Cancer Prevention
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » EDS Lounge

free skin care · Thu Sep 26, 2013 6:08 pm

Wow Deb. That vaccine was *heavily* promoted in physicians offices across the US for young people. No wonder many of us are very skeptical about Western medicine offerings.

free skin care · Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:59 pm

Deb Crowley wrote:

An important read...

http://www.naturalnews.com/042227_HPV_vaccines_blood_donations_adverse_reactions.html#

A shocking new report reveals that receiving blood donated from someone vaccinated with Gardasil, the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine, may be downright dangerous to your health ... (blah, blah, blah) ...

Despite the mounting evidence that Gardasil is dangerous, the FDA continues to maintain that Gardasil is safe and effective, and the National Institutes of Health even recently awarded the University of California nearly $550,000 to study new propaganda campaigns for pushing the shot on low-income minority parents.

This is also despite the fact that HPV itself does not cause cervical cancer. In addition, the CDC even admits that 90% of HPV is taken care of naturally by the body's immune system within two years. Key Gardasil developer Dr. Diane Harper has recently come out against the vaccine to clear her conscience, stating, "Gardasil has been associated with at least as many serious adverse events as there are deaths from cervical cancer developing each year."

In other words, thousands have been damaged by a vaccine that does not even provide any real health benefit.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/042227_HPV_vaccines_blood_donations_adverse_reactions.html#ixzz2g2LZx7Oo

Maybe you can read the following and grasp the information being provided by a doctor (MD) and clinical researcher who actually understands what this all really means. (I have struggled with it for a while and can only get the gist of it). Some of the follow-up comments are also illuminating. This statement probably summarizes the article's premise: what we had was a fear mongering campaign derived from a nonexistent understanding of molecular biology.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/09/dr-sin-hang-lee-is-at-it-again-with-the-gardasil-fearmongering/

Just to clarify: Dr. Diane Harper is not one of the developers of the vaccine. The statements attributed to her were apparently taken out of context and are inaccurate. The source of those supposed comments has been withdrawn; Professor Harper has since issued statements offering full support for the HPV vaccine and has denied the accuracy of those reported quotes.

http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/jabs-as-bad-as-the-cancer/

sister sweets wrote:

Wow Deb. That vaccine was *heavily* promoted in physicians offices across the US for young people. No wonder many of us are very skeptical about Western medicine offerings.

Why am I not surprised by your attitude? I guess all it takes is one article in some online rag to confirm your biases against western medicine. Further research for information (from credible sources) might provide you with (real) information that you can use when forming a personal (informed) opinion. Just FYI, my own daughter has been vaccined for HPV and she has my complete support in this decision.

free skin care · Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:59 pm

Lacy53 wrote:

Deb Crowley wrote:

An important read...

http://www.naturalnews.com/042227_HPV_vaccines_blood_donations_adverse_reactions.html#

A shocking new report reveals that receiving blood donated from someone vaccinated with Gardasil, the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine, may be downright dangerous to your health ... (blah, blah, blah) ...

Despite the mounting evidence that Gardasil is dangerous, the FDA continues to maintain that Gardasil is safe and effective, and the National Institutes of Health even recently awarded the University of California nearly $550,000 to study new propaganda campaigns for pushing the shot on low-income minority parents.

This is also despite the fact that HPV itself does not cause cervical cancer. In addition, the CDC even admits that 90% of HPV is taken care of naturally by the body's immune system within two years. Key Gardasil developer Dr. Diane Harper has recently come out against the vaccine to clear her conscience, stating, "Gardasil has been associated with at least as many serious adverse events as there are deaths from cervical cancer developing each year."

In other words, thousands have been damaged by a vaccine that does not even provide any real health benefit.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/042227_HPV_vaccines_blood_donations_adverse_reactions.html#ixzz2g2LZx7Oo

Maybe you can read the following and grasp the information being provided by a doctor (MD) and clinical researcher who actually understands what this all really means. (I have struggled with it for a while and can only get the gist of it). Some of the follow-up comments are also illuminating. This statement probably summarizes the article's premise: what we had was a fear mongering campaign derived from a nonexistent understanding of molecular biology.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/09/dr-sin-hang-lee-is-at-it-again-with-the-gardasil-fearmongering/

Just to clarify: Dr. Diane Harper is not one of the developers of the vaccine. The statements attributed to her were apparently taken out of context and are inaccurate. The source of those supposed comments has been withdrawn; Professor Harper has since issued statements offering full support for the HPV vaccine and has denied the accuracy of those reported quotes.

http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/jabs-as-bad-as-the-cancer/

sister sweets wrote:

Wow Deb. That vaccine was *heavily* promoted in physicians offices across the US for young people. No wonder many of us are very skeptical about Western medicine offerings.

Why am I not surprised by your attitude? I guess all it takes is one article in some online rag to confirm your biases against western medicine. Further research for information (from credible sources) might provide you with (real) information that you can use when forming a personal (informed) opinion. Just FYI, my own daughter has been vaccined for HPV and she has my complete support in this decision.

I am not going to argue with you for being defensive and concerned. I'm glad we didn't get the vaccine. To each their own Lacy. You are happy with your daughter's decision so good for you. It's not my business what you choose and vice versa. Sorry to have struck a nerve.

free skin care · Thu Sep 26, 2013 9:01 pm

@Lacy53

The best original design comes as NATURE HAS CREATED.
Its the best you can find out there.

All man can do is just trying to understand nature and makes copy and imititations that historically have been observed to be about 99% useless and harmfull.

Same applies for the immune system.Best immune system is as nature has designed and in case we dont self-poison.Next step is to apply herbs and real foods so that the blood being fortified can kill parasites,viruses and defend.THE BLOOD MUST DONE THE JOB WITH NATURAL HELPERS.

You either use your immune system or you lose it.

All this weird vaccinations ingredients am sure do great long-term harm.

free skin care · Thu Sep 26, 2013 9:53 pm

Deb and I have been looking for any statement on the net that shows what Dr. Harper actually said... it's all 3rd party... This one was interesting:

http://www.gardasilhpv.com/2009/10/dr-diane-harper-badly-misquoted-on.html

That said...Here's an actual interview with Diane Harper.

http://youtu.be/th8GXxQpe6U

It seems that she implies if you get regular paps, your rate of cancer detection/prevention is nearly the same as with the vaccine. It seems I've seen some youtube videos in which OB/GYNs are interviewed and whether they recommend the shots for their daughters. I haven't seen any that said yes. All the no's come from docs that talk about regular exams.

Important to note how long the vaccine is good for. So far... in girls/women about 5 years. In boys/men 2-3 years. At the time of interview, they did not have any data to suggest that it would last longer.

Ask yourself, why a drug for STD prevention for children who most likely won't even be active for the first time YET by the time it could wear off?

They start going after KIDS with this vaccine at age 11. Now I realize there are children at this age who are sexually active... but the WHOLE NATION of children? Why not just "at-risk" children?

