What is wrong with the HPV vaccine mandate in Illinois?

http://www.vaproject.org:80/ayoub/wh...v-20070305.htm

What is wrong with the HPV vaccine mandate in Illinois?
Prairie Collaborative for Immunization Safety, an Illinois not-for-profit
organization

David Ayoub, MD, Director and Founder
Karen McDonough, Director
Teresa Conrick, Director
Christina Blakey, Director
Springfield, Illinois
(217) 691-3298




Summary:

1) Cervical cancer in Illinois is responsible for only about 200 annual
deaths and rates have steadily declined. Nearly all cancers are preventable
with a simple Pap test at a fraction of the cost of the vaccine.

2) The HPV vaccine is a unique type of vaccine with no prior clinical
experience. The potential for benefit is not nearly as great as the
potential for widespread harm if mandated for thousands of children.

3) Merck has funded most HPV vaccine clinical trials and the majority
authorship of published papers suggests considerable potential for extensive
reporting bias. Over 40% of study co-authors are Merck employees and 81%
had received money from Merck.

4) Since cancer requires years to develop the effectiveness if the vaccine
is totally hypothetical. Even a Merck executive has recently admitted that
vaccine efficacy in women under 15 years is unknown.

5) The HPV vaccine suffers a significant adverse reaction rate (90%) as
reported in published trials and also in VAERS. There are no long-term
safety studies yet over 500 reports of vaccine failures or adverse reactions
have already been reported to the FDA. Gardasil contains a large quantity
of a neurotoxin, aluminum at doses that are known to cause neurological
damage in animals.

6) Targeting 11 year-old girls is unadvisable, since few studies have
assessed children this young. Over one-third of all adverse Gardasil
vaccine reactions recently reported to VAERS were in children 16 years old
or younger.

7) Since influenza kills ten-times as many individuals as cervical cancer
yet flu vaccination is not mandated, HPV mandates can't be just about
"saving more lives".

8) Even the CDC has recently stated that HPV vaccine should NOT be
mandated.

"JOHN" wrote in message
...
http://www.vaproject.org:80/ayoub/wh...v-20070305.htm

What is wrong with the HPV vaccine mandate in Illinois?
Prairie Collaborative for Immunization Safety, an Illinois not-for-profit
organization

David Ayoub, MD, Director and Founder
Karen McDonough, Director
Teresa Conrick, Director
Christina Blakey, Director
Springfield, Illinois
(217) 691-3298




Summary:

1) Cervical cancer in Illinois is responsible for only about 200 annual
deaths and rates have steadily declined. Nearly all cancers are
preventable with a simple Pap test at a fraction of the cost of the
vaccine.

Tell that to the families of the deceased.

2) The HPV vaccine is a unique type of vaccine with no prior clinical
experience. The potential for benefit is not nearly as great as the
potential for widespread harm if mandated for thousands of children.

Wrong. The vaccine has been through appropirate clinical trials.

Yeah, harm. Like lost income to oncologists.


3) Merck has funded most HPV vaccine clinical trials and the majority
authorship of published papers suggests considerable potential for
extensive reporting bias. Over 40% of study co-authors are Merck
employees and 81% had received money from Merck.

And all the revelent trials were reviewed by the FDA before being licensed.

4) Since cancer requires years to develop the effectiveness if the
vaccine is totally hypothetical. Even a Merck executive has recently
admitted that vaccine efficacy in women under 15 years is unknown.

5) The HPV vaccine suffers a significant adverse reaction rate (90%) as
reported in published trials and also in VAERS. There are no long-term
safety studies yet over 500 reports of vaccine failures or adverse
reactions have already been reported to the FDA. Gardasil contains a
large quantity of a neurotoxin, aluminum at doses that are known to cause
neurological damage in animals.

Yeah, which is worse: A sore arm or dying from cancer?

6) Targeting 11 year-old girls is unadvisable, since few studies have
assessed children this young. Over one-third of all adverse Gardasil
vaccine reactions recently reported to VAERS were in children 16 years old
or younger.

What proportion of the participants were 16 or younger?

7) Since influenza kills ten-times as many individuals as cervical cancer
yet flu vaccination is not mandated, HPV mandates can't be just about
"saving more lives".

Who ever said saving more lives was the only reason for the HPV vaccine?
Preventing cancer is a reason, too.

8) Even the CDC has recently stated that HPV vaccine should NOT be
mandated.

Reference, please. Why did they say that?

Have a lovely day.

