter decide. It's only being administered after the age of reason (not to say that 13 year olds aren't capable of incredible stupidity).

There are legit reasons for her to get it. Even if she is chaste until marriage, she is at risk for HPV unless her husband-to-be is a virgin. Men aren't tested for this strain of HPV and for men it has no side effects whatsoever (no sores, etc.) but, ironically, it's the most dangerous strain for women. While cervical cancer is one of the the best and most easy to treat cancer to get if you had to get one, it seems preferable to avoid the risk.

Of course, this is a decision that can only be morally made and funded by an individual, not a government.

[unixfox]

Every politician who voted for it should be forced to get it.

I agree. For every law these bozos pass, they should be FORCED to do the same. i.e take a mandatory drug and alcohol test. If they fail, fire em!!

That would get rid of about 90% of them.

[Gabz]

I imagine that if I was a parent, I would let my daughter decide. It's only being administered after the age of reason (not to say that 13 year olds aren't capable of incredible stupidity).

ARE YOU DAFT????????

This is being mandated in some states for girls as young as 9.

The Virginia mandate is for girls entering 6th grade, which means my daughter will be 11 (she just started 4th). I have no intentions of allowing an 11 year old to make that type decision.

16, maybe. 11 - no way will she make the decision.

since you are not a parent, I suggest you allow those of us who are to make the deicisons for our own daughters.

[NittanyLion]

Thank you for *defending* . . . erm. . .showing the other side.

Not a problem. Unfortunately this article is written by an organization with an obvious bias, and is pushing data that support what many folks on this site want to believe. As a result few can actually get by their emotion and look at the data. Because if they did, they'd realize the data presented is insufficient to make a judgment. The same goes for use of SSRI's.

[NittanyLion]

Did you notice the reference to the studies at the link? Those weren’t by lawyers, and they were peer-reviewed.

I'm afraid I'm a little suspicious of excerpts from studies posted on a lawyers' site without a link to the original study. In fact the only link on that page is one you can click on to begin a lawsuit.

Yep, no bias there. LOL.

Any response to the article I linked from the WP?

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Monkey Virus Alert:

What they don't tell you about vaccines may kill you...

More: Experimental AIDS Vaccine Fails

[Zechariah_8_13]

Here’s some more info on vax injury (re: your comment about proveable causation):

This is the link for the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/table.htm

The Table lists and explains injuries/conditions that are presumed to be caused by vaccines. It also lists time periods in which the first symptom of these injuries/conditions must occur after receiving the vaccine. If the first symptom of these injuries/conditions occurs within the listed time periods, it is presumed that the vaccine was the cause of the injury or condition unless another cause is found. For example, if you received the tetanus vaccines and had a severe allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) within 4 hours after receiving the vaccine, then it is presumed that the tetanus vaccine caused the injury if no other cause is found.

If your injury/condition is not on the Table or if your injury/condition did not occur within the time period on the Table, you must prove that the vaccine caused the injury/condition. Such proof must be based on medical records or opinion, which may include expert witness testimony.

(BTW, the Vax Injury Compensation Program exists because you cannot sue the vaccine manufacturer)

[neverdem]

thanks, bfl

[luckystarmom]

I’m in a bit of shock. California has cancelled an legislation to make this vaccine mandatory. It amazes me that California has actually done the right thing over other states. It’s like a first.

[Gabz]

You’re right, that is amazing.