Top researcher: 'Untested' vaccine could harm

WorldNetDaily ^ | Thursday, March 15, 2007

[A. Pole]

A researcher who worked on a vaccine for the human papillomavirus is warning that it hasn't been tested on young girls, is "silly" for states to mandate the vaccination, and in a worst-case scenario could even increase cervical cancer rates.

In a report published by the Indiana-based Daily News, researcher Diane M. Harper said giving such a vaccine to 11-year-olds "is a great big public health experiment."

Further, she said, requiring vaccinations now "is simply to Merck's benefit."

[...]

The new vaccine, Gardasil, made by Merck and Co., has been an issue recently because of Merck's aggressive lobbying at the state level to have lawmakers require that all schoolgirls at about age 11 or 12 be vaccinated with its product – at a cost estimated at about $360-$400 per child.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry in February issued an executive order requiring those vaccinations, but the state House of Representatives in Texas has approved by a 6-1 margin a plan to rescind that.

[...]

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 also reported that the drug company "bridged" the studies to apply to young girls. That means that Merck assumed that because it proved effective in the older girls, it also would be effective in the younger girls.

And she warned more than 40 cases of Guillian-Barre syndrome – an immune disorder that results in tingling, numbness and even paralysis of the muscles – have been reported in girls who got the HPV vaccine in combination with a meningitis vaccine.

She said the vaccine's purpose has been misinterpreted and mis-marketed so that too many may believe if they've had the vaccine they are immune to cancer – when they are not.

While calling the vaccine "good" Harper said it is important to realize that if women get the vaccine, but not an routine Pap smear, "what will happen in the U.S. is that we will have an increase in cervical cancer, because the Pap screening does a very good job."

Harper told the publication she's attempted to publicize her opinion for months, "but no one will print it."

[...]

[GrandEagle]

You are being completely dishonest and lying presenting the notion that the Polio Vaccine is a bad thing.
Nice mis-representation of my comments. I never insinuated such. My comments were comparing the oral to the injections - at the time my oldest daughter was getting the vaccine.

[HamiltonJay]

You are basing the risk you are taking on utterly false assumptions, you are assuming that because the US population in general is vaccinated and has very low rates of Polio infection because nearly all are, that a child not vaccinated is at a much lower risk of infection than they are.

Your's or someone elses claims of no polio infections in the US that weren't traced to vaccines since the 1990 or whatever is also completely false.

In 2005 4 unvaccinated children in Minnesota were diagnosed with Polio, and were not exposed to it through vaccine.

[GrandEagle]

no polio infections in the US that weren't traced to vaccines since the 1990 or whatever is also completely false.
Very well could be. That was just a quick search.
In either case, the chances of getting polio while not being vaccinated are nearly nil; and that is because of the mass vaccination of our nation - no dispute.
I actually had this very discussion with a very good friend of mine. His point is that since childhood diseases are virtually wiped out in this country, there is no need for his children to be vaccinated. A position I believe is hazardous and foolish.
The context of the discussion was that the HPV vaccine apparently has not been adequately tested in 9-14 year olds. I searched long and hard for information on this. There simply is no information available that I have been able to locate. From what I can tell, it should be fine, BUT i have no was of making an informed decision due to the lack of information.
Enter the polio discussion.
I was going from memory - as I stated. I was way off on the non-vaccinated rate - I admit. However, I specifically remember that I was stunned at the incidence of people who contacted the disease from the oral vaccine. My wife brought the drug fact sheet home after my oldest had taken the oral vaccine.
I don't remember it being 1 in 2.4 million - I remember it being - on the sheet I had - 1.something million. The reason I remember is because I was expecting it to be 1 in X.XX BILLION not million. I'll give you the 2.4 number though. In around 2001, when my daughter got the oral stuff, even 1 in 2.4 million was tremendously risky when compared to the injection, and was greater than what I could find at the time to be the non vaccinated risk.