Jeff

On Mar 11, 10:38�pm, "Jeff" wrote:
"JOHN" wrote in message

...





http://www.vaproject.org:80/ayoub/wh...v-20070305.htm

What is wrong with the HPV vaccine mandate in Illinois?
Prairie Collaborative for Immunization Safety, an Illinois not-for-profit
organization

David Ayoub, MD, Director and Founder
Karen McDonough, Director
Teresa Conrick, Director
Christina Blakey, Director
Springfield, Illinois
(217) 691-3298



I think the real issue here is the "mandation" aspect.


Summary:

1) *Cervical cancer in Illinois is responsible for only about 200 annual
deaths and rates have steadily declined. *Nearly all cancers are
preventable with a simple Pap test at a fraction of the cost of the
vaccine.

Tell that to the families of the deceased.

What percentage of cervical cancer is not directly correlated with HPV
at all? Just wondering. If I'm not mistaken, I read in the study
results that equal numbers of folks had developed precancerous cells
regardless of whether they were in the group that received the vaccine
or not.



2) *The HPV vaccine is a unique type of vaccine with no prior clinical
experience. *The potential for benefit is not nearly as great as the
potential for widespread harm if mandated for thousands of children.

Wrong. The vaccine has been through appropirate clinical trials.

What is an appropriate clinical trial exactly?



Yeah, harm. Like lost income to oncologists.

3) *Merck has funded most HPV vaccine clinical trials and the majority
authorship of published papers suggests considerable potential for
extensive reporting bias. *Over 40% of study co-authors are Merck
employees and 81% had received money from Merck.

And all the revelent trials were reviewed by the FDA before being licensed.


The same FDA that approved the Rotavirus vaccine AGAIN?

4) *Since cancer requires years to develop the effectiveness if the
vaccine is totally hypothetical. *Even a Merck executive has recently
admitted that vaccine efficacy in women under 15 years is unknown.

5) *The HPV vaccine suffers a significant adverse reaction rate (90%) as
reported in published trials and also in VAERS. *There are no long-term
safety studies yet over 500 reports of vaccine failures or adverse
reactions have already been reported to the FDA. *Gardasil contains a
large quantity of a neurotoxin, aluminum at doses that are known to cause
neurological damage in animals.

Yeah, which is worse: A sore arm or dying from cancer?

You must be able to differentiate between a cancer vaccine and an STD
vaccine. Neurological damage is nothing to sneeze at.


6) *Targeting 11 year-old girls is unadvisable, since few studies have
assessed children this young. *Over one-third of all adverse Gardasil
vaccine reactions recently reported to VAERS were in children 16 years old
or younger.

What proportion of the participants were 16 or younger?

The study didn't specify how many from each group were participants
that I could find. Also, contracting HPV is a numbers game highly
dependent upon lifestyles, social status, sexual habits, etc. There is
no way to predict which girls would have come into contact with HPV in
a natural setting. Did they introduce the virus manually/on purpose to
ensure a really adequate and unskewed study? If so, I can't help but
question just who on earth gave parental consent to allowing that in a
minor.


7) *Since influenza kills ten-times as many individuals as cervical cancer
yet flu vaccination is not mandated, HPV mandates can't be just about
"saving more lives".

Who ever said saving more lives was the only reason for the HPV vaccine?
Preventing cancer is a reason, too.


8) *Even the CDC has recently stated that HPV vaccine should NOT be
mandated.

Reference, please. Why did they say that?

Have a lovely day.

Jeff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Chris" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 11, 10:38�pm, "Jeff" wrote:
"JOHN" wrote in message

...





http://www.vaproject.org:80/ayoub/wh...v-20070305.htm

What is wrong with the HPV vaccine mandate in Illinois?
Prairie Collaborative for Immunization Safety, an Illinois
not-for-profit
organization

David Ayoub, MD, Director and Founder
Karen McDonough, Director
Teresa Conrick, Director
Christina Blakey, Director
Springfield, Illinois
(217) 691-3298



I think the real issue here is the "mandation" aspect.

Jeff says: There are two major issues:

1) The vaccine is mandatory in some areas. People don't like to be told what
to do. In Texas, people have the right to opt out for religious and
philosophical reasons. Most other states allow religious and/or
philosophical exemptions. So, for the most part, the law just requires
parents to make a decision.

2) A lot of people feel that the vaccine is a like a go-ahead for kids to
have sex.
Summary:

1) �Cervical cancer in Illinois is responsible for only about 200 annual
deaths and rates have steadily declined. �Nearly all cancers are
preventable with a simple Pap test at a fraction of the cost of the
vaccine.

Tell that to the families of the deceased.

