Posted on 08/26/2009 5:11:05 AM PDT by Kaslin
I sat at a picnic table listening to various mothers discussing their hectic schedules trying to keep up with teenage daughters, all on the same sports team. When one mother told of squeezing in an appointment that morning to get her daughter the HPV shot that her doctor recommended, the conversation turned to the necessity to "protect" their girls in such troubling times. I stayed quiet, hoping to learn the values guiding these parents' decisions. Predictably, they had not thought through the issues, nor did they know the facts.
Those mothers were merely following doctors' recommendations and that of all the experts. Gardasil, the HPV vaccine, was approved in 2006 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for females as young as nine and up to age 26. It has been marketed as a protection against four types of the human papillomavirus (HPV). Merck, the company that makes Gardasil, claims that the drug will protect against two types of HPV that cause 70 percent of cervical cancers and two types that cause 90 percent of genital warts. Every federal health authority recommends the shots and, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about a quarter of the nation's 13-17 year olds have received the immunizations. The vaccine is on the CDC's vaccine schedule for 11- and 12-year-old girls, and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends it.
Even so, some physicians remain wary of the trend to give young children a new, largely untried drug. A study in a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research revealed that about half of the doctors in a survey of over a thousand physicians in Texas did not routinely recommend Gardasil for their pre-teen patients.
What those Texas doctors suspected, we now know for sure - that serious concerns are legitimate regarding the use of Gardasil. The highly-promoted, so-called breakthrough vaccine that was recommended for all girls and given to numerous children and teens to prevent possible future cases of cervical cancer, is related to "adverse events" experienced by thousands of girls after taking the vaccine.
In a just-released article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, federal researchers report that after analyzing 12,424 "adverse events" [out of the 13,758 reports of problems as of May 1] voluntarily reported by girls vaccinated with Gardasil that two problems are common. One - fainting - is not inherently serious, but can be if the girl falls and hits her head. The other side effect - "dangerous blood clots" - is quite troubling. Most of the problems with Gardasil (93 percent) are minor: headache, nausea, and fever. But a disturbing seven percent included hospitalization, permanent disability, life-threatening illness, or death.
"Adverse events" is a terribly clinical sounding description of such tragic outcomes. Perhaps more people should read the personal account of Jenny, a University of California, Berkeley professor's daughter who lost her life after getting the shot. (See Jenny's blog here)
Few parents would want their child to be among the 39 deaths to girls who had just taken the Gardasil shot. Nor would most parents want their child to take the risk of hospitalization, disability, or a life-threatening illness. Accurate information has not been forthcoming, including the fact that many additional reported cases of "adverse effects" had too few details. Thus, those cases were excluded from the study.
Even with the new information, numerous questions remain about the safety as well as the efficacy of the drug. Further, there are questions about the marketing of the drug. In fact, cervical cancer is relatively uncommon in the United States. The American Cancer Society reports under 4,000 deaths per year compared to the 250,000 deaths in other areas of the world, primarily in poor countries.
Plus, there are questions about Merck's grants to professional medical associations who promoted the vaccine's use without fully explaining the risks involved with taking the drug. Some doctors ask if the big push to sell Gardasil is Merck's method of making up the lost sales after their popular anti-pain medication Vioxx was banned. These facts raise questions about the appropriateness of recommending such a high-risk drug for widespread use among American children and teenagers.
In the wake of all the side effects, Merck has added warnings to the label on the drug. The warnings on all the labels state that some children receiving Gardasil have subsequent problems, such as autoimmune diseases, musculoskeletal disorders, paralysis, and seizures. Further, some doctors worry that not enough young girls were included in the clinical trials of the drug; they believe that there is really no way to know how pre-teen and teenage girls will react to such a high-powered vaccine. Merck acknowledges that the drug is effective for only five years, so giving the drug to 11 to 12 year olds hardly seems warranted.