Further, in the state of CA, a child can get this vaccine by his/her own choice in the nurses office. It's illegal however for the school nurse to put sunscreen on my child if he's out in the field for the afternoon. And the odds of him getting a severe sunburn at school are MUCH higher than him getting HPV. And she may not legally give my child any other medication without a written drs. A note from me will not do.I tried. I needed one of my kiddos to take a dose of benadryl for a freakshow allergic reaction to MAC AND CHEESE from KFC (I know, I hang my head in shame for letting him eat that crap... we were in a hurry)... That was fun! NOT!!! I had to drive to school to give it to him.

PLEASE ANYONE... explain why they can't put sunscreen on my child that does not come with a list of possible life altering side effects. But they may give him a shot to protect him for cancer in case he has sex before the age 13. REALLY? I can't see any other reason other than a bottom line driving such an insane idea. What if he DOES have a reaction? What would I tell the ER if I have no idea he's been exposed to something that's a secret between him and the school nurse?

A visit to youtube... one can watch video after video of young women who have been vaccine injured by this product. So who do you trust? And industry pushing a drug to prevent STDs for children? Or multiple young woman mysteriously afflicted with life altering, unknown medical problems within days of injection... who took it because she was spooked into taking it (what if her husband cheats on her is the argument I hear for those of us who can count our partners on one finger)I suppose this young woman could be an actress. She's AWESOME if that's the case... http://youtu.be/0gCVCP8BFrU

Again, this is a heavily debated topic. Zero interest in fighting about it.. I'm not of the age group that ever rec'd this product. I have more friends fighting breast cancer, and auto-immune, and infertility... and NONE with cervical cancer. Who knows... that could change.

free skin care · Fri Sep 27, 2013 5:36 am

Lacy53 wrote:

Deb Crowley wrote:

An important read...

http://www.naturalnews.com/042227_HPV_vaccines_blood_donations_adverse_reactions.html#

A shocking new report reveals that receiving blood donated from someone vaccinated with Gardasil, the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine, may be downright dangerous to your health ... (blah, blah, blah) ...

Despite the mounting evidence that Gardasil is dangerous, the FDA continues to maintain that Gardasil is safe and effective, and the National Institutes of Health even recently awarded the University of California nearly $550,000 to study new propaganda campaigns for pushing the shot on low-income minority parents.

This is also despite the fact that HPV itself does not cause cervical cancer. In addition, the CDC even admits that 90% of HPV is taken care of naturally by the body's immune system within two years. Key Gardasil developer Dr. Diane Harper has recently come out against the vaccine to clear her conscience, stating, "Gardasil has been associated with at least as many serious adverse events as there are deaths from cervical cancer developing each year."

In other words, thousands have been damaged by a vaccine that does not even provide any real health benefit.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/042227_HPV_vaccines_blood_donations_adverse_reactions.html#ixzz2g2LZx7Oo

Maybe you can read the following and grasp the information being provided by a doctor (MD) and clinical researcher who actually understands what this all really means. (I have struggled with it for a while and can only get the gist of it). Some of the follow-up comments are also illuminating. This statement probably summarizes the article's premise: what we had was a fear mongering campaign derived from a nonexistent understanding of molecular biology.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/09/dr-sin-hang-lee-is-at-it-again-with-the-gardasil-fearmongering/

Just to clarify: Dr. Diane Harper is not one of the developers of the vaccine. The statements attributed to her were apparently taken out of context and are inaccurate. The source of those supposed comments has been withdrawn; Professor Harper has since issued statements offering full support for the HPV vaccine and has denied the accuracy of those reported quotes.

http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/jabs-as-bad-as-the-cancer/

sister sweets wrote:

Wow Deb. That vaccine was *heavily* promoted in physicians offices across the US for young people. No wonder many of us are very skeptical about Western medicine offerings.

Why am I not surprised by your attitude? I guess all it takes is one article in some online rag to confirm your biases against western medicine. Further research for information (from credible sources) might provide you with (real) information that you can use when forming a personal (informed) opinion. Just FYI, my own daughter has been vaccined for HPV and she has my complete support in this decision.

Actually Lacy - Even you know that half of the information doesn't even reach the general public until side effects start being reported and then linked to the drug. Drugs and vaccines are pushed through so quickly that we're basically guinea pigs. How many new drugs have been recalled from the market? Why is this so difficult to believe? According to Mercola's site, "Cervical cancer accounts for less than ONE percent of all cancer deaths". Yet there was a mass campaign by the pharmaceutial industry to vaccinate all young women/girls. In my area they are even pushing for young men/boys to be vaccinated, even though it's supposed to prevent cervical cancer. SERIOUSLY?

Further, there's is a ton of information on the web, some validated, some twisted, even information put out by the FDA cannot be trusted. If you don't belive that, so be it. There's evidence that commonly prescribed antibiotic flouroguinines are dangerous, but yet doctors continue to prescribe them. Patients are starting their own blogs to warn others how these drugs have ruined their lives with horrible side effects. I want to know when will it all end? Guardasil hasn't been around that long... how can you truly know it's safe? As Sis stated, indeed it was your personal decision to vaccinate your daughter. And given this "new" information, I'm sure this has struck a chord with you and for that I feel badly. But Lacy, we all make our own personal decisions rearding our children; some of them we might later regret. Unfortunately, medicine often pressures us into doing things that we don't feel comfortable with. Many of my friends have passed on the Gardisil vaccine for their daughters. When my husband took my son for his annual school checkup, they recommended for him... we passesd.

A good example of doctors pressuring parents is recommending they vaccinate their newborns, in particular with combo vaccines. The new parent, given this amazing and awesome gift and responsibility of caring for and protecting their newborn is often overwhelmed. When many of my friends have questioned this practice and asked to separate the vaccines, their doctors have responded bys by discouraging it. The underlying message is - "the baby must be protected immediately or something terrible might happen". Truth be told, the ONLY reason they do give combined vaccines is because it's more convenient for them. CAN YOU IMAGINE? Yes, no wonder people are fed up!! When something like this comes out, its terrifying and overwhelming to hear at the same time. If you ask me, it was an accident waiting to happen. You may not agree with the concept that the body has the innate ability to heal itself given the proper environment, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. In many instances, cancer is a man-made disease. Modern medicine has strayed so far from its origins and thrown cast away tried and true "do no harm" protcols that were working and replacing them with pharmaceuticals and harmful treatments, it's not only maddening, it's truly sad. ~ Aprile

free skin care · Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:02 pm

ClaudiaFE wrote:

Deb and I have been looking for any statement on the net that shows what Dr. Harper actually said... it's all 3rd party...
It seems that she implies if you get regular paps, your rate of cancer detection/prevention is nearly the same as with the vaccine. It seems I've seen some youtube videos in which OB/GYNs are interviewed and whether they recommend the shots for their daughters. I haven't seen any that said yes. All the no's come from docs that talk about regular exams.

PAP smears only detect the presence of abnormal cells (after the fact test); they do nothing to prevent cancer, nor do they prevent the transfer of HP viruses to other sexual partners. The HPV vaccine will prevent infection which may lead to cervical cancer. So really the 2 medical interventions are different but complimentary (detection vs prevention).

ClaudiaFE wrote:

Important to note how long the vaccine is good for. So far... in girls/women about 5 years. In boys/men 2-3 years. At the time of interview, they did not have any data to suggest that it would last longer.