To simply not vaccinate your children for preventable diseases is foolish - if it appeared I was taking that stand I apologize for not being more clear.
Likewise, to simply submit to mandated injections, and just "trust (insert whomever or what ever)" is equally foolish because drug companies have the bottom line at heart, not my children's best interest. Politicians have reelection at heart, not my families best interest.
Now, from time to time, my interest coincide with the politicians reelection interest, true; but to allow my children to be injected with a vaccine that as far as I can tell has not been tested adequately in their age group is poor parenting IMHO.

Cordially,
GE

[GrandEagle]

From the CDC in 2000.

Based on this it must have been in 1998 (she would have been 2) when my daughter got her oral polio.

As a result of the introduction of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in the 1950s, followed by oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in the 1960s, poliomyelitis control has been achieved in numerous countries worldwide, including the entire Western Hemisphere (1,2). In the United States, the last indigenously acquired cases of polio caused by wild poliovirus were detected in 1979 (3). In 1985, the countries of the Americas* established a goal of regional elimination of wild poliovirus by 1990 (4). In 1988, the World Health Assembly (WHA), which is the directing council of the World Health Organization (WHO), adopted the goal of global polio eradication by the end of 2000 (5). In the Americas, the last case of polio associated with isolation of wild poliovirus was detected in Peru in 1991 (6). The Western Hemisphere was certified as free from indigenous wild poliovirus in 1994, an accomplishment achieved by the exclusive use of OPV (GE's NOTE: A testament to the oral polio's usefulness many years ago.) (7). The global polio eradication initiative has reduced the number of reported polio cases worldwide by >80% since the mid-1980s, and worldwide eradication of the disease by the end of 2000 or soon after appears feasible (8).

[GrandEagle]

In 2005 4 unvaccinated children in Minnesota were diagnosed with Polio, and were not exposed to it through vaccine.
An excellent case for the continued use of the injection - especially with the ease of travel to and from any part of the world.

[Mygirlsmom]

Of course you are correct, and we actually do agree here - there absolutely needs to be a moral component for all the reasons you state.

As to your theoretical point, I dont' believe you can tie individual expendability in either case to being moral or not. It is what it is. There will always be some who win and some who lose no matter how the game is played. What I was trying to say was that-what shall we call it - "moral capitalism" gives more people the mechanisms by which they can become winners. Does that mean that more actually do? Not at all.

Thanks for the dialogue. I enjoyed hearing from you.

[HamiltonJay]

GE,

My appologies, I may have misread or misinterpreted some of you posts, I was under the impression you had been advocating not vaccinating children. (Sorry I do know people who for various reasons believe some pretty crazy and innaccurate things regarding vaccinations.)

I personally believe that people who do not vaccinate their children against dangerous preventable diseases do a complete disservice in general to the public health. I hear them often state infection rates that are just completley disingenuous, because they use statistics of risk based on total population, of which the vast majority are indeed vaccinated, so they believe the risk to their child is grossly smaller than it is.

As to the oral vaccine, yes their is a risk, as opposed to the injection, which has none, and I cannot speak to why the US decided to use oral vs the shot for some years. The numbers I found on the risk is 1 in 2.4 Million, which is an insanely small risk in terms of statistics, particularly for a disease that during unvaccinated times would kill > 1 in 10,000 individuals per year. But you are correct 1 in 2.4 Million is still higher than ZERO. I cannot speak to the reasons behind the change to the Oral in the US for some years...

My only reason for engaging you was simply to challenge your statistics of risk, because I have seen these type of arguments before, and they disturb me greatly. There is nothing worse than seeing a person or individual succumb to a disease that is by and large preventable.

This discussion started with the HPV vaccine, which you and I are indeed in complete agreement on, I do not believe it should be mandatory for kids.. The testing is not there on it for children of this age.

However, the flip side is, that because of the nature of everything in this country at present, politics and political world views have biased some of this general debate as well. Pundents, particularly from the right, classify HPV as an STD, implying this is the only mode of transmission, and if your daughter does not engage in intercourse, she cannot contract HPV. This unfortunately is not true. While most strands of HPV are completely harmless, and also true the overwhelming form of transmission of those forms that develop into the harmful cases are though sexual contact (not neccesarrily intercourse, but sexual contact) it is not the only way the virus can be transmitted.

