Experts raise worries about HPV vaccine

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...801?hub=Health

Experts raise worries about HPV vaccine

Updated Wed. Aug. 1 2007 6:44 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

A group of Canadian public health professionals says there remain a number
of unanswered questions about the HPV vaccine and that a universal
vaccination program in Canada "is premature and could have unintended
negative consequences."

Abby Lippman, a professor of epidemiology at McGill University, and
colleagues, conducted a review of the current literature on the HPV the
vaccine and summarize their conclusions in an editorial in the Canadian
Medical Association Journal.

They found that while it appears that the vaccine is highly effective in
preventing infection with HPV types 16 and 18 (currently thought to be the
cause of about 70% of cervical cancer cases), it's still not clear whether
reducing such infections will translate into fewer cervical cancer deaths in
the long run.

They note that rates of deaths from cervical cancer had been dropping in
Canada for years anyway, because of the widespread availability of
publicly-funded programs for Pap smear testing.

They also note that there are many gaps in knowledge about the vaccine:

a.. It's not clear for how long the vaccine will be effective;
b.. or whether a booster shot will be needed in later years;
c.. and there is also a lack of data, they say, on the effectiveness of
the HPV vaccine when given at the same time as other immunizations.
They also wonder whether a mass HPV vaccination program will lead to
reductions in safer sex practices and Pap screening rates.

And they note that relatively few girls aged 9 to 15 years were enrolled in
the clinical trials of Gardasil and the youngest of whom were followed for
only 18 months. Yet girls in this age group represent the priority target
population for mass vaccination.

And, they note, all of the reported HPV vaccine trials, whether of Gardasil
or its potential competitor Cervarix, were funded in whole or in part by the
vaccine's manufacturer.

Noting that Gardasil is the most expensive childhood vaccine proposed for
mass use (it currently costs $404 for the 3 required doses), the authors
point out that there haven't been any cost-effectiveness analyses to
determine whether the proposed vaccination programs will result in fewer
cancer deaths.

The authors provide some general recommendations for the development of a
mass HPV vaccination program, including a call for government to educate the
public about the realities of cervical cancer, HPV infection and HPV
vaccinations, and to support unbiased research to collect the data now
missing.

"It is time to take a breath and reflect on what we know and what we don't
know, and to develop a plan based on solid, reliable evidence that adds
value for everyone," the authors write.

"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."

On Aug 2, 5:26 am, "JOHN" wrote:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...70801/hpv_vacc...


Noting that Gardasil is the most expensive childhood vaccine proposed for
mass use (it currently costs $404 for the 3 required doses), the authors
point out that there haven't been any cost-effectiveness analyses to
determine whether the proposed vaccination programs will result in fewer
cancer deaths.

The most disturbing thing for me about the HPV vaccine is the 3
required doses.

Based upon what I can decerne from the WEB, it takes 3 doses of an
anti-fertility vaccine to make a female infertile. Is it possible
that the medical moguls are trying to make so many females infertile?
I would have to admit that this is better than WW3 or a nuclear war to
reduce the population, but will they really pull this off?

Will we really have to shoot the doctors to protect our daughters?

DrCee

wrote:

The most disturbing thing for me about the HPV vaccine is the 3
required doses.

Based upon what I can decerne from the WEB, it takes 3 doses of an
anti-fertility vaccine to make a female infertile. Is it possible
that the medical moguls are trying to make so many females infertile?
I would have to admit that this is better than WW3 or a nuclear war to
reduce the population, but will they really pull this off?

Will we really have to shoot the doctors to protect our daughters?

DrCee


The black helicopters are chasing you too much, update your tinfoil hat.

mkp removed from follow-ups.

Michelle
Flutist

wrote in message
ps.com...

Based upon what I can decerne from the WEB, it takes 3 doses of an
anti-fertility vaccine to make a female infertile. Is it possible
that the medical moguls are trying to make so many females infertile?
I would have to admit that this is better than WW3 or a nuclear war to
reduce the population, but will they really pull this off?