What percentage of cervical cancer is not directly correlated with HPV
at all? Just wondering. If I'm not mistaken, I read in the study
results that equal numbers of folks had developed precancerous cells
regardless of whether they were in the group that received the vaccine
or not.

Jeff: Don't know the exact number. You have the internet, so please feel
free to find out yourself.


2) �The HPV vaccine is a unique type of vaccine with no prior clinical
experience. �The potential for benefit is not nearly as great as the
potential for widespread harm if mandated for thousands of children.

Wrong. The vaccine has been through appropirate clinical trials.

What is an appropriate clinical trial exactly?

Jeff: The best clinical study is one that shows a decrease in the rates of
cancer. However, because the lesions lead to cancer and the lesions are a
result of infection, a decrease in infection is a good start. Of course, the
CDC and Merck are following up the rates of cancer. But this will take
years.


Yeah, harm. Like lost income to oncologists.

3) �Merck has funded most HPV vaccine clinical trials and the majority
authorship of published papers suggests considerable potential for
extensive reporting bias. �Over 40% of study co-authors are Merck
employees and 81% had received money from Merck.

And all the revelent trials were reviewed by the FDA before being
licensed.


The same FDA that approved the Rotavirus vaccine AGAIN?

Jeff: There is only one FDA. However, the first rotavirus vaccine did not
raise the rates of intussusception. They are watching the rates
intussusception with the second one, as well.

The first one was pulled from the market after a possible correlation
between rotavirus vaccine and intussusception was found. However, it was
later determined that there wasn't an increase. However, the liability
issues made too expensive for Merck to keep making the vaccine.
Unfortunately, juries usually rule in favor of sick kids, regardless of the
evidence.

4) �Since cancer requires years to develop the effectiveness if the
vaccine is totally hypothetical. �Even a Merck executive has recently
admitted that vaccine efficacy in women under 15 years is unknown.

5) �The HPV vaccine suffers a significant adverse reaction rate (90%) as
reported in published trials and also in VAERS. �There are no long-term
safety studies yet over 500 reports of vaccine failures or adverse
reactions have already been reported to the FDA. �Gardasil contains a
large quantity of a neurotoxin, aluminum at doses that are known to
cause
neurological damage in animals.

Yeah, which is worse: A sore arm or dying from cancer?

You must be able to differentiate between a cancer vaccine and an STD
vaccine. Neurological damage is nothing to sneeze at.

Jeff: It is a vaccine that does both. So is the hepatitis B vaccine.

6) �Targeting 11 year-old girls is unadvisable, since few studies have
assessed children this young. �Over one-third of all adverse Gardasil
vaccine reactions recently reported to VAERS were in children 16 years
old
or younger.

What proportion of the participants were 16 or younger?

The study didn't specify how many from each group were participants
that I could find. Also, contracting HPV is a numbers game highly
dependent upon lifestyles, social status, sexual habits, etc. There is
no way to predict which girls would have come into contact with HPV in
a natural setting. Did they introduce the virus manually/on purpose to
ensure a really adequate and unskewed study? If so, I can't help but
question just who on earth gave parental consent to allowing that in a
minor.

Jeff: It is easy to figure who gave parental consent: The parents. No one
else can give parental consent.

The virus was introduced the same way it is introduced to people every day:
via sexual contact. Girls and boys do this without parental knowledge all
the time.

7) �Since influenza kills ten-times as many individuals as cervical
cancer
yet flu vaccination is not mandated, HPV mandates can't be just about
"saving more lives".

Who ever said saving more lives was the only reason for the HPV vaccine?
Preventing cancer is a reason, too.


8) �Even the CDC has recently stated that HPV vaccine should NOT be
mandated.

Reference, please. Why did they say that?

Have a lovely day.

Jeff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jeff: I see you didn't back your claim about the CDC saying that the vaccine
should not be mandated.

Jeff

This is just in from the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...d=rr56e312a1_e

It discusses the vaccine in some detail.

Jeff

What is wrong with the HPV vaccine mandate in Illinois?
Prairie Collaborative for Immunization Safety, an Illinois
not-for-profit
organization


I think the real issue here is the "mandation" aspect.

Jeff says: There are two major issues:

1) The vaccine is mandatory in some areas. People don't like to be told what
to do. In Texas, people have the right to opt out for religious and
philosophical reasons. Most other states allow religious and/or
philosophical exemptions. So, for the most part, the law just requires
parents to make a decision.

2) A lot of people feel that the vaccine is a like a go-ahead for kids to
have sex.