Ask yourself, why a drug for STD prevention for children who most likely won't even be active for the first time YET by the time it could wear off?

They start going after KIDS with this vaccine at age 11. Now I realize there are children at this age who are sexually active... but the WHOLE NATION of children? Why not just "at-risk" children?

The current recommendation in the US for HPV vaccination is a series of 3 doses, beginning at age 11 or 12. It can be done at a later age if that's what you want (it isn't mandatory at that younger age). The justification for the lower age group is to vaccine prior to any sexual activity, which equates to prior to exposure to the virus. Additionally, once the series of 3 shots is given (they are spaced over a 6-month period), no further booster doses are recommended for anyone. I am guessing this may change in the future if follow-up studies indicate that the vaccine loses effectiveness over time. I wasn't sure if Dr. Harper meant the vaccine loses effectiveness after those time periods or whether the vaccine is completely ineffective after that time has lapsed. I haven't found any additional information on her statements yet (2-3 years (m); 5 years (f)).

ClaudiaFE wrote:

Further, in the state of CA, a child can get this vaccine by his/her own choice in the nurses office.

Not just in California; other states as well:

A group called the National Center for Youth Law has identified 10 other states — in addition to the District of Columbia — with laws that permit minors to get vaccinated for HPV without their parents’ consent. They are Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and South Carolina.

Here's the reasoning:

"But some teens don't feel they can talk to their parents about sexual activity," said Dr. Diamond, whose ACOG chapter was a co-sponsor of the legislation. "In that situation, we err on the side of providing a vaccine that can prevent HPV." Dr. Diamond also noted that the new law does not break new healthcare-policy ground. California already permits minors to be tested and treated for sexually transmitted diseases such as HPV infection without parental consent. In addition, they do not need their parents' approval when it comes to obtaining contraceptives, pregnancy testing, prenatal care, and abortions.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/751366

Fri Sep 27, 2013 4:59 pm

Lacy53 wrote:

ClaudiaFE wrote:

Deb and I have been looking for any statement on the net that shows what Dr. Harper actually said... it's all 3rd party...
It seems that she implies if you get regular paps, your rate of cancer detection/prevention is nearly the same as with the vaccine. It seems I've seen some youtube videos in which OB/GYNs are interviewed and whether they recommend the shots for their daughters. I haven't seen any that said yes. All the no's come from docs that talk about regular exams.

PAP smears only detect the presence of abnormal cells (after the fact test); they do nothing to prevent cancer, nor do they prevent the transfer of HP viruses to other sexual partners. The HPV vaccine will prevent infection which may lead to cervical cancer. So really the 2 medical interventions are different but complimentary (detection vs prevention).

Dr Harper is quoted in this interview as saying:

Quote:

"Pap smears have never killed anyone. Pap smears are an effective screening tool to prevent cervical cancer. Pap smears alone prevent more cervical cancers than can the vaccines alone.

Lacy53 wrote:

The current recommendation in the US for HPV vaccination is a series of 3 doses, beginning at age 11 or 12. It can be done at a later age if that's what you want (it isn't mandatory at that younger age). The justification for the lower age group is to vaccine prior to any sexual activity, which equates to prior to exposure to the virus. Additionally, once the series of 3 shots is given (they are spaced over a 6-month period), no further booster doses are recommended for anyone. I am guessing this may change in the future if follow-up studies indicate that the vaccine loses effectiveness over time. I wasn't sure if Dr. Harper meant the vaccine loses effectiveness after those time periods or whether the vaccine is completely ineffective after that time has lapsed. I haven't found any additional information on her statements yet (2-3 years (m); 5 years (f)).

Lacy, Do you know if the recommendations are the same for Canada?

ETA: interesting article http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/06/left-out-why-is-it-so-hard-for-older-women-to-get-the-hpv-vaccine/258611/

free skin care · Fri Sep 27, 2013 5:27 pm

Lacy53 wrote:

PAP smears only detect the presence of abnormal cells (after the fact test); they do nothing to prevent cancer, nor do they prevent the transfer of HP viruses to other sexual partners. The HPV vaccine will prevent infection which may lead to cervical cancer. So really the 2 medical interventions are different but complimentary (detection vs prevention).

She says to look at it from 2 perspectives.

The individual, and then the national number.

As the individual if you don't engage regularly in your health care (I would suggest multiple partners is not engaging in you HEALTH care...) and get regular exams, the vaccine is likely to improve your chances of not developing cancer by a bit more percentage wise. If you're getting regular exams, it seems your odds of dying from cancer are on par with the prevention rates. And then you don't risk any of the freaky potential side effects.

This is, as far as I can tell, because if you're getting screened, you'll likely come up with dysplasia, and that is something you can treat.

And she says...On a national level "It's not going to budge the numbers on a national level." So did we just shift money from one industry to another?

She clearly states that most HPV cancer causing strains clear up in 90% of the women who get them... in 2 years.

IMO, one needs to determine their propensity for risk.

Quote:

The current recommendation in the US for HPV vaccination is a series of 3 doses, beginning at age 11 or 12. It can be done at a later age if that's what you want (it isn't mandatory at that younger age). The justification for the lower age group is to vaccine prior to any sexual activity, which equates to prior to exposure to the virus. Additionally, once the series of 3 shots is given (they are spaced over a 6-month period), no further booster doses are recommended for anyone. I am guessing this may change in the future if follow-up studies indicate that the vaccine loses effectiveness over time. I wasn't sure if Dr. Harper meant the vaccine loses effectiveness after those time periods or whether the vaccine is completely ineffective after that time has lapsed. I haven't found any additional information on her statements yet (2-3 years (m); 5 years (f)).

To the best of my knowledge...If no antibodies are found, then it's no longer effective. There's nothing there to fight anything. Which makes her statement that these vaccines "MIGHT prevent cancer if they last long enough" is something to seriously ponder. The thing is... if the antibodies go away after 5 years, and you're sexually active from the day you take it at age 12, let's say... you're good until you're 17. And that's it... As if you can't contract HPV from the ages 17 to death. They aren't talking about boosters... YET...

And let's talk about how this vaccine is not recommended for women after the age 26? Why is that? Well here's the official answer.:

"HPV vaccination is not currently recommended for women over age 26 years. Clinical trials showed that, overall, HPV vaccination offered women limited or no protection against HPV-related diseases. For women over age 26 years, the best way to prevent cervical cancer is to get routine cervical cancer screening, as recommended."

http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv-vaccine-young-women.htm

Someone explain to me... Is the virus mutated at age 26? why would it not offer protection at age 26, but it does offer protection at age 11? How does the HPV vaccine know how old you are?

The fact is... the average age for being DX'd with Cervical Cancer is 48 some 30 years after you might have rec'd this shot, and about 25 years after it's known so far effectiveness has worn off.

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/statistics/age.htm

Quote:

Not just in California; other states as well:

A group called the National Center for Youth Law has identified 10 other states — in addition to the District of Columbia — with laws that permit minors to get vaccinated for HPV without their parents’ consent. They are Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and South Carolina.