HPV is an infection of the skin, most are harmless, and about 80% of people who have had sex have had some form of HPV infection. Most are none events, and clear up on their own. However keep in mind, this is a virus that infects the skin, and most times shows no outward signs. The hazard of HPV is when one of these dangerous strands gets exposed to the mucus membranes, and infects them.. this is what leads to some of these infections causing cervical cancer and genital warts.

Condoms are no guarantee against passing on the infection, because exposed skin can become infected and pass on the infection. It doesn't require the exchange of fluids.

Skin to skin contact is all that is needed to pass it on, and should any skin infected come in contact with certain areas of the body, it is theoretically possible for these areas to become infected. Yes, this is not the most common, not even close, but it is not merely "must have intercourse" to contract.

It is also rather funny you bring up the profit motive of the drug companies, as this too was something I responded to originally in this post. There is no doubt the drug company does not have your childs best interests at heart, but their own pockets.... This is what happens when Capitalism is revered more than human life.... Personally I think marketing of prescription drugs directly to consumers is a horrible practice, and it has done more harm to medicine since it became accepted than any other single event.

Drug companies can no longer claim they must charge so much to recoup their research costs, when they spend as much if not more than their research costs on marketing campaigns and even worse lobbying campaigns to make them mandatory.

MERC et al should be ashamed for this sort of thing, but they aren't, because the overlying Judeo/Christian morality that at one time was common among Company executives, and was the view under which they made their decisions, has been replaced with the world view of wall street, which leads them to simply forget the morality, what's the bottom line.

[HamiltonJay]

GE,

You are correct, that was the last outbreak prior to 2005 in Minnesotta where 4 children of an Amish community all contracted Polio, the youngest being 7 months. None had been vaccinated, and their exposure was not traced back to any vaccine.

The WHO has been trying to fully irradicate Polio, and its original plan was to have it declared irradicated by 2003, which of course did not happen. Mass vaccination programs have done wonders to bring down polio infections around the world, but I am not personally convinced that Polio will be able to be completely irradicated like smallpox was.

Unlike Smallpox Polio is not a human only disease, smallpox was only spread from human to human, so tracing back infections and vaccinating to prevent spread until no one was left alive with the disease making infection of new persons impossible was actually far simpler than they expected or anticipated.

Polio howerver is not an ONLY HUMAN disease, apes (possibly other animals) also can contract and develop polio, so even if every human in the world currently had the vaccine, and the WHO declared it irradicated and stopped vaccinations, the disease itself would continue to exist in the wild, and it would only be a matter of time until a human contracted it again if vaccinations were summarrily halted.

There has been a LOT of work done, most of it funded by the US to try to irradicate Polio (work and dollars we'll never get credit for in the world politic) It is truly amazing how far we have come with this disease, but its not over.


Update on your quotes, too... They pushed back world irradication to 2003... and since then have pushed it back again. The world has not irradicated polio completely... and like I pointed out above, I don't think they ever will be able to.

[statered]

Ya numbskull medicine has ALWAYS been profit based, just like everything else. You'd have a hard time finding enough people to practice medicine if they could't make money at it.

[statered]

Fen-phen was in suppliments - not FDA approved I think. Vioxx is not bad, like any drug it has a risk/reward profile. Problem was people were using it long term which was not one of its indications as I understand it. It is still a good and useful med if used appropriately.

[Malacoda]

Hrm. I objected, and was called partanoid (among other, less polite things). And some "lovely individuals" were actively saying that those who didn't get the vaccine for their daughters were condemning them to cancer...

[Malacoda]

...and VIOXX, and RotaShield...

[statered]

RA, you are a stand up guy.

[wagglebee]

Fen-Phen DID have FDA approval.
http://www.fda.gov/cder/news/phen/fenphenqa2.htm

It was later found that abnormal echocardiograms occurred in 30% of users.
http://www.fda.gov/cder/news/phen/fenphenpr81597.htm

And we can always discuss the FDA's handling of Thalidomide.
http://www.fda.gov/cder/news/thalidomide.htm

[GrandEagle]

I am glad we continued our discussion.
Our positions are very close and you brought to the table some points I was unaware of.
In investigating the HPV immunization, the Visit CDC site makes this statement:
The surest way to eliminate risk for genital HPV infection is to refrain from any genital contact with another individual.

For those who choose to be sexually active, a long-term, mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner is the strategy most likely to prevent future genital HPV infections. However, it is difficult to determine whether a partner who has been sexually active in the past is currently infected.

I was unaware of other modes of transmission. This should factor in the equation and since any decision made is only as good as the information at hand, I appreciate you taking the time to present it.

Another FReeper from another discussion on this topic told me that the HPV vaccine is actually made from a DNA extraction of the virus. According to him, the vaccine consists of only yeast with a shell grown from this DNA so that it fools the body into thinking is is the virus. I have been investigating this claim and have been unable to verify it. I have acquired conflicting information.
My brother is a pharmacist. One of his friends did his dissertation on this vaccine. My brother was able to get me a copy of it and I am studying it's references. According to this paper, the vaccine consist of a weakened strain of the virus much like the oral polio. I have no idea which, if either, are factual. The risk difference between to two potential types, I would think, would be substantial.
I am unable, at the present time, to adequately assess the risks of having my children receive this vaccine. This is complicated by the red flags raised by the deliberate withholding of this testing information from the public. Now I find that it may not have even been tested on 9-14 year olds at all.
Given that my oldest is 11, it poses a low risk of waiting until she at least fits into the test criteria; and in addition I gain more time to investigate it.
With the information you provided about transmission methods, the risk of waiting may be somewhat greater than I originally thought - just another factor to consider.

Not to beat a dead horse but; (there is always a but isn't there), I suspect that the oral vaccine was used earlier because it was cheaper and easier to manufacture and therefore could be administered to a greater number of the population. From a purely statistical point of view, that would have made sense back in the '50's - 70's when the infection rates were so high. In addition, I also suspect that there would be less resistance to taking the oral vs an injection. However, on a personal - it's my children - level, even back in the disease's heyday, I would have opted for the injection if given the facts. (/dead horse)

I agree, it is unlikely that the disease will ever be totally eliminated.
Thanks for continuing the conversation and I'm glad we cleared up the controversy.

Cordially,
GE

[HamiltonJay]

Well I am sure that the dissertation you have access to provides you with much better and more info than I personally have on this. Also I am not trying to say that the alternate transmissions are high risk, they are not, but just that it is possible to be transmitted without direct intercourse.. its a skin infection, not like many other STD's that are blood born etc. And most the time they clear up completely on their own...

IE even one of the bad strains of HPV could infect the skin of my forearm, and my body would likely irradicate it in time without any symptoms or other issues. However I am infected and that skin could pass it on to another ... etc etc etc...

As to how the vaccine is manufactured, I can't speak to that as I personally not having a daughter have not really researched it that deeply, but I would offer this advice... if a possible side effect is warts of any kind the vaccine is probably made from a weakened virus, not yeast with a modified shell.

I am certainly no expert on HPV, and yes, sexual contact is the most likely mode of transmission for the dangerous kind, however all it takes is contact of that area to an infection to theoretically spread it. That's my understanding of it... HPV while an STD is not like some diseases where blood or fluids must exchange to get infected... Its a skin to skin transmission.

[GlasstotheArson]

Shock of shocks. Ping.

The science community forcing unknown "tests" on people without known results for ridiculous amounts of money per person??? What is this! I've never heard such nonsense before. Ever.

[I got the rope]

There are lots of vaccines like this that can alter your genetic structure. Hepatitis vaccines for instance. It is absolutely crazy to allow the pharmaceutical companies to experiment on our kids and for the government to mandate so many unproven vaccines.

If I see one more BS statistical analysis on this subject (vaccinations) I think I'm going to vomit.

[Joan912]

I agree to a point. While the nanny-state government mandates continue to grow in all facets of modern life, this latest pharmaceutical stunt is unconscionable. Merck is only trying to make money for itself, the health of females be damned. The pharmaceutical industry has been strong-arming unsafe (or lethal, as in the case of RU-486) drugs into the public domain for years. It exists solely to make bucket-loads of money.