Nah, the opening line specifically asks what is wrong with the
mandate. As for the law "just" requiring parents make a
decision....sure, when looking at it from the side of the "law." lol.
There aren't enough people questioning the safety and efficacy of
vaccines, and I am not anti-vaccine by any means. I'm just pointing
out that unless someone has heard of anything requiring them to really
think about the issue, they don't think about it at all. Most people
feel that vaccines are something they've had so it is just routine and
expected, and they are most certainly told by school officials,
physicians, county health officials, etc. that their children are
REQUIRED to get this and that vaccine to be admitted into school. Most
believe this and have no idea there are exemptions. Secondly, those
who feel it will promote promiscuity are nuts, but it is their choice
to live with blinders on. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know
that if HPV alone, let alone any other STD, did not deter one from
having sex, remaining vaccine-free OR receiving the vaccine will not
deter them from it either.


What percentage of cervical cancer is not directly correlated with HPV
at all? Just wondering. If I'm not mistaken, I read in the study
results that equal numbers of folks had developed precancerous cells
regardless of whether they were in the group that received the vaccine
or not.

Jeff: Don't know the exact number. You have the internet, so please feel
free to find out yourself.

I have looked it up, Jeff. Not convincing enough for me to let my
daughter be an early-term guinea pig for it. I have also pointed out
that equal numbers of those receiving the vaccine in the study and
those who did not receive the vaccine STILL developed precancerous
lesions.


What is an appropriate clinical trial exactly?

Jeff: *The best clinical study is one that shows a decrease in the rates of
cancer. However, because the lesions lead to cancer and the lesions are a
result of infection, a decrease in infection is a good start. Of course, the
CDC and Merck are following up the rates of cancer. But this will take
years.


I don't feel that in this be in the wrong spot at the right time to
even contract HPV, let alone the numerous strains of HPV, indicates to
anyone whether there has been a decrease in infection accurately. I
also believe I've already pointed out that not all cervical cancer
develops solely due to HPV infection.


The same FDA that approved the Rotavirus vaccine AGAIN?

Jeff: There is only one FDA. However, the first rotavirus vaccine did not
raise the rates of intussusception. They are watching the rates
intussusception with the second one, as well. The first one was pulled from the market after a possible correlation
between rotavirus vaccine and intussusception was found. However, it was
later determined that there wasn't an increase. However, the liability
issues made too expensive for Merck to keep making the vaccine.
Unfortunately, juries usually rule in favor of sick kids, regardless of the
evidence.


Of course there is only one FDA. It was a smart-aleck statement. I'll
have to make an effort at finding this descrediting study on the first
one then, especially if Merck claims to have halted the production
merely because the liability was too costly for them. Rotavirus has
just recently been questioned yet again and has even been termed as
"not recommended" on many vaccine schedules listed on state websites.
Children should be put first - any doubt = no go.





You must be able to differentiate between a cancer vaccine and an STD
vaccine. Neurological damage is nothing to sneeze at.

Jeff: It is a vaccine that does both. So is the hepatitis B vaccine.

I don't care if the hepatitis B vaccine first prevent hepatitis and
secondly liver cancer. Again, liver cancer can develop in people who
don't even have hepatitis. Secondly, the issue is with the mandation
of what I am assuming is ANY vaccine for a general public of which the
majority has no idea mandated does not literally mean mandated.



What proportion of the participants were 16 or younger?

The study didn't specify how many from each group were participants
that I could find. Also, contracting HPV is a numbers game highly
dependent upon lifestyles, social status, sexual habits, etc. There is
no way to predict which girls would have come into contact with HPV in
a natural setting. Did they introduce the virus manually/on purpose to
ensure a really adequate and unskewed study? If so, I can't help but
question just who on earth gave parental consent to allowing that in a
minor.

Jeff: It is easy to figure who gave parental consent: The parents. No one
else can give parental consent. The virus was introduced the same way it is introduced to people every day:
via sexual contact. Girls and boys do this without parental knowledge all
the time.


You missed what I was saying here. I questioned who would give
parental consent for a clinician to introduce the virus, rather than
taking a chance on acquiring it via the natural mode of transmission.



Who ever said saving more lives was the only reason for the HPV vaccine?
Preventing cancer is a reason, too.


I have no issue with it being touted as an HPV vaccine. I do, however,
take issue to them calling it a cervical cancer vaccine. If it were a
cervical cancer vaccine, it would not only be limited to HPV. The
proper way to tag it would be "a vaccine for human papillomavirus,
which MAY lead to cervical cancer." Simple as that.

On Mar 12, 1:43?pm, "Jeff" wrote:
This is just in from the CDC:http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...?s_cid=rr56e31...

It discusses the vaccine in some detail.