Here's the reasoning:

"But some teens don't feel they can talk to their parents about sexual activity," said Dr. Diamond, whose ACOG chapter was a co-sponsor of the legislation. "In that situation, we err on the side of providing a vaccine that can prevent HPV." Dr. Diamond also noted that the new law does not break new healthcare-policy ground. California already permits minors to be tested and treated for sexually transmitted diseases such as HPV infection without parental consent. In addition, they do not need their parents' approval when it comes to obtaining contraceptives, pregnancy testing, prenatal care, and abortions.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/751366

[/quote]

Yeah... this is weak reasoning.I have nothing else polite to say about that.

free skin care · Fri Sep 27, 2013 6:45 pm

Great work in providing such detailed information Claudia! I cannot fathom WHY the medical profession is advising Guardasil for teens and younger girls. Did I read this corrrectly - CA is actually providing minors the vaccination without the parent's consent? In New York we call that LAWSUIT. Are ya kidding me? ~ Aprile Crying or Very sad

free skin care · Fri Sep 27, 2013 7:00 pm

For Havana: Here is the link for HPV vaccination for Canada -

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/std-mts/hpv-vph/hpv-vph-vaccine-eng.php

There are some differences regarding age. (In April 2011, Gardasil was approved for use in women up to the age of 45 years; I don't see that for Cervarix).

I am a little confused by this statement by Dr. Harper in the interview with the Huffington Post reporter:

Pap smears have never killed anyone. Pap smears are an effective screening tool to prevent cervical cancer. Pap smears alone prevent more cervical cancers than can the vaccines alone.

PAPs are for screening; abnormalities are analyzed by pathologists and graded/categorized. Not all abnormalities are considered cancer; not all cervical cancers are caused by HPV viruses. I suppose if an abnormality is found and treated, then it will not develop into cancer; in that sense PAPs do prevent cervical cancers. (Actually it is the subsequent treatment that eliminates the risk of cervical cancer). I suspect that having an abnormal test result and doing nothing may lead to the development of cancer though. Other than that, I am confused (which isn't surprising when I listen to medical types).

free skin care · Fri Sep 27, 2013 7:06 pm

aprile wrote:

Great work in providing such detailed information Claudia! I cannot fathom WHY the medical profession is advising Guardasil for teens and younger girls. Did I read this corrrectly - CA is actually providing minors the vaccination without the parent's consent? In New York we call that LAWSUIT. Are ya kidding me? ~ Aprile Crying or Very sad

Yes, if your child 12 or over determines s/he is in need of gardisal s/he may request and get it.

This was approved in 2011 and active in '12. I actually looked up again today because I was hoping... Hey, maybe something has changed... NO... In fact there was an attempt to exclude vaccines specifically, which really makes the verbiage LESS open to interpretation IMO...

Section 6926 of the Family Code:With regars to a minor who can consent for his/her medical treatment... ie a minor may consent without parent knowledge to a vaccine that is related to STD...

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&division=11.&title=&part=4.&chapter=3.&article=

Here is the attempt to specifically change the wording so that a minor can't consent specifically to a vaccine... in Feb. of 2013.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB599

And here is where that failed... http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml hence the verbiage is still the same above...

The thing is... if you get regular paps you can now adays head this disease off. If you don't, well let's face it... cervical cancer is probably one of many problems headed ones way.

Or you can take the risk that you don't have a bad reaction. All of these girls did. Actually, none of them had any sort of warning... that at least exists today. Seems like healthy one day, dead the next wasn't what parents were looking for at the end of the 3 shot series...I get they were all trying to protec their daughters from immature decisions... The comparison to VIOX is noteworthy. FDA approved doesn't mean there won't eventually be enough human experiments to prove that it was a bad idea.

http://youtu.be/KB2ZvCWXSY0

free skin care · Fri Sep 27, 2013 7:13 pm

April... I find it even more disturbing... If you look at the list of side effect listed on Gardisal... it's insane to me that a child would be administered this vaccine and NOT be monitored by any adult.

If you child had flu like symptoms after the shot, you'd go to the DR. You'd probably not move forward with the series.

If you don't know your child had the shot, you assume your child has the flu. Is your child going to suddenly get comfy talking about sex and inform you of her actions? Probably not. She's already being secretive and scared. And now just feels like crap. Probably not keenly aware that death could be eminent. And she shows up to her next appt.

This is negligent at BEST!

free skin care · Fri Sep 27, 2013 7:25 pm

ClaudiaFE wrote:

To the best of my knowledge...If no antibodies are found, then it's no longer effective. There's nothing there to fight anything. Which makes her statement that these vaccines "MIGHT prevent cancer if they last long enough" is something to seriously ponder. The thing is... if the antibodies go away after 5 years, and you're sexually active from the day you take it at age 12, let's say... you're good until you're 17. And that's it... As if you can't contract HPV from the ages 17 to death. They aren't talking about boosters... YET...

And let's talk about how this vaccine is not recommended for women after the age 26? Why is that? Well here's the official answer.:

"HPV vaccination is not currently recommended for women over age 26 years. Clinical trials showed that, overall, HPV vaccination offered women limited or no protection against HPV-related diseases. For women over age 26 years, the best way to prevent cervical cancer is to get routine cervical cancer screening, as recommended."

http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv-vaccine-young-women.htm

Someone explain to me... Is the virus mutated at age 26? why would it not offer protection at age 26, but it does offer protection at age 11? How does the HPV vaccine know how old you are?

The fact is... the average age for being DX'd with Cervical Cancer is 48 some 30 years after you might have rec'd this shot, and about 25 years after it's known so far effectiveness has worn off.

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/statistics/age.htm

The clinical trial for Gardasil lasted 5 years. Perhaps that is where Dr. Harper gets her statement from. Longer follow-up studies on the antibodies are being conducted now. Here is some info from the Canadian Public Health Agency:

How long does vaccine protection last? Will a booster shot be needed?
Studies are ongoing to determine the length of time for which the vaccines will provide protection and if further immunization or a booster dose is necessary for continued protection.

If you have been exposed to the HP viruses before the ages of 27 (and the vast majority of sexually active people have been exposed) then the HPV vaccine is completely useless; there is no need to vaccinate since you have antibodies from natural exposure. The same logic would apply to any vaccination - if you have had measles naturally, you don't need to be vaccinated. I am sure sexually "naïve" individuals can be vaccinated in the US though; you may need to hunt for a willing doctor willing to vaccinate you.

PAP screening is recommended for all females, including those who are given the HPV vaccination.

free skin care · Fri Sep 27, 2013 7:38 pm

ClaudiaFE wrote:

The thing is... if you get regular paps you can now adays head this disease off. If you don't, well let's face it... cervical cancer is probably one of many problems headed ones way.

How many 12 year olds get a PAP test done? How many 12 year olds say "yes" when the doctor asks them if they are sexually active, during a physical exam? How many doctors/pediatricians even ask the question? What happens if a 12 year old gets genital warts from HP virus; will they tell their parents or a medical person? Or will they hide it and not get treatment because they are too embarrassed to discuss these private matters?

free skin care · Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:11 pm

Lacy53 wrote:

How many 12 year olds get a PAP test done? How many 12 year olds say "yes" when the doctor asks them if they are sexually active, during a physical exam? How many doctors/pediatricians even ask the question? What happens if a 12 year old gets genital warts from HP virus; will they tell their parents or a medical person? Or will they hide it and not get treatment because they are too embarrassed to discuss these private matters?