Will we really have to shoot the doctors to protect our daughters?

DrCee


wouldn't put anything past them, they were caught doing that to third world
women http://www.whale.to/m/sterile.html

lets hope MMR goes down in flames soon and the rest follow

"Michelle J. Haines" wrote in message
...

The black helicopters are chasing you too much, update your tinfoil hat.


go back to sleep dear http://www.whale.to/a/conspiracy.html

On Aug 2, 5:26 am, "JOHN" wrote:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...70801/hpv_vacc...

Experts raise worries about HPV vaccine

Updated Wed. Aug. 1 2007 6:44 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

A group of Canadian public health professionals says there remain a number
of unanswered questions about the HPV vaccine and that a universal
vaccination program in Canada "is premature and could have unintended
negative consequences."

Abby Lippman, a professor of epidemiology at McGill University, and
colleagues, conducted a review of the current literature on the HPV the
vaccine and summarize their conclusions in an editorial in the Canadian
Medical Association Journal.

They found that while it appears that the vaccine is highly effective in
preventing infection with HPV types 16 and 18 (currently thought to be the
cause of about 70% of cervical cancer cases), it's still not clear whether
reducing such infections will translate into fewer cervical cancer deaths in
the long run.

They note that rates of deaths from cervical cancer had been dropping in
Canada for years anyway, because of the widespread availability of
publicly-funded programs for Pap smear testing.

They also note that there are many gaps in knowledge about the vaccine:

a.. It's not clear for how long the vaccine will be effective;
b.. or whether a booster shot will be needed in later years;
c.. and there is also a lack of data, they say, on the effectiveness of
the HPV vaccine when given at the same time as other immunizations.
They also wonder whether a mass HPV vaccination program will lead to
reductions in safer sex practices and Pap screening rates.

And they note that relatively few girls aged 9 to 15 years were enrolled in
the clinical trials of Gardasil and the youngest of whom were followed for
only 18 months. Yet girls in this age group represent the priority target
population for mass vaccination.

And, they note, all of the reported HPV vaccine trials, whether of Gardasil
or its potential competitor Cervarix, were funded in whole or in part by the
vaccine's manufacturer.

Noting that Gardasil is the most expensive childhood vaccine proposed for
mass use (it currently costs $404 for the 3 required doses), the authors
point out that there haven't been any cost-effectiveness analyses to
determine whether the proposed vaccination programs will result in fewer
cancer deaths.

The authors provide some general recommendations for the development of a
mass HPV vaccination program, including a call for government to educate the
public about the realities of cervical cancer, HPV infection and HPV
vaccinations, and to support unbiased research to collect the data now
missing.

"It is time to take a breath and reflect on what we know and what we don't
know, and to develop a plan based on solid, reliable evidence that adds
value for everyone," the authors write.

"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."

As this agrees with the NEJM post on this Thanks for posting it
Is it even possible that this could result in more cancer deaths.?

Thanks Vince .

On Aug 4, 8:24 am, bigvince wrote:
On Aug 2, 5:26 am, "JOHN" wrote:





http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...70801/hpv_vacc...

Experts raise worries about HPV vaccine

Updated Wed. Aug. 1 2007 6:44 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

A group of Canadian public health professionals says there remain a number
of unanswered questions about the HPV vaccine and that a universal
vaccination program in Canada "is premature and could have unintended
negative consequences."

Abby Lippman, a professor of epidemiology at McGill University, and
colleagues, conducted a review of the current literature on the HPV the
vaccine and summarize their conclusions in an editorial in the Canadian
Medical Association Journal.

They found that while it appears that the vaccine is highly effective in
preventing infection with HPV types 16 and 18 (currently thought to be the
cause of about 70% of cervical cancer cases), it's still not clear whether
reducing such infections will translate into fewer cervical cancer deaths in
the long run.