Critics are especially concerned about the risk-benefit ratio of taking the HPV vaccine. Gardasil is very costly and most physicians recommend that women continue to get Pap smears, even if they have taken Gardasil. The known benefit of the regular Pap smear screening in preventing most cases of cervical cancer makes the benefit of the HPV risk uncertain.
In fact, Those mothers around that picnic table and the thousands of other parents concerned about the well-being of their daughters need to have all the facts and know the risks involved before subjecting their little girls to this new vaccine. States need to have these facts before discussing the possibility of mandating the vaccines for all pre-teen and teenage girls.
The current information is that the vaccine is effective for at LEAST 5 years, and that there are no adverse long term effects so far.
Of course, for a doomsayer who lives and breathes on fear, uncertainty and doubt, no length of time will be enough. If there were data available for 20 years, you'd just ask, "What about in 25 or 30 years? WHAT THEN!!??"
The vaccine works.
Cancer is a horrible, horrible thing.
The chances of being harmed by the vaccine are miniscule when compared to the benefit.
Information from FDA and CDC on Gardasil and its Safety (Archived)
A few important facts:
1) Until regular PAP tests were instituted in the US, cervical cancer was the #1 cancer killer for women.
2) About 4,000 women still die from cervical cancer every year in the US.
3) Since Gardasil was approved in June 2006, there have been about 20 deaths related to the vaccine.
If you're spending hundreds of hours on this issue and you haven't even begun, you've got a hobby horse, not a medical practice.
The reason that my being an attorney who practiced in the med mal area is important because I know who all the bad actor doctors are in town. And I know most of the major issues in the vaccine controversy.
More importantly, my being an attorney means that I know you are misinformed (or worse) on the issue of liability of vaccine manufacturers. Georgia allows such suits. The opinion is quite recent, Chief Judge Barnes was one of the panel, but I think somebody else wrote it. So in that respect I am absolutely positive that you have no idea what you're talking about. (And no, I'm not going to get on LEXIS and pay money to get you a cite. Go find it yourself.)
And I still haven't heard any apology for your sweeping condemnation of pediatricians. I hope your kids' pediatrician never finds out what you think of him.
Pediatricians make the bulk of their money off of “well visits” for vaccines.
_____
Can you document this assertion. As the parent who worked closer to the kid’s schools and the doctor’s office, I spent an awful lot of time in the pediatrician’s office (3 kids).
Certainly it is just anecdotal, but that just doesn’t square with my experience.
Could you elaborate on this please? The CDC doesn't seem to know anything about a morning after pill for HPV.
At which Third World Med School? More like 100 at mine.
Most pediatricians and FPs make the narrowest of margins on vaccines.
It was my impression that HPV was treatable if caught early, which it presumably would be with a rape.
I never said it was. Why object to solving PART of the problem effectively?
Cervical cancer has EXCELLENT outcomes with early detection.
Yes, but not as good as with prevention. And there can be a big IF involved with detection. Again, why object to prevention?
Of the 4000 women who die from it each year, over 50% of them have NEVER had a Pap smear. Of the remaining percent, there's no data... so we don't know if it's been 2 years, 4 years, 20 years since their last test.
OK, so those women who didn't get a PAP smear should just be left to die? What's your point?
The mortality from this disease gets lower and lower each year.
AGAIN, why object to prevention? Why impede something that PREVENTS the disease instead of just improving the survival?
Fully 85% of women contract HPV asymptomatically and clear it from their bodies with no intervention.
True, but those aren't the ones we're talking about, are they? This is meaningless information.
...a vaccine that is poorly tested,
Poorly tested, according to whom? That's quite an accusation. How SHOULD Gardasil have been tested?
...has serious side effects...
Serious, compared to what, exactly?
Any medication CAN have serious side-effects. It depends on the person. Your statement by itself is meaningless.
Out of over 16 MILLION doses distributed, there have been less than 10,000 (that's less than 1/10th of 1%) reported problems of ANY KIND. Of those reported problems, 6% were serious (that's 0.004% rate of serious problems overall) and there were 20 deaths.
16 MILLION doses since 2006, fewer than 10,000 problems, fewer than 600 serious problems, 20 deaths.
...is not tested for carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reproductive effects...