Stats on the number of sexually active children can be found here: http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/06/17/teen-sexual-behavior-quick-facts/

If a child is willing to seek a shot... then she's willing to go to a Dr. and get treatment.

I have no issue with a teen getting treated for an STD. I have major problems with her getting medical treatment that has deadly side effects that no one is properly watching for. A bad decision should not result in a death sentence and the destruction of a family.

Regardless, blanket treating the entire population of girls at age 12 because 5% of them are sexually active is not appropriate.

It's not generally as though you get HPV, and then you suddenly have cancer. Which is what this is for right? The prevention of cancer?

The active 12 y/o is likely headed for an abortion (which I oppose as well, but that's a discussion I'm sure we don't want to get into) before cancer gets her. I'm sure they'll give her a pap then...

free skin care · Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:40 pm

Oh... just an FYI for anyone that doesn't know.

You can also get a test for HPV. My Dr's office tests for HPV at the same time as a pap. No HPV, and a clean pap... you can go longer between visits.

If you have a clean pap, but test positive for HPV you can be more proactive.

In fact, it seems more reasonable all the way around, especially if you're worried that your child is active but won't admit it to test your child by way of blood test for HPV antibodies. They don't even have to know.

If he or she tests positive, then you take action and do more regular testing. Catch any cancer early, and still NOT risk their health by way of rolling the dice and hope they don't have a negative/horrific side effect.

free skin care · Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:48 am

ClaudiaFE wrote:

April... I find it even more disturbing... If you look at the list of side effect listed on Gardisal... it's insane to me that a child would be administered this vaccine and NOT be monitored by any adult.

If you child had flu like symptoms after the shot, you'd go to the DR. You'd probably not move forward with the series.

If you don't know your child had the shot, you assume your child has the flu. Is your child going to suddenly get comfy talking about sex and inform you of her actions? Probably not. She's already being secretive and scared. And now just feels like crap. Probably not keenly aware that death could be eminent. And she shows up to her next appt.

This is negligent at BEST!

OMG that is just totally INSANE!!! Imagine the poor parent who was NOT informed. Their child was sexually active and received the vaccination unbeknownst to the parents, fell ill with symptoms mimicing the flu and the parents didn't take her to the doctor and later died? Again, L A W S U I T!!!! These are minors we are talking aboutg here. Twelve year old little girl is still a baby IMO!!!! On a related subject, my son lost his classmate when he was only in the first grade. She was a beautiful six year old girl who suffered from asthma. Unfortunately the medical profession did NOT do a very good job finding the true "cause" of her asthma and every time she had an asthma attack was put on antiobiotics. Her immune system became extremely compromised by this and when she contracted a virus she became very ill very quickly. Sadly the mom was a single parent who was under the impression that her daughter just had the flu and although she took her to her doctor, she was only able to the see the P.A. that day. Not saying it was at all the P.A.'s fault - not even sure if she knew all the detals of the child's background as she had previously lived in Fla. Later that evening her kidneys started shutting down and she had to rush her to emergency where she received IV antibiotics. Her little body could not fight back and later that evening she passed. Asthma in almost every single case is allergy driven. Triggers exist everywhere in our environment but many are hidden food allergens (ie GMO proteins in foods), environmental and house allergens can be avoided or lessened with the proper knowledge. But most doctors do not treat that way... allergy testing is suspect at best because you never know if it's a combination of things or where the body reaches its breaking point with exposure to one or more allegens. It was the most DEVASTATING funeral I have ever attended. The mom finally remarried just last year and last I heard was trying to adopt another child at the age of 47-48. ~ Aprile Crying or Very sad

Sat Sep 28, 2013 7:55 am

Lacy53 wrote:

The clinical trial for Gardasil lasted 5 years. Perhaps that is where Dr. Harper gets her statement from. Longer follow-up studies on the antibodies are being conducted now. Here is some info from the Canadian Public Health Agency:

How long does vaccine protection last? Will a booster shot be needed?
Studies are ongoing to determine the length of time for which the vaccines will provide protection and if further immunization or a booster dose is necessary for continued protection.

The WHO "Weekly epidemiological record" from 2009 says the same thing:

Clinical efficacy trials for both vaccines demonstrate that protection lasts for at least 5 years. A need for booster doses has not been established.

Conclusion: Low quality of scientific evidence that a booster dose of HPV vaccine is not required to ensure long term protection against cervical cancer (http://www.who.int/immunization/HPV_Grad_Booster.pdf; accessed April 2009)

Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:19 am

Lacy53 wrote:

For Havana: Here is the link for HPV vaccination for Canada -

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/std-mts/hpv-vph/hpv-vph-vaccine-eng.php

There are some differences regarding age. (In April 2011, Gardasil was approved for use in women up to the age of 45 years; I don't see that for Cervarix).

I am a little confused by this statement by Dr. Harper in the interview with the Huffington Post reporter:

Pap smears have never killed anyone. Pap smears are an effective screening tool to prevent cervical cancer. Pap smears alone prevent more cervical cancers than can the vaccines alone.

PAPs are for screening; abnormalities are analyzed by pathologists and graded/categorized. Not all abnormalities are considered cancer; not all cervical cancers are caused by HPV viruses. I suppose if an abnormality is found and treated, then it will not develop into cancer; in that sense PAPs do prevent cervical cancers. (Actually it is the subsequent treatment that eliminates the risk of cervical cancer). I suspect that having an abnormal test result and doing nothing may lead to the development of cancer though. Other than that, I am confused (which isn't surprising when I listen to medical types).

I think that must be it as the information in the latest WHO Guidance Note on cervical cancer protection and control groups the information as:

PRIMARY PREVENTION – HPV vaccination
SECONDARY PREVENTION — Screening and treatment of precancerous lesions
TERTIARY PREVENTION — Treatment of cervical cancer and palliative care

In developed countries, programmes are in place which enable women to get screened, making most pre-cancerous lesions identifiable at stages when they can easily be treated. Early treatment prevents up to 80% of cervical cancers in these countries.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs380/en/

They mention Visual inspection with Acetic Acid (VIA) as an alternative screening tool to pap smears. I hadn't heard of that test before.

free skin care · Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:40 am

havana8 wrote:

They mention Visual inspection with Acetic Acid (VIA) as an alternative screening tool to pap smears. I hadn't heard of that test before.

Wow... so simple.. http://www.path.org/publications/files/RH_via_evidence.pdf

free skin care · Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:30 pm

havana8 wrote:

Dr Harper is quoted in this interview as saying:

Deb cut and past this interview into a word doc and sent it to me. Havana... thanks for posting this link, I hadn't noticed it was a link... thought you just pulled out a quote... I'm cutting and pasting what Deb sent... which is all of the above. Also 2 videos at the end...

***********************************************
HUFFPOST HEALTHY LIVING

An Interview with Dr. Diane M. Harper, HPV Expert.
Posted: 12/28/09

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-g-yerman/an-interview-with-dr-dian_b_405472.html This link reads as the following.

Throughout my examination of the Gardasil vaccine, there has been a steady flow of information, disinformation, and new developments. In my opening article, I wrote about the mandatory ruling in July of 2008 by the U.S. * spam * and Immigration Services (USCIS) that would require all female green card applicants and immigrants between the ages of 11-26 to receive the Gardasil vaccine. As of December 14, 2009, that ruling was reversed.

In the larger conversation, perhaps no one professional has been quoted, and misquoted, more frequently than Dr. Diane Harper. The recipient of a Masters Degree in Public Health, Dr. Harper is a Professor and Vice-Chair of Research at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, specializing in Community and Family Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bioinformatics and Personalized Medicine.

Dr. Diane M. Harper

I first contacted Dr. Harper in September 2009 to get a primer on the Gardasil vaccine, and to gain insight into the issues that were being raised about the marketing and the safety of the vaccine. In addition to the questions that I raised this month with Dr. Harper, I asked her to contribute a statement that would clearly elucidate her point of view in her own words. She sent me what follows via e-mail.

Statement:

"The most important point that I have always said from day one, is that the use of this vaccine must be done with informed consent and complete disclosure of the benefits and harms of Pap screening and HPV vaccines. The decision to be vaccinated must be the woman's (or parent's if it is for a young child), and not the physician's or any board of health, as the vaccination contains personal risk that only the person can value.

As all of the information in the United States concerned Gardasil, since that was the only vaccine approved in the U.S. from June 2006 until this past October 2009, my comments have been focused on Gardasil.

My points are as follows:

The Benefits of Pap Screening:

• Individual benefit to detect early precancers.
• Public health benefit: Only when 70% of the population has been screened will the population incidence of cervical cancer drop.
• Pap tests do not kill or handicap.

The Harms of Pap Screening:

• Screening must be repeated throughout a woman's life. One screen is not sufficient to protect her from cervical cancer.
• False negative rate of cytology screening: Among the women who develop cervical cancer in the U.S., 30% are women who have been routinely screened, and all their Paps have been normal.
• False positive rate of cytology screening: Women who screen abnormal are psychologically upset, anxious and left doubting the medical process (i.e. Her Pap was abnormal, but her colposcopy and biopsy were normal, with no explanation why her Pap was abnormal).
• Quality of life harms: Women with abnormal Paps have anxiety as high as women diagnosed with cervical cancer undergoing their surgical treatment. The stress of going to colposcopy and biopsy can be high for many women. The contemplation of a cervical biopsy and a scraping of the endocervical canal can lead to fear of pain.
• Relationship harms: Once women are told they have an abnormal Pap and that the Pap is abnormal because of a STD called HPV, most relationships are stressed as the partners attempt to understand who brought the infection to the relationship.
• Excisional treatments for detected precancerous lesions cause preterm deliveries in subsequent pregnancies, with concomitant low birth weight infants (which puts the infant at risk for life). In addition, scarring from the treatments lead to an increased cesarean section delivery method (as the cervix does not dilate normally due to scarring from prior excisions). These reproductive morbidities occur between 70%-300% more often in women with excisions.
• Recurrence of HPV associated cervical/vaginal/anal cancers at a rate of 3-12 times higher than those women who never had a cervical cancer precursor or cancer. These recurrences happen around ten years after treatment with peak recurrences between ten and twenty years from the initial treatment.

The Benefits of HPV vaccination:

• Cervarix protects against five cancer-causing types of HPV, which lead to CIN 2+ (precancers and cancers).
• Gardasil protects against three cancer-causing types of HPV, which lead to CIN 2+ (precancers and cancers).
• Cervarix induces antibody titers for HPV 16 and 18 that are at least ten fold higher than natural infection titers; the antibody titers for the other three cancer causing types (HPV 31, 45, 33) are also significantly higher than natural infection titers, and the titers stay high for at least 7.4 years - lasting the longer of either vaccines.
• Gardasil only maintains antibody titers for HPV 16 (not 18, not 11, not 6) at five years, making the true long lasting (five years) coverage of Gardasil only for one type of cancer causing HPV.
• If vaccination occurs within one year of the onset of sexual activity, there will be 57/1000 cases of all CIN 2+ types and persistent HPV 16/18 infections prevented, as compared to only 17/1000 cases prevented if virgins are vaccinated.

The Harms of HPV Vaccination:

• Duration of efficacy is key to the entire question. If duration is at least fifteen years, then vaccinating 11-year-old girls will protect them until they are 26 and will prevent some precancers, but postpone most cancers. If duration of efficacy is less than fifteen years, then no cancers are prevented, only postponed.

• Safety: There is at least one verified case of auto-immune initiated motor neuron disease declared triggered by Gardasil [presented by neurologists at the 2009 American Neurological Association meeting in Baltimore, Maryland). There are serious adverse events, including death, associated with Gardasil use.

• No population benefit in reduction of cervical cancer incidence in the United States with HPV vaccination as long as screening continues.

• Incidence rate of cervical cancer in the United States based on screening is 7/100,000 women per year.

• Incidence rate of cervical cancer if women are only vaccinated with Gardasil is 14/100,000 per year (twice the rate of cervical cancer if young women vaccinated with Gardasil do not seek Pap testing at 21 years and the rest of their life).

• Incidence rate of cervical cancer with Cervarix vaccination is 9/100,000 per year-- better than with Gardasil, but still more than with screening alone.

• Incidence of cervical cancer without screening and without vaccination is nearly 90/100,000 per year. The combination of HPV vaccine and screening in the U.S. will not decrease the incidence of cervical cancer to any measurable degree at the population level.

Those women who do not participate in Pap screening, and who are vaccinated, will have some personal benefit for five years for Gardasil and 7.4 years for Cervarix (maybe longer), but they will not affect the population rates.

Boosters for Gardasil after antibodies wane makes the cost of vaccination escalate significantly, and cause implementation challenges to reach those women who might want to be revaccinated."

Questions:

Can you explain what your role as a “principal investigator (PI) for clinical vaccine trials” for Merck (Gardasil) and GlaxoSmithKline (Cervarix) entailed?

"Principal investigator means that I was responsible for assembling a research team to recruit participants, deliver the health care during the study, collect biological specimens at the correct time, and retain subjects over the entire time frame of the study. After the data collection is complete, I have a professional/medical/clinical obligation to review the data for interpretation, comment and publication. There are instances when industry will exclude a PI from participating in the data publication process. In total, for Merck and GSK, our team enrolled and followed nearly 3000 women in these studies. We have been participating in these trials as early as1997 when the first protocols were written."

Some reports state that you received no compensation; others qualify you as a "paid consultant." What was your relationship with these companies?

"The institutions at which I conducted the clinical trials were reimbursed for the costs of conducting the trials. I received no direct money for conducting the trials. I was a consultant for both GSK and MERCK, for which I was paid."

The public has identified you as a doctor knowledgeable about HPV and the vaccines, potentially without an agenda. Can you explain what you support about the Gardasil vaccine and what you see as its faults?

"I am an international expert in HPV science, its vaccines, its clinical disease and treatment. I have personally seen tens of thousands of women with abnormal Pap smears and have a referral clinic/office that includes women coming from all continents of the world to consult for my opinion on their personal care.

Gardasil offers sexually active women, who do not currently have HPV 6, 11, 16, or 18 infections, protection from genital warts and CIN 2+ disease for five years. If the vaccinated person is not sexually active during the five years of its efficacy, then the vaccine has not protected her from disease (as we do not have evidence that Gardasil offers efficacy any longer than five years). Its faults include tiny antibody titers for all HPV types other than HPV 16; limited protection; limited duration of efficacy; and safety concerns (as outlined in my opening statement)."

Can you comment on the disconnect between the fact that efficacy was proven only in the 16-26 year old demographic, yet Gardasil is being approved for those in the 9-26 year old demographic.

"Immunologically, the disconnect is explained by two studies. One study in the 16-26 year old women showed both antibody titers and efficacy. The second study in 9-15 year olds showed similar antibody titers to those induced in 16-26 year olds where efficacy was seen. Hence, the inference is that efficacy must exist in 9-15 year olds. The fault in this logic is that 9-15 year olds may not be exposed to the virus until after the vaccine has waned."

Do you believe that the Gardasil vaccine, as it currently stands, could present more risks to a young girl or woman than the possibility of cervical cancer?
"Pap smears have never killed anyone. Pap smears are an effective screening tool to prevent cervical cancer. Pap smears alone prevent more cervical cancers than can the vaccines alone.

Gardasil is associated with serious adverse events, including death. If Gardasil is given to 11 year olds, and the vaccine does not last at least fifteen years, then there is no benefit - and only risk - for the young girl. Vaccinating will not reduce the population incidence of cervical cancer if the woman continues to get Pap screening throughout her life.

If a woman is never going to get Pap screening, then a HPV vaccine could offer her a better chance of not developing cervical cancer, and this protection may be valued by the woman as worth the small but real risks of serious adverse events.

On the other hand, the woman may not value the protection from Gardasil as being worth the risk knowing that
1) she is at low risk for a persistent HPV infection and
2) most precancers can be detected and treated successfully. It is entirely a personal value judgment."

Has the original Gardasil marketing campaign of "one less" muddied the waters and misinformed the public, who heretofore believed that a Pap smear was sufficient to protect them from cervical cancer?

"If women were participating in Pap screening, or if as a parent you educated your daughter to seek Pap screening at the appropriate age (21 years) for her entire life, then she would have been very unlikely to be at risk for being "one" and would not be "one less." She would not have been "one" to begin with!

Yes, the marketing campaign was designed to incite the greatest fear possible in parents, so that there would be uptake of the vaccine. If parents and girls were told the benefits and harms of Pap screening and HPV vaccines as described above, an informed and valued decision would have been able to be made.

Many may have chosen to continue with a lifetime of Pap screening and forgo the vaccines, with the unknowns of duration of efficacy and safety unable to be answered for many more years."

Are the protocols of the CDC and VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) properly processing reports of adverse reactions and deaths due to the vaccine? What do you see as the weak link in the VAERS system of collecting data?

"VAERS is biased in both directions, not allowing any veritable conclusions to be drawn about vaccine safety. If an association with an adverse event is detected statistically, there is not enough information collected in VAERS to determine causation, which is a multi-step process. Likewise, if no association with an adverse event is detected statistically, there is not enough information to reassure the public that no serious adverse events occur. With our new health care reform, we need to budget money to collect true registries of vaccinated individuals and what happens to them after vaccination so that appropriate conclusions can be drawn."\

Could you clarify the content and context of the statements that you made at the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination in October 2009, which have been so widely read and misquoted? Specifically the reported quote, "The rate of serious adverse effects is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer."

"The rate of serious adverse events reported is 3.4/100,000 doses distributed. The current incidence rate of cervical cancer in the United States is 7/100,000 women. This is what I said."

Should there be an informed consent/full disclosure statement that doctors are compelled to deliver to parents before advising them about giving the injection to their daughters, stating that there are small but real risks of death surrounding the administration of Gardasil?

"The informed consent/full disclosure as I described initially must be disclosed to parents and young women. The questions should be raised, 'How do you want to prevent cervical cancer? Pap screening? Vaccination? Both?"

Do you think that those who have received the HPV vaccine will become lax with getting their Pap smears, ultimately leading to a greater rate of cervical cancer within the United States population?

"No one wants the incidence of cervical cancer to increase. But, there is a problem with women's' understanding of what Gardasil offered them. Many vaccinated women have returned to me in clinic with more abnormal Pap tests and more HPV disease. They are tremendously disappointed when told that Gardasil does not protect against all types of HPV, and that they are still at risk for cervical cancer.

In answer to your question, Yes. Finland has shown us that even a lack of screening for five years, resulting in less than 70% of the population being screened, is enough to increase the population incidence rate of cervical cancer. Yes, there is a real risk that cervical cancer will increase in the U.S. if those women getting Gardasil do not realize that:

• Gardasil will not protect them for life
• They can get other HPV infections that lead to cancer that are not covered by Gardasil
• They need to continue to have Pap tests throughout their lifetime"

Recent reports state that Gardasil may have triggered MS (Multiple Sclerosis) in some girls receiving the vaccine. What are your thoughts on this?

"Neurologists at the American Neurological Association have indeed concluded that Gardasil is temporally associated with autoimmune attacks on the neurologic system. The range of neurologic disorders is unknown."

Can you point out specific "misstatements" that Merck has promulgated about the Gardasil vaccine?

"Less misstatements, than incomplete statements. For instance, the cumulative incidence of HPV infections for women in the U.S. through the age of 50 years old is 80%. That statement is true. That statement infers that nearly every one is infected with HPV at least one point in their life.

What is left out is that 95% of all HPV infections are cleared spontaneously by the body's immune system. The remaining 5% progress to cancer precursors.

Cancer precursors, specifically CIN 3, progresses to invasive cancer in the following proportions:

20% of women with CIN 3 progress to invasive cervical cancer in five years;
40% progress to cervical cancer in thirty years. There is ample time to detect and treat the early precancers and early stage cancers for 100% cure.

Other examples include inferences that Gardasil will last a lifetime, with no mention of boosters or limited protection possible.

Regarding wart protection promotion, there is no mention that the data showed protection against genital warts in men for only a 2.4-year period of time.

Gardasil is not really a cervical cancer vaccine. The vaccine prevents HPV infection. not the development of cervical cancer."

Are there any final comments that you would like to make about the Gardasil vaccine?

"Until Merck funds a multi-ethnic efficacy study lasting at least fifteen years, the vaccine should be used primarily by women within the first six years of their onset of sexual activity, to gain the most protection possible...if they choose to be vaccinated. The women can also choose to continue Pap screening for their lifetime.