They note that rates of deaths from cervical cancer had been dropping in
Canada for years anyway, because of the widespread availability of
publicly-funded programs for Pap smear testing.

They also note that there are many gaps in knowledge about the vaccine:

a.. It's not clear for how long the vaccine will be effective;
b.. or whether a booster shot will be needed in later years;
c.. and there is also a lack of data, they say, on the effectiveness of
the HPV vaccine when given at the same time as other immunizations.
They also wonder whether a mass HPV vaccination program will lead to
reductions in safer sex practices and Pap screening rates.

And they note that relatively few girls aged 9 to 15 years were enrolled in
the clinical trials of Gardasil and the youngest of whom were followed for
only 18 months. Yet girls in this age group represent the priority target
population for mass vaccination.

And, they note, all of the reported HPV vaccine trials, whether of Gardasil
or its potential competitor Cervarix, were funded in whole or in part by the
vaccine's manufacturer.

Noting that Gardasil is the most expensive childhood vaccine proposed for
mass use (it currently costs $404 for the 3 required doses), the authors
point out that there haven't been any cost-effectiveness analyses to
determine whether the proposed vaccination programs will result in fewer
cancer deaths.

The authors provide some general recommendations for the development of a
mass HPV vaccination program, including a call for government to educate the
public about the realities of cervical cancer, HPV infection and HPV
vaccinations, and to support unbiased research to collect the data now
missing.

"It is time to take a breath and reflect on what we know and what we don't
know, and to develop a plan based on solid, reliable evidence that adds
value for everyone," the authors write.

"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."

As this agrees with the NEJM post on this Thanks for posting it
Is it even possible that this could result in more cancer deaths.?

No, you whack-job, it won't. I prevents cervical cancer, something
that infuriates scientific illiterates like you and Not_A_Dr_Cee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hpv_vaccine

The latest generation of preventive HPV vaccines are based on hollow
virus-like particles (VLPs) assembled from recombinant HPV coat
proteins. The vaccines target the two most common high-risk HPVs,
types 16 and 18. Together, these two HPV types currently cause about
70 percent of all cervical cancer. Gardasil also targets HPV types 6
and 11, which together currently cause about 90 percent of all cases
of genital warts.[3]

Gardasil and Cervarix are designed to elicit virus-neutralizing
antibody responses that prevent initial infection with the HPV types
represented in the vaccine. The vaccines have been shown to offer 100
percent protection against the development of cervical pre-cancers and
genital warts caused by the HPV types in the vaccine, with few or no
side effects. The protective effects of the vaccine are expected to
last a minimum of 4.5 years after the initial vaccination.[4]



Thanks Vince .- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wrote in message
ps.com...

The most disturbing thing for me about the HPV vaccine is the 3
required doses.

Based upon what I can decerne from the WEB, it takes 3 doses of an
anti-fertility vaccine to make a female infertile. Is it possible
that the medical moguls are trying to make so many females infertile?
I would have to admit that this is better than WW3 or a nuclear war to
reduce the population, but will they really pull this off?


also Merck is the king of biowarfare dirty deeds

"One CFR published policy objective is substantial worldwide depopulation
including half of the current U.S. population being targeted. This
population reduction program is largely funded by the Rockefeller Foundation
and the Merck Fund, both financially and administratively linked to the
Merck pharmaceutical company--the world's leading vaccine
manufacturer........Records show the Merck pharmaceutical company received a
major share of the Nazi "flight capital" at the close of World War II when
its president, George W. Merck, was America's biological weapons industry
director. These facts were revealed by Norman Covert, Army public relations
director at Fort Detrick in Frederick, MD, and veteran news correspondent
Paul Manning in his book "Martin Bormann: Nazi in Exile" (Lyle Stuart, Inc,
1981). "---Dr Horowitz

In article ,
JOHN wrote:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...801?hub=Health

Experts raise worries about HPV vaccine

Updated Wed. Aug. 1 2007 6:44 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

A group of Canadian public health professionals says there remain a number
of unanswered questions about the HPV vaccine and that a universal
vaccination program in Canada "is premature and could have unintended
negative consequences."