Jeff

You are right, it does. I hadn't seen some of this information
detailed the way it is here. Considering the number of deaths in a
limited study, I would have questions prior to giving consent to
inject my daughter with it most certainly.

Also, out of 12,157 women ages 16-26 years of age:

A proportionately higher number of women had reactions from the
vaccine than those who received the aluminum-containing placebo, which
in turn is higher than those who received the saline-containing
placebo. So while keeping in mind there is no differentiation between
which placebo the deceased had received....

10 from the vax group died during the trial
7 from the placebo group died during the trial

2 from the vax group died within 15 days following vaccination
1 from the placebo group died within 15 days following vaccination

4 died from motor vehicle accidents within the vax group
3 died from MVAs within the placebo group

1 from the vax group OD'd
1 from the placebo group OD'd

1 from the vax group died from pulmonary embolus
1 from the placebo group died from pulmonary embolus

2 from the vax group died from sepsis due to cancer and arrhythmia
0 from the placebo group

1 died from asphyxia from the placebo group

People developing new conditions within 4 years following vaccination:

9 people receiving the vac developed autoimmune disorders, including
various arthritis. Arthritis- 9 from the vax group and 2 from the
placebo group. The last person reportedly developed systemic lupus
erythematosis.
3 poeple receiving the placebo developed autoimmune disorders,
including various arthritis.

I am positive the results would differ with each and every selected
group, depending upon which criteria is being used during the
selection process. There are far too many factors involved pertaining
to one's sexual practices, personal beliefs, self-esteem, class, etc.
to mandate this vaccine.

I want to see exactly how many of these people died INCLUDING the
listed reasons WITHIN the period of the trial and WITHIN 15 days
following vaccination, not just that 20 did. I will not accept "None
of these deaths were considered to be vaccine related" for the 20
people who died during the trial and within 15 days following
vaccination. I want an explanation as to each and every cause of
death. Until I get information such as this, and until it is made
readily available to the general public, not just those with internet
acces, none of us can make a purely educated decision let alone one
that may or may not be right for our families.

Taken from your link:
In the overall safety evaluation, 10 persons in the group that
received quadrivalent HPV vaccine and seven persons in the placebo
group died during the course of the trials. None of the deaths was
considered to be vaccine related. Two deaths in the vaccine group and
one death in the placebo group occurred within 15 days following
vaccination. Seven deaths were attributed to motor-vehicle accidents
(four in vaccine group and three in placebo group), three were caused
by intentional overdose (nonstudy medications) or suicide (one in
vaccine group and two in placebo group), two were attributed to
pulmonary embolus or deep venous thrombosis (one each in vaccine and
placebo group), two were attributed to sepsis, one case each
attributed to cancer and arrhythmia (in vaccine group), and one case
caused by asphyxia (placebo group).

Information was collected on new medical conditions that occurred in
up to 4 years of follow-up. Overall, nine (0.08%) participants in the
vaccine group and three (0.03%) participants in the placebo group had
conditions potentially indicative of autoimmune disorders, including
various arthritis diagnoses (nine in vaccine group and two in placebo
group) and systemic lupus erythematosis (none in vaccine group and one
in placebo group) (111). No statistically significant differences
exist between vaccine and placebo recipients for the incidence of
these conditions.

Syncope (i.e., vasovagal or vasodepressor reaction) can occur after
vaccination, most commonly among adolescents and young adults (124).
Among reports to VAERS for any vaccine that were coded as syncope
during 1990--2004, a total of 35% of these episodes were reported
among persons aged 10--18 years. Through January 2007, the second most
common report to VAERS following receipt of HPV vaccine was syncope
(CDC, unpublished data, 2007). Vaccine providers should consider
observing patients for 15 minutes after they receive HPV vaccine.
Safety of Vaccination: Postlicensure studies to evaluate general
safety and pregnancy outcomes will be conducted by the manufacturer
and independently by CDC. Monitoring will be accomplished through
VAERS and CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink, which will include
surveillance of cohorts of recently vaccinated females and evaluation
of outcomes of pregnancy among those pregnant at the time of
vaccination. The manufacturer will be monitoring long-term safety as
part of the Nordic Cancer Registry Program (111

"Chris" wrote in message
ups.com...
What is wrong with the HPV vaccine mandate in Illinois?
Prairie Collaborative for Immunization Safety, an Illinois
not-for-profit
organization


I think the real issue here is the "mandation" aspect.

Jeff says: There are two major issues:

1) The vaccine is mandatory in some areas. People don't like to be told
what
to do. In Texas, people have the right to opt out for religious and
philosophical reasons. Most other states allow religious and/or
philosophical exemptions. So, for the most part, the law just requires
parents to make a decision.