Is there any indication that such testing is warranted? There have been no indications that there are problems in those areas.
...has short-lived and somewhat dubious efficacy...
Evidence? There is NO evidence to support this claim. You're just making stuff up now.
Tests have shown NO decrease in efficacy over time so far. None.
... for a VERY remote chance of a very treatable cancer?
Define "very remote". The chance of contracting the cancer is much higher than the chance of an adverse effect from the vaccine. That's the comparison that really matters.
And why the preference for treatment over prevention???
Do you really intend to tell your daughter and mine that you'd rather they contract the cancer since it's "very treatable"?
I prefer prevention over treatment.
The seatbelt analogy is poor. Does a seatbelt inject you with toxins, adjuvants, and animal DNA? Does putting on a seatbelt cause seizures, fainting, birth defects, and cancer?
Oh stop the absurd scare tactics already! You sound like a liberal malpractice lawyer.
My comparison with seatbelts is quite applicable.
You have a greater chance of being struck by lightning than for your daughter to be harmed by this vaccine. Paranoid "what ifs" lead to poor decisions.
It’s undetectable until it has already infected the tissues. The only effective treatments are topical used against visible lesions (condylomas) which occur weeks to months after infection. Even destroying visible lesions doesn’t eradicate the infection. It can still cause malignant changes or more lesions.
Fast-tracked Swine Flu Vaccine under Fire:Toxic adjuvants in flu vaccines
Diseased African Monkeys Used to Make Swine Flu Vaccines
Swine Flu Vaccine Linked to Killer Nerve Disease:Guillain-Barré syndrome
Squalene: The Swine Flu Vaccine’s Dirty Little Secret Exposed
Polio Vaccine's Cancer-Causing SV-40 Virus from African Green Monkey Kidneys
Tetanus Vaccines, Spontaneous Abortions, and Population Control
Population Control
Postlicensure Safety Surveillance for Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Recombinant Vaccine
some interesting data
In some ways, I can understand why they have started their campaign with such young children. I've seen 11-12 yr olds come into the clinic pregnant. :( Additionally, getting some parents to bring their kids in for regular check ups can be more difficult as the kids get older. The clinic where I work cares for a lot of TNCARE/Medicaid kids so that's been my personal observance.
How are you going to prevent exposure through rape and marital sex?
They do purchase vaccines for the private insurance patients but they are reimbursed by the insurance company. A well child visit is 1x per year. A physician would probably make more money having to treat a patient who came down with one of those diseases than they would charging them $150 for an exam to test and administer preventative treatment. A sick visit is $80 just to walk in the door. Additional charges apply for breathing treatments, bloodwork, IV's, shots, hospitalization......
What are the side effects of the treatments and procedures used to treat cervical cancer? Biopsy, cryocautery, LEEP, hysterectomy, radiation, chemotherapy? How do the potential side effects and consequences of those treatments compare with the side effects from the vaccine?
Assuming the rape victim reports the rape and seeks medical treatment. That’s not always the case for many reasons.
Here are some cervical cancer facts from the 10,000 cases in this country in 2005:
1. About half the women had never OB/GYN.
2. Another 10% ahdn’t been to the OB/GYN in 5 years
3. The women in this country most at risk include:
—Older women, especially those older than 65.
—Women who are ethnic minorities, such as Hispanic and African American women.
—Low-income women, especially those who live in rural areas.
—Women aged 65 and older comprise 20% of all new cervical cancer cases and are 35% more likely to die of the disease versus younger women.
4. Smokers are about twice as likely to develop cervical cancer than nonsmokers.
HPV info:
The large majority of people cure themselves (usually without ever knowing that they had been infected). Average length of time from infection to cure is about 8 months. Most times, if low risk HPV is detected in a woman without symptoms, we would recommend only “watchful waiting” as treatment.
Early changes on the cervix which could lead to cancer are nearly always discovered on Pap tests.
ping...(Thanks, neverdem!)
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.