Abby Lippman, a professor of epidemiology at McGill University, and
colleagues, conducted a review of the current literature on the HPV the
vaccine and summarize their conclusions in an editorial in the Canadian
Medical Association Journal.

They found that while it appears that the vaccine is highly effective in
preventing infection with HPV types 16 and 18 (currently thought to be the
cause of about 70% of cervical cancer cases), it's still not clear whether
reducing such infections will translate into fewer cervical cancer deaths in
the long run.

They note that rates of deaths from cervical cancer had been dropping in
Canada for years anyway, because of the widespread availability of
publicly-funded programs for Pap smear testing.

They may be dropping. They have not gone to zero. In any event,
prevention is better than cure.

They also note that there are many gaps in knowledge about the vaccine:

a.. It's not clear for how long the vaccine will be effective;
b.. or whether a booster shot will be needed in later years;

True. But so what? Even if it does turn out that a booster is
needed, we already do that with, e.g., tetanus.

c.. and there is also a lack of data, they say, on the effectiveness of
the HPV vaccine when given at the same time as other immunizations.
They also wonder whether a mass HPV vaccination program will lead to
reductions in safer sex practices and Pap screening rates.

They may "wonder" about that, but that's not a legitimate objection.
I could "wonder" whether they are all insane, but that's not a
legitimate objection to *their* work. However, the notion that the
HPV vaccine is apt to reduce safe sex practices is stupid; nobody was
practicing safe sex to avoid HPV, they were doing it to avoid AIDS or
herpes.

And they note that relatively few girls aged 9 to 15 years were enrolled in
the clinical trials of Gardasil and the youngest of whom were followed for
only 18 months. Yet girls in this age group represent the priority target
population for mass vaccination.

Quite rightly; you need to vaccinate the target population *before*
it's exposed to HPV.

And, they note, all of the reported HPV vaccine trials, whether of Gardasil
or its potential competitor Cervarix, were funded in whole or in part by the
vaccine's manufacturer.

Oh, good, do let's introduce a nice conspiracy element to the
discussion.

Noting that Gardasil is the most expensive childhood vaccine proposed for
mass use (it currently costs $404 for the 3 required doses), the authors
point out that there haven't been any cost-effectiveness analyses to
determine whether the proposed vaccination programs will result in fewer
cancer deaths.

What offsetting costs are we talking about? I admit that there is a
point at which cost becomes prohibitive, but I want to know what their
tradeoffs are.

"It is time to take a breath and reflect on what we know and what we don't
know, and to develop a plan based on solid, reliable evidence that adds
value for everyone," the authors write.

"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."

There are always more questions than answers. You will never have
"all the evidence," and a demand for it is merely saying "do nothing,
forever."

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"Only George Bush could start a war for oil and not get any."
-- Bill Maher

In article om,
wrote:
On Aug 2, 5:26 am, "JOHN" wrote:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...70801/hpv_vacc...


Noting that Gardasil is the most expensive childhood vaccine proposed for
mass use (it currently costs $404 for the 3 required doses), the authors
point out that there haven't been any cost-effectiveness analyses to
determine whether the proposed vaccination programs will result in fewer
cancer deaths.

The most disturbing thing for me about the HPV vaccine is the 3
required doses.

Based upon what I can decerne from the WEB, it takes 3 doses of an
anti-fertility vaccine to make a female infertile. Is it possible
that the medical moguls are trying to make so many females infertile?
I would have to admit that this is better than WW3 or a nuclear war to
reduce the population, but will they really pull this off?

Will we really have to shoot the doctors to protect our daughters?

This is so dopey. Totally unfounded speculation based on what *you*
are able to learn (ha ha ha) from the web. So far you haven't even
learned to do arithmetic, and you're now setting yourself up as an
authority on vaccination?

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"Only George Bush could start a war for oil and not get any."
-- Bill Maher