2) A lot of people feel that the vaccine is a like a go-ahead for kids to
have sex.

Nah, the opening line specifically asks what is wrong with the
mandate. As for the law "just" requiring parents make a
decision....sure, when looking at it from the side of the "law." lol.
There aren't enough people questioning the safety and efficacy of
vaccines, and I am not anti-vaccine by any means. I'm just pointing
out that unless someone has heard of anything requiring them to really
think about the issue, they don't think about it at all. Most people
feel that vaccines are something they've had so it is just routine and
expected, and they are most certainly told by school officials,
physicians, county health officials, etc. that their children are
REQUIRED to get this and that vaccine to be admitted into school. Most
believe this and have no idea there are exemptions. Secondly, those
who feel it will promote promiscuity are nuts, but it is their choice
to live with blinders on. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know
that if HPV alone, let alone any other STD, did not deter one from
having sex, remaining vaccine-free OR receiving the vaccine will not
deter them from it either.

Jeff: (Sorry, but for some reason, my software doesn't indent your replies
and put 's in front)

I think the CDC and FDA do question the safety of the vaccines very
carefully. Unfortunately, some of the people involved have ties to the drug
industry, which does, at least, look like a potential conflict of interest.
I think the CDC and FDA are scientifically rigorous when they do this.

It is up to the parents to know what rights they have as far declining *any*
medical treatments, including vaccines.



What percentage of cervical cancer is not directly correlated with HPV
at all? Just wondering. If I'm not mistaken, I read in the study
results that equal numbers of folks had developed precancerous cells
regardless of whether they were in the group that received the vaccine
or not.

Jeff: Don't know the exact number. You have the internet, so please feel
free to find out yourself.

I have looked it up, Jeff. Not convincing enough for me to let my
daughter be an early-term guinea pig for it. I have also pointed out
that equal numbers of those receiving the vaccine in the study and
those who did not receive the vaccine STILL developed precancerous
lesions.

Jeff: Look at tables 3 and 4, he
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...d=rr56e312a1_e,
from the CDC in Atlanta.


What is an appropriate clinical trial exactly?

Jeff: �The best clinical study is one that shows a decrease in the rates
of
cancer. However, because the lesions lead to cancer and the lesions are a
result of infection, a decrease in infection is a good start. Of course,
the
CDC and Merck are following up the rates of cancer. But this will take
years.


I don't feel that in this be in the wrong spot at the right time to
even contract HPV, let alone the numerous strains of HPV, indicates to
anyone whether there has been a decrease in infection accurately. I
also believe I've already pointed out that not all cervical cancer
develops solely due to HPV infection.

Jeff: Not all menigitis develops from bacteria. Are you suggesting that we
should stop vaccinating against bacterial menigitis, when indicated?



The same FDA that approved the Rotavirus vaccine AGAIN?

Jeff: There is only one FDA. However, the first rotavirus vaccine did not
raise the rates of intussusception. They are watching the rates
intussusception with the second one, as well. The first one was pulled
from the market after a possible correlation
between rotavirus vaccine and intussusception was found. However, it was
later determined that there wasn't an increase. However, the liability
issues made too expensive for Merck to keep making the vaccine.
Unfortunately, juries usually rule in favor of sick kids, regardless of
the
evidence.


Of course there is only one FDA. It was a smart-aleck statement. I'll
have to make an effort at finding this descrediting study on the first
one then, especially if Merck claims to have halted the production
merely because the liability was too costly for them. Rotavirus has
just recently been questioned yet again and has even been termed as
"not recommended" on many vaccine schedules listed on state websites.
Children should be put first - any doubt = no go.

Jeff: There is risk in doing nothing and risk in doing something. Life is
full of risk. Studies show that there are some bacteria that get into the
blood stream when having a poop. But, gee, I don't think I can stop doing
that. So, I will have to live with risk. I believe the risk for all vaccines
on the market for kids in the US are very safe, although not 100% safe. I
think the risk from each of the vaccines is less than the danger of not
getting them.




You must be able to differentiate between a cancer vaccine and an STD
vaccine. Neurological damage is nothing to sneeze at.

Jeff: It is a vaccine that does both. So is the hepatitis B vaccine.

I don't care if the hepatitis B vaccine first prevent hepatitis and
secondly liver cancer. Again, liver cancer can develop in people who
don't even have hepatitis. Secondly, the issue is with the mandation
of what I am assuming is ANY vaccine for a general public of which the
majority has no idea mandated does not literally mean mandated.