Within the "first six years" comes from the National Cancer Institute data compiled from the Guanacaste study (Rodriguez - first author) that shows that the prevention rate is 32/1000 women, still much higher than the 17/1000 rate when vaccinating virgins who go on to become sexually active, but less than the 57/1000 women if vaccinated within the first year of sexual activity.
Cervarix is the superior cervical cancer vaccine, in that it prevents five types of cancer causing HPV infections. Gardasil is the superior vaccine in preventing HPV types causing genital warts

************************************************

The following video’s are hard to watch, but, important if one is to understand the true meaning of the words serious risks mentioned above.

http://youtu.be/0gCVCP8BFrU

http://youtu.be/KB2ZvCWXSY0

free skin care · Sat Sep 28, 2013 5:11 pm

havana8 wrote:

Lacy53 wrote:

The clinical trial for Gardasil lasted 5 years. Perhaps that is where Dr. Harper gets her statement from. Longer follow-up studies on the antibodies are being conducted now. Here is some info from the Canadian Public Health Agency:

How long does vaccine protection last? Will a booster shot be needed?
Studies are ongoing to determine the length of time for which the vaccines will provide protection and if further immunization or a booster dose is necessary for continued protection.

The WHO "Weekly epidemiological record" from 2009 says the same thing:

Clinical efficacy trials for both vaccines demonstrate that protection lasts for at least 5 years. A need for booster doses has not been established.

Conclusion: Low quality of scientific evidence that a booster dose of HPV vaccine is not required to ensure long term protection against cervical cancer (http://www.who.int/immunization/HPV_Grad_Booster.pdf; accessed April 2009)

Just FYI, that "low quality of scientific evidence" refers to recent computer modelling of long-term antibody persistence based on the clinical trials conducted by Harper et al. According to WHO documents, those models:

predicted that with the bivalent HPV vaccine anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies will remain detectable for at least 20 years (David MP et al). Fraser et al modelled longevity of anti-HPV-16 antibodies based on 48 months following HPV-16 vaccination, and predicted that anti-HPV-16 levels will remain above those induced from natural infection for at least 12 years, and potentially for a lifetime depending on model assumptions.

Those predictive models are considered low quality since they are not based on actual collected data, but instead are forecasts of best-estimates. Hard (real) data will continue to be collected as time progresses.

http://www.who.int/immunization/HPV_Grad_Booster.pdf

Wiki has a good write-up on Visual inspection to detect pre-cancer or cancer (VIA). It seems this method is used in the poorer, less-developed parts of the world where medical personnel and laboratory facilities are scarce.

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

free skin care · Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:08 pm

I find the list on the "harms" of pap screening tests to be ludicrous. Is a women who is found to have an STD worse off because she has to confront her partner with the news (and probably the person who gave it to her in the first place)? Yes, better for her to be oblivious to the situation than ruffle feathers at home!

I just wonder whether any of you who are anti modern medicine travelled outside of the US to third world countries. I have travelled extensively and have been to countries where medical care is extremely basic and diseases abound. Tell these people that the human body heals itself. I would never travel without vaccinations or malaria tablets.

As recently as eighty years ago in our own first world countries, diseases such as Diphtheria, Smallpox, Scarlet Fever, Tuberculosis, Polio, Whooping Cough, Measles, Mumps were all common. Today they are practically wiped out - or would be if everyone vaccinated. Unfortunately, due to the Anti-Vaccination Lobby Whooping Cough is re-emerging and we have had a number of babies die this year here.

Nothing in this world is 100% safe. The minute we are born we're a second away from disaster at any given time. The medical community has done and is continuing to make our lives healthier and safer. That is evidenced by the fact that one of the greatest problems in the societies of first world countries is the ageing population.

You can waste your time worrying about how your doctor is ruining your health. But the fact is, statistically, the greatest risk to your health is your vehicle. You are far more likely to die from a car accident than anything else. I don't see any of you giving up driving though.

free skin care · Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:59 pm

ClaudiaFE wrote:

Stats on the number of sexually active children can be found here: http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/06/17/teen-sexual-behavior-quick-facts/

If a child is willing to seek a shot... then she's willing to go to a Dr. and get treatment.

I have no issue with a teen getting treated for an STD. I have major problems with her getting medical treatment that has deadly side effects that no one is properly watching for. A bad decision should not result in a death sentence and the destruction of a family.

Regardless, blanket treating the entire population of girls at age 12 because 5% of them are sexually active is not appropriate.

It's not generally as though you get HPV, and then you suddenly have cancer. Which is what this is for right? The prevention of cancer?

I did notice this at the beginning of the article you cite:

Note: In this article, the term sexually active means vaginal intercourse. It does not mean other forms of sexual activity. Teens may be very involved in other forms of sexual activity without engaging in vaginal intercourse and thus without being labeled sexually active.

Seriously? I can't believe anyone would define sexually active in those terms, in this day and age. This one is probably better, especially when considering younger individuals:

What does it actually mean to be “sexually active”? This isn’t just a term that confuses teens. “Sexually active” is a term that has long confounded many an individual. It’s time to unshroud the mystery. From a medical stand point “sexually active” is used most often when doctors ask patients about activities that could potentially put them at a risk for an STI (Sexually Transmitted Infection) or pregnancy in order to determine whether the patient should have an STI screening, or in the case of a female, look into different hormonal contraceptives. These activities include both vaginal and anal intercourse, oral contact with genitalia and manual contact with genitalia. All of the above activities can put you at a risk for STIs, some a much higher risk than others. Sometimes “sexually active” is used as a slang term for how much intercourse one partakes in, however in most cases the phrase is used in medical situations. Another confusing aspect of being “sexually active” is timing. When doctors ask if you’re “sexually active” it may not be clear whether they mean have you ever been or they are asking just for recent encounters. STIs may not start affecting the body immediately after the encounter. An STI may take months to start showing symptoms. It is best to tell your health care professional if you have ever been sexually active, even if it hasn’t been recent, just to make sure your safety isn’t at risk.

Anyway, the definition used will determine the percent of people who are sexually active in any age group; your 5% may be too low. As stated previously, no one is forcing children to be vaccinated for HPV at age 12 (or even 9); it's still an option to delay or refuse vaccination.

ClaudiaFE wrote:

I have major problems with her getting medical treatment that has deadly side effects that no one is properly watching for. A bad decision should not result in a death sentence and the destruction of a family.

ClaudiaFE wrote:

Catch any cancer early, and still NOT risk their health by way of rolling the dice and hope they don't have a negative/horrific side effect.

ClaudiaFE wrote:

April... I find it even more disturbing... If you look at the list of side effect listed on Gardisal... it's insane to me that a child would be administered this vaccine and NOT be monitored by any adult ... Probably not keenly aware that death could be eminent. And she shows up to her next appt. This is negligent at BEST!

aprile wrote:

OMG that is just totally INSANE!!! Imagine the poor parent who was NOT informed. Their child was sexually active and received the vaccination unbeknownst to the parents, fell ill with symptoms mimicing the flu and the parents didn't take her to the doctor and later died? Again, L A W S U I T!!!!

I am not sure where you two are getting this negative information on side effects from. I don't understand the hysteria. You can read this for information on adverse effects of Gardasil during clinical trials (29,323 individuals) and post-market experiences:

http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf

Automatic Message

If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.

Click Here to join our community.

If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site.