Jeff: This, IMHO, is the stupiest arguement I have heard. It is like saying
that lung cancer, asthma and heart disease develop in people who aren't
around smoking and don't smoke, so we should let people smoke to their
heart's content. Hepatitis B virus is a proven cause of liver cancer.
Decreasing the rate of infection has prevented thousands of liver cancers.
Just because there are other causes of liver cancer doesn't mean that you
should go after one of the causes.

I share your concerns about the public's understanding of what mandatory
means (the public has even less understanding of the word "mandation," I
can't even find it in the dictionary). However, it is their responsibility
to understand their rights.

I guess a corrollary of your arguement is that we shouldn't do things to
save lives, because people don't understand their rights to opt out of
life-saving measures. I guess if I ever run accross a burning building with
kids trapped in, by your argument, I should ask the parents first before I
run in and expose the kids to the risk of smoke in the living room.

Jeff

What proportion of the participants were 16 or younger?

The study didn't specify how many from each group were participants
that I could find. Also, contracting HPV is a numbers game highly
dependent upon lifestyles, social status, sexual habits, etc. There is
no way to predict which girls would have come into contact with HPV in
a natural setting. Did they introduce the virus manually/on purpose to
ensure a really adequate and unskewed study? If so, I can't help but
question just who on earth gave parental consent to allowing that in a
minor.

Jeff: It is easy to figure who gave parental consent: The parents. No one
else can give parental consent. The virus was introduced the same way it
is introduced to people every day:
via sexual contact. Girls and boys do this without parental knowledge all
the time.


You missed what I was saying here. I questioned who would give
parental consent for a clinician to introduce the virus, rather than
taking a chance on acquiring it via the natural mode of transmission.



Who ever said saving more lives was the only reason for the HPV vaccine?
Preventing cancer is a reason, too.


I have no issue with it being touted as an HPV vaccine. I do, however,
take issue to them calling it a cervical cancer vaccine. If it were a
cervical cancer vaccine, it would not only be limited to HPV. The
proper way to tag it would be "a vaccine for human papillomavirus,
which MAY lead to cervical cancer." Simple as that.

"Chris" wrote in message
ups.com...
...

I want to see exactly how many of these people died INCLUDING the
listed reasons WITHIN the period of the trial and WITHIN 15 days
following vaccination, not just that 20 did. I will not accept "None
of these deaths were considered to be vaccine related" for the 20
people who died during the trial and within 15 days following
vaccination. I want an explanation as to each and every cause of
death. Until I get information such as this, and until it is made
readily available to the general public, not just those with internet
acces, none of us can make a purely educated decision let alone one
that may or may not be right for our families.

You can get the information from many public libaries. And most public
libraries have internet access.

...

Then don't vaccinate.

Jeff

It is up to the parents to know what rights they have as far declining
*any*
medical treatments, including vaccines.


While they SHOULD know their rights, most do not. You can't be serious
in implying that everyone should be aware there is even any concern?
Many trusted professionals and officials tell them every day it is
mandatory, simple as that, and not all states offer exemptions.

I don't feel that in this be in the wrong spot at the right time to
even contract HPV, let alone the numerous strains of HPV, indicates to
anyone whether there has been a decrease in infection accurately. I
also believe I've already pointed out that not all cervical cancer
develops solely due to HPV infection.

Jeff: Not all menigitis develops from bacteria. Are you suggesting that we
should stop vaccinating against bacterial menigitis, when indicated?


Key phrase here being "when indicated", and "when indicated," I would
certainly hope so. Anyway, I am not going to get into a nitpicky
argument on each and every vaccine, as I don't hold the same opinions
of each and every one of them. The only thing I have suggested is that
new vaccines not be deemed "mandatory" due to the perception of the
word itself in the eyes of the general public.

Of course there is only one FDA. It was a smart-aleck statement. I'll
have to make an effort at finding this descrediting study on the first
one then, especially if Merck claims to have halted the production
merely because the liability was too costly for them. Rotavirus has
just recently been questioned yet again and has even been termed as
"not recommended" on many vaccine schedules listed on state websites.
Children should be put first - any doubt = no go.

Jeff: There is risk in doing nothing and risk in doing something. Life is
full of risk. Studies show that there are some bacteria that get into the
blood stream when having a poop. But, gee, I don't think I can stop doing
that. So, I will have to live with risk. I believe the risk for all vaccines
on the market for kids in the US are very safe, although not 100% safe. I
think the risk from each of the vaccines is less than the danger of not
getting them.


That is your opinion and your choice to make for you and your family,
and that is all that some of us ask - is to have it remain that way.
The risks are not the same for everyone. I don't believe in
sacrificing 1 to save 100.

I don't care if the hepatitis B vaccine first prevent hepatitis and
secondly liver cancer. Again, liver cancer can develop in people who
don't even have hepatitis. Secondly, the issue is with the mandation
of what I am assuming is ANY vaccine for a general public of which the
majority has no idea mandated does not literally mean mandated.

Jeff: This, IMHO, is the stupiest arguement I have heard. It is like saying
that lung cancer, asthma and heart disease develop in people who aren't
around smoking and don't smoke, so we should let people smoke to their
heart's content. Hepatitis B virus is a proven cause of liver cancer.
Decreasing the rate of infection has prevented thousands of liver cancers.
Just because there are other causes of liver cancer doesn't mean that you
should go after one of the causes.

We should let people who CHOOSE for themselves to smoke to smoke until
their heart's content. It is their choice to do so. Smoking
contributes to all forms of cancer, not just lung cancer.

Also, while hepatitis B may have reduced the incidences of liver
cancer, it is possible that it has also increased the incidence of
autoimmune disorders - painful, lifelong, debilitating ones. Who
should decide whether dying from liver cancer in 4 months versus a
lifelong crippling autoimmune disorder is preferential for me? Nobody
but me.

I can't name one person who even once worried about developing liver
cancer, but I can name many who worry each and every year at that
annual appointment what that Pap smear will find. More of an advantage
for acceptance of the HPV vaccine over and above the hep B vaccine.

My issue, that you seemed to miss, is that the HPV vaccine is
literally being called "the cervical cancer vaccine". I can't even
tell you how many people have shared with me that their doctor asked
them if they wanted to give their child "the cervical cancer vaccine."
This is wrong, deceitful and misleading. I have never once heard of
anyone saying "Hey, I got the liver cancer vaccine today." or the
"brain saving vaccine today." @@ Nope, they got the hepatitis B virus
vaccine.


I share your concerns about the public's understanding of what mandatory
means (the public has even less understanding of the word "mandation," I
can't even find it in the dictionary). However, it is their responsibility
to understand their rights.

That is what people get upset about. Most people don't even know what
"rights" are over and above the basics covered in school until they
encounter a problem and need a lawyer who then tells them "this is
your right." Most people think that it is their right to have their
children ride a schoolbus, and not the priviledge the transportation
departments refer to it to. lol. Most people are only asking that the
single and important right to decide for oneself is more respected
than it is.


I guess a corrollary of your arguement is that we shouldn't do things to
save lives, because people don't understand their rights to opt out of
life-saving measures. I guess if I ever run accross a burning building with
kids trapped in, by your argument, I should ask the parents first before I
run in and expose the kids to the risk of smoke in the living room.


Now that is just being silly, but to go along with your analogy, the
polite thing to do would be to ask whether the parents preferred the
child die from smoke inhalation versus throwing them three stories
onto the ground so they can spend the rest of their lives paralyzed.
@@ I stated in my first post that I am not anti-vaccine. You can do
whatever you want to save lives. We respect your right to decide
participation is right for you, just as you should respect our right
to decide that participation is wrong for us and becase trusted
professionals and officials are misleading people every single day in
reference to what 'mandatory" means, I am against the "mandation" of
any vaccine. Most of teach our children to not do anything they aren't
comfortable with.


What proportion of the participants were 16 or younger?

The study didn't specify how many from each group were participants
that I could find. Also, contracting HPV is a numbers game highly
dependent upon lifestyles, social status, sexual habits, etc. There is
no way to predict which girls would have come into contact with HPV in
a natural setting. Did they introduce the virus manually/on purpose to
ensure a really adequate and unskewed study? If so, I can't help but
question just who on earth gave parental consent to allowing that in a
minor.

Jeff: It is easy to figure who gave parental consent: The parents. No one
else can give parental consent. The virus was introduced the same way it
is introduced to people every day:
via sexual contact. Girls and boys do this without parental knowledge all
the time.

You missed what I was saying here. I questioned who would give
parental consent for a clinician to introduce the virus, rather than
taking a chance on acquiring it via the natural mode of transmission.



Who ever said saving more lives was the only reason for the HPV vaccine?
Preventing cancer is a reason, too.

I have no issue with it being touted as an HPV vaccine. I do, however,
take issue to them calling it a cervical cancer vaccine. If it were a
cervical cancer vaccine, it would not only be limited to HPV. The
proper way to tag it would be "a vaccine for human papillomavirus,
which MAY lead to cervical cancer." Simple as that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -