Tell a friend about Pedsource!

Merck Researcher Admits: Gardasil Guards Against Almost Nothing

A patient posted this on our Facebook Page. She wanted to see if we had any
thoughts on the issue. Have any of you heard anything on this woman Dr.
Diane Harper?

http://pop.org/content/merck-researcher-admits-gardasil-guards-against-a...

Here is another link to CBS
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/19/cbsnews_investigates/main52534...

By Joan Robinson and Steven W. Mosher

- Weekly Briefing: 2009
(v11)

On the morning of 2 October 2009, one of us (Joan) joined an audience of
mostly health professionals and listened as Dr. Diane Harper, the leading
international developer of the HPV vaccines, gave a sales pitch for
Gardasil. Gardasil, as you may know, is the new vaccine that is supposed to
confer protection against four strains of the sexually transmitted Human
Papillomavirus (HPV).

Dr. Harper came to the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination
to prove to us the real benefits of Gardasil. Sadly, her own presentation
left me (Joan) and others filled with doubts. By her own admission,
Gardasil has the doctors surrounding me glaring at a poor promise of
efficacy as a vaccine married to a high risk of life-threatening side
effects.

Gardasil, Dr. Harper explained, is promoted by Merck, the pharmaceutical
manufacturer, as a “safe and effective” prevention measure against cervical
cancer. The theory behind the vaccine is that, as HPV may cause cervical
cancer, conferring a greater immunity of some strains of HPV might reduce
the incidence of this form of cancer. In pursuit of this goal, tens of
millions of American girls have been vaccinated to date.

As I sat scribbling down Merck’s claims, I wondered why such mass
vaccination campaigns were necessary. After all, as Dr. Harper explained,
70% of HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment in one year.
After two years, this rate climbs to 90%. Of the remaining 10% of HPV
infections, only half coincide with the development of cervical cancer.

Dr. Harper further undercut the case for mass vaccination campaigns in the
U.S. when she pointed out that “4 out of 5 women with cervical cancer are
in developing countries.” (Harper serves as a consultant to the World
Health Organization (WHO) for HPV vaccination in the developing world.)
Indeed, she surprised her audience by stating that the incidence of
cervical cancer in the U.S. is so low that “if we get the vaccine and
continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in
the US.”

If this is the case, I thought, then why vaccinate at all? From the murmurs
of the doctors in the audience, it was apparent that the same thought had
occurred to them.

In the U.S. the cervical cancer rate is 8 per 100,000
women.1
Moreover,
it is one of the most treatable forms of cancer. The current death rate
from cervical cancer is between 1.6 to 3.7 deaths per 100,000
women.2
The
American Cancer Society (ACS) notes that “between 1955 and 1992, the
cervical cancer death rate declined by 74%” and adds that “the death rate
from cervical cancer continues to decline by nearly 4% each
year.”3

At this point, I began to wriggle around in my seat, uncomfortably
wondering, is the vaccine really effective? Using data from trials funded
by Merck, Dr. Harper cheerfully continued to demolish the case for the
vaccine that she was ostensibly there to promote. She informed us that
“with the use of Gardasil, there will be no decrease in cervical cancer
until at least 70% of the population is vaccinated, and in that case, the
decrease will be very minimal. The highest amount of minimal decrease will
appear in 60 years.”

It is hard to imagine a less compelling case for Gardasil. First of all, it
is highly unlikely that 70% or more of the female population will continue
to get routine Gardasil shots and boosters, along with annual PAP smears.
And even if it did, according to Dr. Harper, “after 60 years, the
vaccination will [only] have prevented 70% of incidences” of cervical
cancer.

But rates of death from cervical cancer are already declining. Let’s do the
math. If the 4% annual decline in cervical cancer death continues, in 60
years there will have been a 91.4% decline in cervical cancer death just
from current cancer monitoring and treatment. Comparing this rate of
decline to Gardasil’s projected “very minimal” reduction in the rate of
cervical cancer of only 70 % of incidences in 60 years, it is hard to
resist the conclusion that Gardasil does almost nothing for the health of
American women.

Despite these dismal projections, Gardasil continues to be widely and
aggressively promoted among pre-teen girls. The CDC reports that, by 1 June
2009, over 26 million doses of Gardasil have been distributed in the
U.S.4 With
hopes of soon tapping the adolescent male demographic, Merck, the
pharmaceutical manufacturer of the vaccine, and certain Merck-funded U.S.
medical organizations are targeting girls between the ages of 9 and
13.5
As
CBS news reports, “Gardasil, launched in 2006 for girls and young women,
quickly became one of Merck's top-selling vaccines, thanks to aggressive
marketing and attempts to get states to require girls to get the vaccine as
a requirement for school
attendance.”6

Just as I began, in my own mind, to question ethics of mass vaccinations of
prepubescent girls, Dr. Harper dropped another bombshell. “There have been
no efficacy trials in girls under 15 years,” she told us.

Merck did study a small group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated,
but did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of
effective HPV antibodies.

If I wasn’t skeptical enough already, I really started scratching my head
when Dr. Harper explained, “if you vaccinate a child, she won’t keep
immunity in puberty and you do nothing to prevent cervical cancer.” But it
turned out that she wasn’t arguing for postponing Gardasil vaccination
until later puberty, as I first thought. Rather, Dr. Harper only emphasized
to the doctors in the audience the need for Gardasil booster shots, because
it is still unknown how long the vaccine immunity lasts. More booster shots
mean more money for Merck, obviously.

I left Dr. Harper’s lecture convinced that Gardasil did little to stop
cervical cancer, and determined to answer another question that she had
largely ducked: Is this vaccine safe?

Here’s what my research turned up. To date, 15,037 girls have officially
reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event
Reporting System (VAERS). These adverse effects include Guilliane Barre,
lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many
others. The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported
deaths.7

Dr. Harper, who seems to specialize in dropping bombshells, dropped another
in an interview with ABC News when she admitted that “The rate of serious
adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical
cancer.”8 This
being the case, one might want to take one’s chances with cancer,
especially because the side effects of the vaccine are immediate, while the
possibility of developing cancer is years in the future.

In the clinical studies alone, 23 girls died after receiving either
Gardasil or the Aluminum control injection. 15 of the 13,686 girls who
received Gardasil died, while 8 died among the 11,004 who received the
Aluminum shot. There was only one death among the group that had a saline
placebo. What this means is that 1 out of every 912 who received Gardasil
in the study died.9, see p.
8
The
cervical cancer death rate is 1 out of every 40,000 women per
year.10

The numbers of deaths and adverse effects are undoubtedly underestimates.
Dr. Harper’s comments to ABC News concur with the National Vaccine
Information Center’s claim that “though nearly 70 percent of all Gardasil
reaction reports were filed by Merck, a whopping 89 percent of the reports
Merck did file were so incomplete there was not enough information for
health officials to do a proper follow-up and
review.”11
On
average, less than 10 percent—perhaps even less than 1 percent—of serious
vaccine adverse events are ever reported, according to the American Journal
of Public Health.12

Given the severity and frequency of Gardasil adverse reactions, I
definitely wasn’t the only one in Dr. Harper’s audience who winced when she
dismissed most Gardasil side effects as “easily just needle phobia.”

Due to the young age of the trial participants and the short duration of
the studies, the effects of Gardasil on female fecundity have not been
studied. I did discover, in my post-conference reading, that Polysorbate
80, an ingredient in the vaccine,13, see p.
12
has
been observed in a European clinical study to cause infertility in
rats.14 Is
this an additional concern? Time will tell.

I do not wish to give the impression that Dr. Harper presented, even
inadvertently, a consistently negative view of her own vaccine. She did
tout certain “real benefits,” chief among them that “the vaccine will
reduce the number of follow-up tests after abnormal PAP smears,” and
thereby reduce the “relationship tension,” “stress and anxiety” of abnormal
or false HPV positive results.

To me, however, this seems a rather slim promise, especially when weighed
against the deaths and side effects caused by the Gardasil campaign. Should
millions of girls in the United States, many as young as 9, be put at risk,
so that sexually active adults can have less “relationship tension” about
false positive HPV results? Is the current rate of death, sterility and
serious immune dysfunction from Gardasil worth the potential that in 60
years a minimal amount of a cervical disease (that is already decreasing on
its own) may perhaps be reduced?

But what I really wanted to know is why Merck is so eagerly marketing such
a dangerous and ineffective vaccine? Aren’t there other ways they could
make a profit? While Merck’s behavior is probably adequately explained by
the profit motive, what about those in the Health and Human Services
bureaucracy who apparently see Gardasil as medicine’s gift to women? What
motivates them?

I (Steve) think that they see Gardasil as what one might call a “wedge”
drug. For them, the success of this public vaccination campaign has less to
do with stopping cervical cancer, than it does with opening the door to
other vaccination campaigns for other sexually transmitted diseases, and
perhaps even including pregnancy itself. For if they can overcome the
objections of parents and religious organizations to vaccinating
pre-pubescent—and not sexually active--girls against one form of STD, then
it will make it easier for them to embark on similar programs in the future.

After all, the proponents of sexual liberation are determined not to let
mere disease—or even death—stand in the way of their pleasures. They
believe that there must be technological solutions to the diseases that
have arisen from their relentless promotion of promiscuity. After all, the
alternative is too horrible to contemplate: They might have to learn to
control their appetites. And they might have to teach abstinence.
------------
--
I work here
I blog here &
here
I tweet here
Lean about my professional career
here
I post fun stuff here
Lately, I've been spending a lot of time
here

Merck Researcher Admits: Gardasil Guards Against AlmostNothing

First, did you notice all of these articles are from two years ago, when worries of gardasil were fever pitched?

Second, have you found a benefit of allowing patients to post to your Facebook page? We have folks 'like' us not 'friend' us.

Brian

On Oct 30, 2011, at 10:54 AM, "Brandon Betancourt" wrote:

> A patient posted this on our Facebook Page. She wanted to see if we had any
> thoughts on the issue. Have any of you heard anything on this woman Dr.
> Diane Harper?
>
>
>
> http://pop.org/content/merck-researcher-admits-gardasil-guards-against-a...
>
> Here is another link to CBS
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/19/cbsnews_investigates/main52534...
>
>
> By Joan Robinson and Steven W. Mosher
>
> - Weekly Briefing: 2009
> (v11)
>
> On the morning of 2 October 2009, one of us (Joan) joined an audience of
> mostly health professionals and listened as Dr. Diane Harper, the leading
> international developer of the HPV vaccines, gave a sales pitch for
> Gardasil. Gardasil, as you may know, is the new vaccine that is supposed to
> confer protection against four strains of the sexually transmitted Human
> Papillomavirus (HPV).
>
> Dr. Harper came to the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination
> to prove to us the real benefits of Gardasil. Sadly, her own presentation
> left me (Joan) and others filled with doubts. By her own admission,
> Gardasil has the doctors surrounding me glaring at a poor promise of
> efficacy as a vaccine married to a high risk of life-threatening side
> effects.
>
> Gardasil, Dr. Harper explained, is promoted by Merck, the pharmaceutical
> manufacturer, as a “safe and effective” prevention measure against cervical
> cancer. The theory behind the vaccine is that, as HPV may cause cervical
> cancer, conferring a greater immunity of some strains of HPV might reduce
> the incidence of this form of cancer. In pursuit of this goal, tens of
> millions of American girls have been vaccinated to date.
>
> As I sat scribbling down Merck’s claims, I wondered why such mass
> vaccination campaigns were necessary. After all, as Dr. Harper explained,
> 70% of HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment in one year.
> After two years, this rate climbs to 90%. Of the remaining 10% of HPV
> infections, only half coincide with the development of cervical cancer.
>
> Dr. Harper further undercut the case for mass vaccination campaigns in the
> U.S. when she pointed out that “4 out of 5 women with cervical cancer are
> in developing countries.” (Harper serves as a consultant to the World
> Health Organization (WHO) for HPV vaccination in the developing world.)
> Indeed, she surprised her audience by stating that the incidence of
> cervical cancer in the U.S. is so low that “if we get the vaccine and
> continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in
> the US.”
>
> If this is the case, I thought, then why vaccinate at all? From the murmurs
> of the doctors in the audience, it was apparent that the same thought had
> occurred to them.
>
> In the U.S. the cervical cancer rate is 8 per 100,000
> women.1
> Moreover,
> it is one of the most treatable forms of cancer. The current death rate
> from cervical cancer is between 1.6 to 3.7 deaths per 100,000
> women.2
> The
> American Cancer Society (ACS) notes that “between 1955 and 1992, the
> cervical cancer death rate declined by 74%” and adds that “the death rate
> from cervical cancer continues to decline by nearly 4% each
> year.”3
>
> At this point, I began to wriggle around in my seat, uncomfortably
> wondering, is the vaccine really effective? Using data from trials funded
> by Merck, Dr. Harper cheerfully continued to demolish the case for the
> vaccine that she was ostensibly there to promote. She informed us that
> “with the use of Gardasil, there will be no decrease in cervical cancer
> until at least 70% of the population is vaccinated, and in that case, the
> decrease will be very minimal. The highest amount of minimal decrease will
> appear in 60 years.”
>
> It is hard to imagine a less compelling case for Gardasil. First of all, it
> is highly unlikely that 70% or more of the female population will continue
> to get routine Gardasil shots and boosters, along with annual PAP smears.
> And even if it did, according to Dr. Harper, “after 60 years, the
> vaccination will [only] have prevented 70% of incidences” of cervical
> cancer.
>
> But rates of death from cervical cancer are already declining. Let’s do the
> math. If the 4% annual decline in cervical cancer death continues, in 60
> years there will have been a 91.4% decline in cervical cancer death just
> from current cancer monitoring and treatment. Comparing this rate of
> decline to Gardasil’s projected “very minimal” reduction in the rate of
> cervical cancer of only 70 % of incidences in 60 years, it is hard to
> resist the conclusion that Gardasil does almost nothing for the health of
> American women.
>
> Despite these dismal projections, Gardasil continues to be widely and
> aggressively promoted among pre-teen girls. The CDC reports that, by 1 June
> 2009, over 26 million doses of Gardasil have been distributed in the
> U.S.4 With
> hopes of soon tapping the adolescent male demographic, Merck, the
> pharmaceutical manufacturer of the vaccine, and certain Merck-funded U.S.
> medical organizations are targeting girls between the ages of 9 and
> 13.5
> As
> CBS news reports, “Gardasil, launched in 2006 for girls and young women,
> quickly became one of Merck's top-selling vaccines, thanks to aggressive
> marketing and attempts to get states to require girls to get the vaccine as
> a requirement for school
> attendance.”6
>
> Just as I began, in my own mind, to question ethics of mass vaccinations of
> prepubescent girls, Dr. Harper dropped another bombshell. “There have been
> no efficacy trials in girls under 15 years,” she told us.
>
> Merck did study a small group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated,
> but did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of
> effective HPV antibodies.
>
> If I wasn’t skeptical enough already, I really started scratching my head
> when Dr. Harper explained, “if you vaccinate a child, she won’t keep
> immunity in puberty and you do nothing to prevent cervical cancer.” But it
> turned out that she wasn’t arguing for postponing Gardasil vaccination
> until later puberty, as I first thought. Rather, Dr. Harper only emphasized
> to the doctors in the audience the need for Gardasil booster shots, because
> it is still unknown how long the vaccine immunity lasts. More booster shots
> mean more money for Merck, obviously.
>
> I left Dr. Harper’s lecture convinced that Gardasil did little to stop
> cervical cancer, and determined to answer another question that she had
> largely ducked: Is this vaccine safe?
>
> Here’s what my research turned up. To date, 15,037 girls have officially
> reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event
> Reporting System (VAERS). These adverse effects include Guilliane Barre,
> lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many
> others. The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported
> deaths.7
>
> Dr. Harper, who seems to specialize in dropping bombshells, dropped another
> in an interview with ABC News when she admitted that “The rate of serious
> adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical
> cancer.”8 This
> being the case, one might want to take one’s chances with cancer,
> especially because the side effects of the vaccine are immediate, while the
> possibility of developing cancer is years in the future.
>
> In the clinical studies alone, 23 girls died after receiving either
> Gardasil or the Aluminum control injection. 15 of the 13,686 girls who
> received Gardasil died, while 8 died among the 11,004 who received the
> Aluminum shot. There was only one death among the group that had a saline
> placebo. What this means is that 1 out of every 912 who received Gardasil
> in the study died.9, see p.
> 8
> The
> cervical cancer death rate is 1 out of every 40,000 women per
> year.10
>
> The numbers of deaths and adverse effects are undoubtedly underestimates.
> Dr. Harper’s comments to ABC News concur with the National Vaccine
> Information Center’s claim that “though nearly 70 percent of all Gardasil
> reaction reports were filed by Merck, a whopping 89 percent of the reports
> Merck did file were so incomplete there was not enough information for
> health officials to do a proper follow-up and
> review.”11
> On
> average, less than 10 percent—perhaps even less than 1 percent—of serious
> vaccine adverse events are ever reported, according to the American Journal
> of Public Health.12
>
> Given the severity and frequency of Gardasil adverse reactions, I
> definitely wasn’t the only one in Dr. Harper’s audience who winced when she
> dismissed most Gardasil side effects as “easily just needle phobia.”
>
> Due to the young age of the trial participants and the short duration of
> the studies, the effects of Gardasil on female fecundity have not been
> studied. I did discover, in my post-conference reading, that Polysorbate
> 80, an ingredient in the vaccine,13, see p.
> 12
> has
> been observed in a European clinical study to cause infertility in
> rats.14 Is
> this an additional concern? Time will tell.
>
> I do not wish to give the impression that Dr. Harper presented, even
> inadvertently, a consistently negative view of her own vaccine. She did
> tout certain “real benefits,” chief among them that “the vaccine will
> reduce the number of follow-up tests after abnormal PAP smears,” and
> thereby reduce the “relationship tension,” “stress and anxiety” of abnormal
> or false HPV positive results.
>
> To me, however, this seems a rather slim promise, especially when weighed
> against the deaths and side effects caused by the Gardasil campaign. Should
> millions of girls in the United States, many as young as 9, be put at risk,
> so that sexually active adults can have less “relationship tension” about
> false positive HPV results? Is the current rate of death, sterility and
> serious immune dysfunction from Gardasil worth the potential that in 60
> years a minimal amount of a cervical disease (that is already decreasing on
> its own) may perhaps be reduced?
>
> But what I really wanted to know is why Merck is so eagerly marketing such
> a dangerous and ineffective vaccine? Aren’t there other ways they could
> make a profit? While Merck’s behavior is probably adequately explained by
> the profit motive, what about those in the Health and Human Services
> bureaucracy who apparently see Gardasil as medicine’s gift to women? What
> motivates them?
>
> I (Steve) think that they see Gardasil as what one might call a “wedge”
> drug. For them, the success of this public vaccination campaign has less to
> do with stopping cervical cancer, than it does with opening the door to
> other vaccination campaigns for other sexually transmitted diseases, and
> perhaps even including pregnancy itself. For if they can overcome the
> objections of parents and religious organizations to vaccinating
> pre-pubescent—and not sexually active--girls against one form of STD, then
> it will make it easier for them to embark on similar programs in the future.
>
> After all, the proponents of sexual liberation are determined not to let
> mere disease—or even death—stand in the way of their pleasures. They
> believe that there must be technological solutions to the diseases that
> have arisen from their relentless promotion of promiscuity. After all, the
> alternative is too horrible to contemplate: They might have to learn to
> control their appetites. And they might have to teach abstinence.
> ------------
> --
> I work here
> I blog here &
> here
> I tweet here
> Lean about my professional career
> here
> I post fun stuff here
> Lately, I've been spending a lot of time
> here

Merck Researcher Admits: Gardasil Guards Against Almost Nothing

How many of us using this information as a basis, will consider stopping the vaccine?

-----Original Message-----
From: Brandon Betancourt
To: SOAPM ; pedtalk
Sent: Sun, Oct 30, 2011 10:54 am
Subject: [PedTalk] Merck Researcher Admits: Gardasil Guards Against Almost Nothing

A patient posted this on our Facebook Page. She wanted to see if we had any
houghts on the issue. Have any of you heard anything on this woman Dr.
iane Harper?

http://pop.org/content/merck-researcher-admits-gardasil-guards-against-a...
Here is another link to CBS
ttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/19/cbsnews_investigates/main5253431.shtml

y Joan Robinson and Steven W. Mosher
- Weekly Briefing: 2009
v11)
On the morning of 2 October 2009, one of us (Joan) joined an audience of
ostly health professionals and listened as Dr. Diane Harper, the leading
nternational developer of the HPV vaccines, gave a sales pitch for
ardasil. Gardasil, as you may know, is the new vaccine that is supposed to
onfer protection against four strains of the sexually transmitted Human
apillomavirus (HPV).
Dr. Harper came to the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination
o prove to us the real benefits of Gardasil. Sadly, her own presentation
eft me (Joan) and others filled with doubts. By her own admission,
ardasil has the doctors surrounding me glaring at a poor promise of
fficacy as a vaccine married to a high risk of life-threatening side
ffects.
Gardasil, Dr. Harper explained, is promoted by Merck, the pharmaceutical
anufacturer, as a “safe and effective” prevention measure against cervical
ancer. The theory behind the vaccine is that, as HPV may cause cervical
ancer, conferring a greater immunity of some strains of HPV might reduce
he incidence of this form of cancer. In pursuit of this goal, tens of
illions of American girls have been vaccinated to date.
As I sat scribbling down Merck’s claims, I wondered why such mass
accination campaigns were necessary. After all, as Dr. Harper explained,
0% of HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment in one year.
fter two years, this rate climbs to 90%. Of the remaining 10% of HPV
nfections, only half coincide with the development of cervical cancer.
Dr. Harper further undercut the case for mass vaccination campaigns in the
.S. when she pointed out that “4 out of 5 women with cervical cancer are
n developing countries.” (Harper serves as a consultant to the World
ealth Organization (WHO) for HPV vaccination in the developing world.)
ndeed, she surprised her audience by stating that the incidence of
ervical cancer in the U.S. is so low that “if we get the vaccine and
ontinue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in
he US.”
If this is the case, I thought, then why vaccinate at all? From the murmurs
f the doctors in the audience, it was apparent that the same thought had
ccurred to them.
In the U.S. the cervical cancer rate is 8 per 100,000
omen.1
oreover,
t is one of the most treatable forms of cancer. The current death rate
rom cervical cancer is between 1.6 to 3.7 deaths per 100,000
omen.2
he
merican Cancer Society (ACS) notes that “between 1955 and 1992, the
ervical cancer death rate declined by 74%” and adds that “the death rate
rom cervical cancer continues to decline by nearly 4% each
ear.”3
At this point, I began to wriggle around in my seat, uncomfortably
ondering, is the vaccine really effective? Using data from trials funded
y Merck, Dr. Harper cheerfully continued to demolish the case for the
accine that she was ostensibly there to promote. She informed us that
with the use of Gardasil, there will be no decrease in cervical cancer
ntil at least 70% of the population is vaccinated, and in that case, the
ecrease will be very minimal. The highest amount of minimal decrease will
ppear in 60 years.”
It is hard to imagine a less compelling case for Gardasil. First of all, it
s highly unlikely that 70% or more of the female population will continue
o get routine Gardasil shots and boosters, along with annual PAP smears.
nd even if it did, according to Dr. Harper, “after 60 years, the
accination will [only] have prevented 70% of incidences” of cervical
ancer.
But rates of death from cervical cancer are already declining. Let’s do the
ath. If the 4% annual decline in cervical cancer death continues, in 60
ears there will have been a 91.4% decline in cervical cancer death just
rom current cancer monitoring and treatment. Comparing this rate of
ecline to Gardasil’s projected “very minimal” reduction in the rate of
ervical cancer of only 70 % of incidences in 60 years, it is hard to
esist the conclusion that Gardasil does almost nothing for the health of
merican women.
Despite these dismal projections, Gardasil continues to be widely and
ggressively promoted among pre-teen girls. The CDC reports that, by 1 June
009, over 26 million doses of Gardasil have been distributed in the
.S.4 With
opes of soon tapping the adolescent male demographic, Merck, the
harmaceutical manufacturer of the vaccine, and certain Merck-funded U.S.
edical organizations are targeting girls between the ages of 9 and
3.5
s
BS news reports, “Gardasil, launched in 2006 for girls and young women,
uickly became one of Merck's top-selling vaccines, thanks to aggressive
arketing and attempts to get states to require girls to get the vaccine as
requirement for school
ttendance.”6
Just as I began, in my own mind, to question ethics of mass vaccinations of
repubescent girls, Dr. Harper dropped another bombshell. “There have been
o efficacy trials in girls under 15 years,” she told us.
Merck did study a small group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated,
ut did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of
ffective HPV antibodies.
If I wasn’t skeptical enough already, I really started scratching my head
hen Dr. Harper explained, “if you vaccinate a child, she won’t keep
mmunity in puberty and you do nothing to prevent cervical cancer.” But it
urned out that she wasn’t arguing for postponing Gardasil vaccination
ntil later puberty, as I first thought. Rather, Dr. Harper only emphasized
o the doctors in the audience the need for Gardasil booster shots, because
t is still unknown how long the vaccine immunity lasts. More booster shots
ean more money for Merck, obviously.
I left Dr. Harper’s lecture convinced that Gardasil did little to stop
ervical cancer, and determined to answer another question that she had
argely ducked: Is this vaccine safe?
Here’s what my research turned up. To date, 15,037 girls have officially
eported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event
eporting System (VAERS). These adverse effects include Guilliane Barre,
upus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many
thers. The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported
eaths.7
Dr. Harper, who seems to specialize in dropping bombshells, dropped another
n an interview with ABC News when she admitted that “The rate of serious
dverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical
ancer.”8 This
eing the case, one might want to take one’s chances with cancer,
specially because the side effects of the vaccine are immediate, while the
ossibility of developing cancer is years in the future.
In the clinical studies alone, 23 girls died after receiving either
ardasil or the Aluminum control injection. 15 of the 13,686 girls who
eceived Gardasil died, while 8 died among the 11,004 who received the
luminum shot. There was only one death among the group that had a saline
lacebo. What this means is that 1 out of every 912 who received Gardasil
n the study died.9, see p.

he
ervical cancer death rate is 1 out of every 40,000 women per
ear.10
The numbers of deaths and adverse effects are undoubtedly underestimates.
r. Harper’s comments to ABC News concur with the National Vaccine
nformation Center’s claim that “though nearly 70 percent of all Gardasil
eaction reports were filed by Merck, a whopping 89 percent of the reports
erck did file were so incomplete there was not enough information for
ealth officials to do a proper follow-up and
eview.”11
n
verage, less than 10 percent—perhaps even less than 1 percent—of serious
accine adverse events are ever reported, according to the American Journal
f Public Health.12
Given the severity and frequency of Gardasil adverse reactions, I
efinitely wasn’t the only one in Dr. Harper’s audience who winced when she
ismissed most Gardasil side effects as “easily just needle phobia.”
Due to the young age of the trial participants and the short duration of
he studies, the effects of Gardasil on female fecundity have not been
tudied. I did discover, in my post-conference reading, that Polysorbate
0, an ingredient in the vaccine,13, see p.
2
as
een observed in a European clinical study to cause infertility in
ats.14 Is
his an additional concern? Time will tell.
I do not wish to give the impression that Dr. Harper presented, even
nadvertently, a consistently negative view of her own vaccine. She did
out certain “real benefits,” chief among them that “the vaccine will
educe the number of follow-up tests after abnormal PAP smears,” and
hereby reduce the “relationship tension,” “stress and anxiety” of abnormal
r false HPV positive results.
To me, however, this seems a rather slim promise, especially when weighed
gainst the deaths and side effects caused by the Gardasil campaign. Should
illions of girls in the United States, many as young as 9, be put at risk,
o that sexually active adults can have less “relationship tension” about
alse positive HPV results? Is the current rate of death, sterility and
erious immune dysfunction from Gardasil worth the potential that in 60
ears a minimal amount of a cervical disease (that is already decreasing on
ts own) may perhaps be reduced?
But what I really wanted to know is why Merck is so eagerly marketing such
dangerous and ineffective vaccine? Aren’t there other ways they could
ake a profit? While Merck’s behavior is probably adequately explained by
he profit motive, what about those in the Health and Human Services
ureaucracy who apparently see Gardasil as medicine’s gift to women? What
otivates them?
I (Steve) think that they see Gardasil as what one might call a “wedge”
rug. For them, the success of this public vaccination campaign has less to
o with stopping cervical cancer, than it does with opening the door to
ther vaccination campaigns for other sexually transmitted diseases, and
erhaps even including pregnancy itself. For if they can overcome the
bjections of parents and religious organizations to vaccinating
re-pubescent—and not sexually active--girls against one form of STD, then
t will make it easier for them to embark on similar programs in the future.
After all, the proponents of sexual liberation are determined not to let
ere disease—or even death—stand in the way of their pleasures. They
elieve that there must be technological solutions to the diseases that
ave arisen from their relentless promotion of promiscuity. After all, the
lternative is too horrible to contemplate: They might have to learn to
ontrol their appetites. And they might have to teach abstinence.
-----------
-
work here
blog here &
ere
tweet here
ean about my professional career
ere
post fun stuff here
ately, I've been spending a lot of time
ere
**-------------------------------------------------------------------
his message is from PEDTALK - a pediatric focused e-mail discussion group.
ist address: hidden@email-address
dmin questions: hidden@email-address
dit preferences: http://www.pedsource.com/mailman/listinfo/pedtalk
nsubscribe: use edit preferences link (above) or send e-mail to
hidden@email-address with "unsubscribe" in the body of the message.

Merck Researcher Admits: Gardasil Guards Against Almost Nothing

Couple of thoughts come to mind.

As a family PCP, I see a good number of young adults with HPV-related disease in the form of genital warts. Gardasil, but not Cervarix, provides protection from this life-altering, but not life-threatening, condition that is far more common than GU malignancy.

While you would need to do a bit of wordsmithing, could you not take her argument against Gardasil, removing HPV and inserting varicella or pertussis (or insert your choice of conditions that kids usually make a full recovery from but we still immunize against) and make the same argument against those vaccines?

I am not antivaccine by any stretch.

Dr. Margaret A. Fitzgerald
DNP, FNP-BC, NP-C, FAANP, CSP, FAAN
President, Fitzgerald Health Education Associates, Inc.
85 Flagship Drive
North Andover, MA
Family Nurse Practitioner, Adjunct Faculty Family Practice Residency
Greater Lawrence (MA) Family Health Center
978.794.8366 www.fhea.com hidden@email-address

-----Original Message-----
From: hidden@email-address [mailto:hidden@email-address] On Behalf Of hidden@email-address
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 1:51 PM
To: hidden@email-address; hidden@email-address; hidden@email-address
Subject: Re: [PedTalk] Merck Researcher Admits: Gardasil Guards Against Almost Nothing

How many of us using this information as a basis, will consider stopping the vaccine?

-----Original Message-----
From: Brandon Betancourt
To: SOAPM ; pedtalk
Sent: Sun, Oct 30, 2011 10:54 am
Subject: [PedTalk] Merck Researcher Admits: Gardasil Guards Against Almost Nothing

A patient posted this on our Facebook Page. She wanted to see if we had any houghts on the issue. Have any of you heard anything on this woman Dr.
iane Harper?

http://pop.org/content/merck-researcher-admits-gardasil-guards-against-a...
Here is another link to CBS
ttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/19/cbsnews_investigates/main5253431.shtml

y Joan Robinson and Steven W. Mosher
- Weekly Briefing: 2009
v11)
On the morning of 2 October 2009, one of us (Joan) joined an audience of ostly health professionals and listened as Dr. Diane Harper, the leading nternational developer of the HPV vaccines, gave a sales pitch for ardasil. Gardasil, as you may know, is the new vaccine that is supposed to onfer protection against four strains of the sexually transmitted Human apillomavirus (HPV).
Dr. Harper came to the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination o prove to us the real benefits of Gardasil. Sadly, her own presentation eft me (Joan) and others filled with doubts. By her own admission, ardasil has the doctors surrounding me glaring at a poor promise of fficacy as a vaccine married to a high risk of life-threatening side ffects.
Gardasil, Dr. Harper explained, is promoted by Merck, the pharmaceutical anufacturer, as a “safe and effective” prevention measure against cervical ancer. The theory behind the vaccine is that, as HPV may cause cervical ancer, conferring a greater immunity of some strains of HPV might reduce he incidence of this form of cancer. In pursuit of this goal, tens of illions of American girls have been vaccinated to date.
As I sat scribbling down Merck’s claims, I wondered why such mass accination campaigns were necessary. After all, as Dr. Harper explained, 0% of HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment in one year.
fter two years, this rate climbs to 90%. Of the remaining 10% of HPV nfections, only half coincide with the development of cervical cancer.
Dr. Harper further undercut the case for mass vaccination campaigns in the .S. when she pointed out that “4 out of 5 women with cervical cancer are n developing countries.” (Harper serves as a consultant to the World ealth Organization (WHO) for HPV vaccination in the developing world.) ndeed, she surprised her audience by stating that the incidence of ervical cancer in the U.S. is so low that “if we get the vaccine and ontinue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in he US.”
If this is the case, I thought, then why vaccinate at all? From the murmurs f the doctors in the audience, it was apparent that the same thought had ccurred to them.
In the U.S. the cervical cancer rate is 8 per 100,000 omen.1
oreover,
t is one of the most treatable forms of cancer. The current death rate rom cervical cancer is between 1.6 to 3.7 deaths per 100,000 omen.2
he
merican Cancer Society (ACS) notes that “between 1955 and 1992, the ervical cancer death rate declined by 74%” and adds that “the death rate rom cervical cancer continues to decline by nearly 4% each ear.”3
At this point, I began to wriggle around in my seat, uncomfortably ondering, is the vaccine really effective? Using data from trials funded y Merck, Dr. Harper cheerfully continued to demolish the case for the accine that she was ostensibly there to promote. She informed us that with the use of Gardasil, there will be no decrease in cervical cancer ntil at least 70% of the population is vaccinated, and in that case, the ecrease will be very minimal. The highest amount of minimal decrease will ppear in 60 years.”
It is hard to imagine a less compelling case for Gardasil. First of all, it s highly unlikely that 70% or more of the female population will continue o get routine Gardasil shots and boosters, along with annual PAP smears.
nd even if it did, according to Dr. Harper, “after 60 years, the accination will [only] have prevented 70% of incidences” of cervical ancer.
But rates of death from cervical cancer are already declining. Let’s do the ath. If the 4% annual decline in cervical cancer death continues, in 60 ears there will have been a 91.4% decline in cervical cancer death just rom current cancer monitoring and treatment. Comparing this rate of ecline to Gardasil’s projected “very minimal” reduction in the rate of ervical cancer of only 70 % of incidences in 60 years, it is hard to esist the conclusion that Gardasil does almost nothing for the health of merican women.
Despite these dismal projections, Gardasil continues to be widely and ggressively promoted among pre-teen girls. The CDC reports that, by 1 June 009, over 26 million doses of Gardasil have been distributed in the .S.4 With opes of soon tapping the adolescent male demographic, Merck, the harmaceutical manufacturer of the vaccine, and certain Merck-funded U.S.
edical organizations are targeting girls between the ages of 9 and 3.5
s
BS news reports, “Gardasil, launched in 2006 for girls and young women, uickly became one of Merck's top-selling vaccines, thanks to aggressive arketing and attempts to get states to require girls to get the vaccine as requirement for school ttendance.”6
Just as I began, in my own mind, to question ethics of mass vaccinations of repubescent girls, Dr. Harper dropped another bombshell. “There have been o efficacy trials in girls under 15 years,” she told us.
Merck did study a small group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated, ut did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of ffective HPV antibodies.
If I wasn’t skeptical enough already, I really started scratching my head hen Dr. Harper explained, “if you vaccinate a child, she won’t keep mmunity in puberty and you do nothing to prevent cervical cancer.” But it urned out that she wasn’t arguing for postponing Gardasil vaccination ntil later puberty, as I first thought. Rather, Dr. Harper only emphasized o the doctors in the audience the need for Gardasil booster shots, because t is still unknown how long the vaccine immunity lasts. More booster shots ean more money for Merck, obviously.
I left Dr. Harper’s lecture convinced that Gardasil did little to stop ervical cancer, and determined to answer another question that she had argely ducked: Is this vaccine safe?
Here’s what my research turned up. To date, 15,037 girls have officially eported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event eporting System (VAERS). These adverse effects include Guilliane Barre, upus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many thers. The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported eaths.7
Dr. Harper, who seems to specialize in dropping bombshells, dropped another n an interview with ABC News when she admitted that “The rate of serious dverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical ancer.”8 This eing the case, one might want to take one’s chances with cancer, specially because the side effects of the vaccine are immediate, while the ossibility of developing cancer is years in the future.
In the clinical studies alone, 23 girls died after receiving either ardasil or the Aluminum control injection. 15 of the 13,686 girls who eceived Gardasil died, while 8 died among the 11,004 who received the luminum shot. There was only one death among the group that had a saline lacebo. What this means is that 1 out of every 912 who received Gardasil n the study died.9, see p.

he
ervical cancer death rate is 1 out of every 40,000 women per ear.10
The numbers of deaths and adverse effects are undoubtedly underestimates.
r. Harper’s comments to ABC News concur with the National Vaccine nformation Center’s claim that “though nearly 70 percent of all Gardasil eaction reports were filed by Merck, a whopping 89 percent of the reports erck did file were so incomplete there was not enough information for ealth officials to do a proper follow-up and eview.”11
n
verage, less than 10 percent—perhaps even less than 1 percent—of serious accine adverse events are ever reported, according to the American Journal f Public Health.12
Given the severity and frequency of Gardasil adverse reactions, I efinitely wasn’t the only one in Dr. Harper’s audience who winced when she ismissed most Gardasil side effects as “easily just needle phobia.”
Due to the young age of the trial participants and the short duration of he studies, the effects of Gardasil on female fecundity have not been tudied. I did discover, in my post-conference reading, that Polysorbate 0, an ingredient in the vaccine,13, see p.
2
as
een observed in a European clinical study to cause infertility in ats.14 Is his an additional concern? Time will tell.
I do not wish to give the impression that Dr. Harper presented, even nadvertently, a consistently negative view of her own vaccine. She did out certain “real benefits,” chief among them that “the vaccine will educe the number of follow-up tests after abnormal PAP smears,” and hereby reduce the “relationship tension,” “stress and anxiety” of abnormal r false HPV positive results.
To me, however, this seems a rather slim promise, especially when weighed gainst the deaths and side effects caused by the Gardasil campaign. Should illions of girls in the United States, many as young as 9, be put at risk, o that sexually active adults can have less “relationship tension” about alse positive HPV results? Is the current rate of death, sterility and erious immune dysfunction from Gardasil worth the potential that in 60 ears a minimal amount of a cervical disease (that is already decreasing on ts own) may perhaps be reduced?
But what I really wanted to know is why Merck is so eagerly marketing such dangerous and ineffective vaccine? Aren’t there other ways they could ake a profit? While Merck’s behavior is probably adequately explained by he profit motive, what about those in the Health and Human Services ureaucracy who apparently see Gardasil as medicine’s gift to women? What otivates them?
I (Steve) think that they see Gardasil as what one might call a “wedge”
rug. For them, the success of this public vaccination campaign has less to o with stopping cervical cancer, than it does with opening the door to ther vaccination campaigns for other sexually transmitted diseases, and erhaps even including pregnancy itself. For if they can overcome the bjections of parents and religious organizations to vaccinating re-pubescent—and not sexually active--girls against one form of STD, then t will make it easier for them to embark on similar programs in the future.
After all, the proponents of sexual liberation are determined not to let ere disease—or even death—stand in the way of their pleasures. They elieve that there must be technological solutions to the diseases that ave arisen from their relentless promotion of promiscuity. After all, the lternative is too horrible to contemplate: They might have to learn to ontrol their appetites. And they might have to teach abstinence.
-----------
-
work here blog here &
ere
tweet here
ean about my professional career
ere
post fun stuff here
ately, I've been spending a lot of time
ere
**-------------------------------------------------------------------
his message is from PEDTALK - a pediatric focused e-mail discussion group.
ist address: hidden@email-address
dmin questions: hidden@email-address dit preferences: http://www.pedsource.com/mailman/listinfo/pedtalk
nsubscribe: use edit preferences link (above) or send e-mail to hidden@email-address with "unsubscribe" in the body of the message.

Merck Researcher Admits: Gardasil Guards Against Almost Nothing

For those that have commented on this post, would you have a problem if I
"quote" you on a blog post on Survivor Pediatrics?

Or, if any of you would like to take the opportunity to write something
about this issue, I'll be happy to publish it for you.

Brandon

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Brandon Betancourt <
hidden@email-address> wrote:

> A patient posted this on our Facebook Page. She wanted to see if we had
> any thoughts on the issue. Have any of you heard anything on this woman Dr.
> Diane Harper?
>
>
>
>
> http://pop.org/content/merck-researcher-admits-gardasil-guards-against-a...
>
> Here is another link to CBS
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/19/cbsnews_investigates/main52534...
>
>
> By Joan Robinson and Steven W. Mosher
>
> - Weekly Briefing: 2009 (v11)
>
> On the morning of 2 October 2009, one of us (Joan) joined an audience of
> mostly health professionals and listened as Dr. Diane Harper, the leading
> international developer of the HPV vaccines, gave a sales pitch for
> Gardasil. Gardasil, as you may know, is the new vaccine that is supposed to
> confer protection against four strains of the sexually transmitted Human
> Papillomavirus (HPV).
>
> Dr. Harper came to the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination
> to prove to us the real benefits of Gardasil. Sadly, her own presentation
> left me (Joan) and others filled with doubts. By her own admission,
> Gardasil has the doctors surrounding me glaring at a poor promise of
> efficacy as a vaccine married to a high risk of life-threatening side
> effects.
>
> Gardasil, Dr. Harper explained, is promoted by Merck, the pharmaceutical
> manufacturer, as a “safe and effective” prevention measure against cervical
> cancer. The theory behind the vaccine is that, as HPV may cause cervical
> cancer, conferring a greater immunity of some strains of HPV might reduce
> the incidence of this form of cancer. In pursuit of this goal, tens of
> millions of American girls have been vaccinated to date.
>
> As I sat scribbling down Merck’s claims, I wondered why such mass
> vaccination campaigns were necessary. After all, as Dr. Harper explained,
> 70% of HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment in one year.
> After two years, this rate climbs to 90%. Of the remaining 10% of HPV
> infections, only half coincide with the development of cervical cancer.
>
> Dr. Harper further undercut the case for mass vaccination campaigns in the
> U.S. when she pointed out that “4 out of 5 women with cervical cancer are
> in developing countries.” (Harper serves as a consultant to the World
> Health Organization (WHO) for HPV vaccination in the developing world.)
> Indeed, she surprised her audience by stating that the incidence of
> cervical cancer in the U.S. is so low that “if we get the vaccine and
> continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in
> the US.”
>
> If this is the case, I thought, then why vaccinate at all? From the
> murmurs of the doctors in the audience, it was apparent that the same
> thought had occurred to them.
>
> In the U.S. the cervical cancer rate is 8 per 100,000 women.1 Moreover,
> it is one of the most treatable forms of cancer. The current death rate
> from cervical cancer is between 1.6 to 3.7 deaths per 100,000 women.2 The
> American Cancer Society (ACS) notes that “between 1955 and 1992, the
> cervical cancer death rate declined by 74%” and adds that “the death rate
> from cervical cancer continues to decline by nearly 4% each year.”3
>
> At this point, I began to wriggle around in my seat, uncomfortably
> wondering, is the vaccine really effective? Using data from trials funded
> by Merck, Dr. Harper cheerfully continued to demolish the case for the
> vaccine that she was ostensibly there to promote. She informed us that
> “with the use of Gardasil, there will be no decrease in cervical cancer
> until at least 70% of the population is vaccinated, and in that case, the
> decrease will be very minimal. The highest amount of minimal decrease will
> appear in 60 years.”
>
> It is hard to imagine a less compelling case for Gardasil. First of all,
> it is highly unlikely that 70% or more of the female population will
> continue to get routine Gardasil shots and boosters, along with annual PAP
> smears. And even if it did, according to Dr. Harper, “after 60 years, the
> vaccination will [only] have prevented 70% of incidences” of cervical
> cancer.
>
> But rates of death from cervical cancer are already declining. Let’s do
> the math. If the 4% annual decline in cervical cancer death continues, in
> 60 years there will have been a 91.4% decline in cervical cancer death just
> from current cancer monitoring and treatment. Comparing this rate of
> decline to Gardasil’s projected “very minimal” reduction in the rate of
> cervical cancer of only 70 % of incidences in 60 years, it is hard to
> resist the conclusion that Gardasil does almost nothing for the health of
> American women.
>
> Despite these dismal projections, Gardasil continues to be widely and
> aggressively promoted among pre-teen girls. The CDC reports that, by 1 June
> 2009, over 26 million doses of Gardasil have been distributed in the U.S.4 With
> hopes of soon tapping the adolescent male demographic, Merck, the
> pharmaceutical manufacturer of the vaccine, and certain Merck-funded U.S.
> medical organizations are targeting girls between the ages of 9 and 13.5 As
> CBS news reports, “Gardasil, launched in 2006 for girls and young women,
> quickly became one of Merck's top-selling vaccines, thanks to aggressive
> marketing and attempts to get states to require girls to get the vaccine as
> a requirement for school attendance.”6
>
> Just as I began, in my own mind, to question ethics of mass vaccinations
> of prepubescent girls, Dr. Harper dropped another bombshell. “There have
> been no efficacy trials in girls under 15 years,” she told us.
>
> Merck did study a small group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated,
> but did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of
> effective HPV antibodies.
>
> If I wasn’t skeptical enough already, I really started scratching my head
> when Dr. Harper explained, “if you vaccinate a child, she won’t keep
> immunity in puberty and you do nothing to prevent cervical cancer.” But it
> turned out that she wasn’t arguing for postponing Gardasil vaccination
> until later puberty, as I first thought. Rather, Dr. Harper only emphasized
> to the doctors in the audience the need for Gardasil booster shots, because
> it is still unknown how long the vaccine immunity lasts. More booster shots
> mean more money for Merck, obviously.
>
> I left Dr. Harper’s lecture convinced that Gardasil did little to stop
> cervical cancer, and determined to answer another question that she had
> largely ducked: Is this vaccine safe?
>
> Here’s what my research turned up. To date, 15,037 girls have officially
> reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event
> Reporting System (VAERS). These adverse effects include Guilliane Barre,
> lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many
> others. The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported deaths.7
>
> Dr. Harper, who seems to specialize in dropping bombshells, dropped
> another in an interview with ABC News when she admitted that “The rate of
> serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical
> cancer.”8 This being the
> case, one might want to take one’s chances with cancer, especially because
> the side effects of the vaccine are immediate, while the possibility of
> developing cancer is years in the future.
>
> In the clinical studies alone, 23 girls died after receiving either
> Gardasil or the Aluminum control injection. 15 of the 13,686 girls who
> received Gardasil died, while 8 died among the 11,004 who received the
> Aluminum shot. There was only one death among the group that had a saline
> placebo. What this means is that 1 out of every 912 who received Gardasil
> in the study died.9, see p. 8 The
> cervical cancer death rate is 1 out of every 40,000 women per year.10
>
> The numbers of deaths and adverse effects are undoubtedly underestimates.
> Dr. Harper’s comments to ABC News concur with the National Vaccine
> Information Center’s claim that “though nearly 70 percent of all Gardasil
> reaction reports were filed by Merck, a whopping 89 percent of the reports
> Merck did file were so incomplete there was not enough information for
> health officials to do a proper follow-up and review.”11 On
> average, less than 10 percent—perhaps even less than 1 percent—of serious
> vaccine adverse events are ever reported, according to the American Journal
> of Public Health.12
>
> Given the severity and frequency of Gardasil adverse reactions, I
> definitely wasn’t the only one in Dr. Harper’s audience who winced when she
> dismissed most Gardasil side effects as “easily just needle phobia.”
>
> Due to the young age of the trial participants and the short duration of
> the studies, the effects of Gardasil on female fecundity have not been
> studied. I did discover, in my post-conference reading, that Polysorbate
> 80, an ingredient in the vaccine,13, see p. 12 has
> been observed in a European clinical study to cause infertility in rats.14 Is
> this an additional concern? Time will tell.
>
> I do not wish to give the impression that Dr. Harper presented, even
> inadvertently, a consistently negative view of her own vaccine. She did
> tout certain “real benefits,” chief among them that “the vaccine will
> reduce the number of follow-up tests after abnormal PAP smears,” and
> thereby reduce the “relationship tension,” “stress and anxiety” of abnormal
> or false HPV positive results.
>
> To me, however, this seems a rather slim promise, especially when weighed
> against the deaths and side effects caused by the Gardasil campaign. Should
> millions of girls in the United States, many as young as 9, be put at risk,
> so that sexually active adults can have less “relationship tension” about
> false positive HPV results? Is the current rate of death, sterility and
> serious immune dysfunction from Gardasil worth the potential that in 60
> years a minimal amount of a cervical disease (that is already decreasing on
> its own) may perhaps be reduced?
>
> But what I really wanted to know is why Merck is so eagerly marketing such
> a dangerous and ineffective vaccine? Aren’t there other ways they could
> make a profit? While Merck’s behavior is probably adequately explained by
> the profit motive, what about those in the Health and Human Services
> bureaucracy who apparently see Gardasil as medicine’s gift to women? What
> motivates them?
>
> I (Steve) think that they see Gardasil as what one might call a “wedge”
> drug. For them, the success of this public vaccination campaign has less to
> do with stopping cervical cancer, than it does with opening the door to
> other vaccination campaigns for other sexually transmitted diseases, and
> perhaps even including pregnancy itself. For if they can overcome the
> objections of parents and religious organizations to vaccinating
> pre-pubescent—and not sexually active--girls against one form of STD, then
> it will make it easier for them to embark on similar programs in the future.
>
> After all, the proponents of sexual liberation are determined not to let
> mere disease—or even death—stand in the way of their pleasures. They
> believe that there must be technological solutions to the diseases that
> have arisen from their relentless promotion of promiscuity. After all, the
> alternative is too horrible to contemplate: They might have to learn to
> control their appetites. And they might have to teach abstinence.
> ------------
> --
> I work here
> I blog here & here
> I tweet here
> Lean about my professional career here
> I post fun stuff here
> Lately, I've been spending a lot of time here
>
>

--
I work here
I blog here &
here
I tweet here
Lean about my professional career
here
I post fun stuff here
Lately, I've been spending a lot of time
here

Merck Researcher Admits: Gardasil Guards Against Almost Nothing

Hi Folks -

I wasn't sure what to make of this article, so I tried to find its source on the web. I also tried to learn a bit more about Dr. Diane Harper and found numerous articles where she says was misquoted quite badly in other articles, some of which were picked up by the likes of CBS and MSNBC. Since it had the makings of an internet urban legend, I thought snopes.com would be a good resource. And, sure enough, they pick things apart quite nicely and provide footnotes to support their claims:

http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/gardasil.asp

Bottom line is that there is some accuracy mixed in with what I would consider a careless disregard for fact. For example, of the 15,000 (now 19,000, depending on the article), adverse effects reported to the CDC, 94% were non-serious, such as swelling around the vaccine point or fainting after receiving the vaccine. Of the 6% that were serious, they have been closely monitored. Of the 23 deaths reported since the vaccine was introduced, none of the deaths were linked to the vaccine.

I think it's important to know the Population Research Institute of Virginia is the source of the article quoted by Dr. Betancourt. This is a non-profit group who's mission is to debunk the myth of overpopulation, to eliminate abortion, etc.:

http://www.pop.org/about/our-mission-801

Cheers!

John

--

On Oct 30, 2011, at 10:54 AM, Brandon Betancourt wrote:

> A patient posted this on our Facebook Page. She wanted to see if we had any
> thoughts on the issue. Have any of you heard anything on this woman Dr.
> Diane Harper?
>
>
>
> http://pop.org/content/merck-researcher-admits-gardasil-guards-against-a...
>
> Here is another link to CBS
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/19/cbsnews_investigates/main52534...
>
>
> By Joan Robinson and Steven W. Mosher
>
> - Weekly Briefing: 2009
> (v11)
>
> On the morning of 2 October 2009, one of us (Joan) joined an audience of
> mostly health professionals and listened as Dr. Diane Harper, the leading
> international developer of the HPV vaccines, gave a sales pitch for
> Gardasil. Gardasil, as you may know, is the new vaccine that is supposed to
> confer protection against four strains of the sexually transmitted Human
> Papillomavirus (HPV).
>
> Dr. Harper came to the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination
> to prove to us the real benefits of Gardasil. Sadly, her own presentation
> left me (Joan) and others filled with doubts. By her own admission,
> Gardasil has the doctors surrounding me glaring at a poor promise of
> efficacy as a vaccine married to a high risk of life-threatening side
> effects.
>
> Gardasil, Dr. Harper explained, is promoted by Merck, the pharmaceutical
> manufacturer, as a “safe and effective” prevention measure against cervical
> cancer. The theory behind the vaccine is that, as HPV may cause cervical
> cancer, conferring a greater immunity of some strains of HPV might reduce
> the incidence of this form of cancer. In pursuit of this goal, tens of
> millions of American girls have been vaccinated to date.
>
> As I sat scribbling down Merck’s claims, I wondered why such mass
> vaccination campaigns were necessary. After all, as Dr. Harper explained,
> 70% of HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment in one year.
> After two years, this rate climbs to 90%. Of the remaining 10% of HPV
> infections, only half coincide with the development of cervical cancer.
>
> Dr. Harper further undercut the case for mass vaccination campaigns in the
> U.S. when she pointed out that “4 out of 5 women with cervical cancer are
> in developing countries.” (Harper serves as a consultant to the World
> Health Organization (WHO) for HPV vaccination in the developing world.)
> Indeed, she surprised her audience by stating that the incidence of
> cervical cancer in the U.S. is so low that “if we get the vaccine and
> continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in
> the US.”
>
> If this is the case, I thought, then why vaccinate at all? From the murmurs
> of the doctors in the audience, it was apparent that the same thought had
> occurred to them.
>
> In the U.S. the cervical cancer rate is 8 per 100,000
> women.1
> Moreover,
> it is one of the most treatable forms of cancer. The current death rate
> from cervical cancer is between 1.6 to 3.7 deaths per 100,000
> women.2
> The
> American Cancer Society (ACS) notes that “between 1955 and 1992, the
> cervical cancer death rate declined by 74%” and adds that “the death rate
> from cervical cancer continues to decline by nearly 4% each
> year.”3
>
> At this point, I began to wriggle around in my seat, uncomfortably
> wondering, is the vaccine really effective? Using data from trials funded
> by Merck, Dr. Harper cheerfully continued to demolish the case for the
> vaccine that she was ostensibly there to promote. She informed us that
> “with the use of Gardasil, there will be no decrease in cervical cancer
> until at least 70% of the population is vaccinated, and in that case, the
> decrease will be very minimal. The highest amount of minimal decrease will
> appear in 60 years.”
>
> It is hard to imagine a less compelling case for Gardasil. First of all, it
> is highly unlikely that 70% or more of the female population will continue
> to get routine Gardasil shots and boosters, along with annual PAP smears.
> And even if it did, according to Dr. Harper, “after 60 years, the
> vaccination will [only] have prevented 70% of incidences” of cervical
> cancer.
>
> But rates of death from cervical cancer are already declining. Let’s do the
> math. If the 4% annual decline in cervical cancer death continues, in 60
> years there will have been a 91.4% decline in cervical cancer death just
> from current cancer monitoring and treatment. Comparing this rate of
> decline to Gardasil’s projected “very minimal” reduction in the rate of
> cervical cancer of only 70 % of incidences in 60 years, it is hard to
> resist the conclusion that Gardasil does almost nothing for the health of
> American women.
>
> Despite these dismal projections, Gardasil continues to be widely and
> aggressively promoted among pre-teen girls. The CDC reports that, by 1 June
> 2009, over 26 million doses of Gardasil have been distributed in the
> U.S.4 With
> hopes of soon tapping the adolescent male demographic, Merck, the
> pharmaceutical manufacturer of the vaccine, and certain Merck-funded U.S.
> medical organizations are targeting girls between the ages of 9 and
> 13.5
> As
> CBS news reports, “Gardasil, launched in 2006 for girls and young women,
> quickly became one of Merck's top-selling vaccines, thanks to aggressive
> marketing and attempts to get states to require girls to get the vaccine as
> a requirement for school
> attendance.”6
>
> Just as I began, in my own mind, to question ethics of mass vaccinations of
> prepubescent girls, Dr. Harper dropped another bombshell. “There have been
> no efficacy trials in girls under 15 years,” she told us.
>
> Merck did study a small group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated,
> but did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of
> effective HPV antibodies.
>
> If I wasn’t skeptical enough already, I really started scratching my head
> when Dr. Harper explained, “if you vaccinate a child, she won’t keep
> immunity in puberty and you do nothing to prevent cervical cancer.” But it
> turned out that she wasn’t arguing for postponing Gardasil vaccination
> until later puberty, as I first thought. Rather, Dr. Harper only emphasized
> to the doctors in the audience the need for Gardasil booster shots, because
> it is still unknown how long the vaccine immunity lasts. More booster shots
> mean more money for Merck, obviously.
>
> I left Dr. Harper’s lecture convinced that Gardasil did little to stop
> cervical cancer, and determined to answer another question that she had
> largely ducked: Is this vaccine safe?
>
> Here’s what my research turned up. To date, 15,037 girls have officially
> reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event
> Reporting System (VAERS). These adverse effects include Guilliane Barre,
> lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many
> others. The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported
> deaths.7
>
> Dr. Harper, who seems to specialize in dropping bombshells, dropped another
> in an interview with ABC News when she admitted that “The rate of serious
> adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical
> cancer.”8 This
> being the case, one might want to take one’s chances with cancer,
> especially because the side effects of the vaccine are immediate, while the
> possibility of developing cancer is years in the future.
>
> In the clinical studies alone, 23 girls died after receiving either
> Gardasil or the Aluminum control injection. 15 of the 13,686 girls who
> received Gardasil died, while 8 died among the 11,004 who received the
> Aluminum shot. There was only one death among the group that had a saline
> placebo. What this means is that 1 out of every 912 who received Gardasil
> in the study died.9, see p.
> 8
> The
> cervical cancer death rate is 1 out of every 40,000 women per
> year.10
>
> The numbers of deaths and adverse effects are undoubtedly underestimates.
> Dr. Harper’s comments to ABC News concur with the National Vaccine
> Information Center’s claim that “though nearly 70 percent of all Gardasil
> reaction reports were filed by Merck, a whopping 89 percent of the reports
> Merck did file were so incomplete there was not enough information for
> health officials to do a proper follow-up and
> review.”11
> On
> average, less than 10 percent—perhaps even less than 1 percent—of serious
> vaccine adverse events are ever reported, according to the American Journal
> of Public Health.12
>
> Given the severity and frequency of Gardasil adverse reactions, I
> definitely wasn’t the only one in Dr. Harper’s audience who winced when she
> dismissed most Gardasil side effects as “easily just needle phobia.”
>
> Due to the young age of the trial participants and the short duration of
> the studies, the effects of Gardasil on female fecundity have not been
> studied. I did discover, in my post-conference reading, that Polysorbate
> 80, an ingredient in the vaccine,13, see p.
> 12
> has
> been observed in a European clinical study to cause infertility in
> rats.14 Is
> this an additional concern? Time will tell.
>
> I do not wish to give the impression that Dr. Harper presented, even
> inadvertently, a consistently negative view of her own vaccine. She did
> tout certain “real benefits,” chief among them that “the vaccine will
> reduce the number of follow-up tests after abnormal PAP smears,” and
> thereby reduce the “relationship tension,” “stress and anxiety” of abnormal
> or false HPV positive results.
>
> To me, however, this seems a rather slim promise, especially when weighed
> against the deaths and side effects caused by the Gardasil campaign. Should
> millions of girls in the United States, many as young as 9, be put at risk,
> so that sexually active adults can have less “relationship tension” about
> false positive HPV results? Is the current rate of death, sterility and
> serious immune dysfunction from Gardasil worth the potential that in 60
> years a minimal amount of a cervical disease (that is already decreasing on
> its own) may perhaps be reduced?
>
> But what I really wanted to know is why Merck is so eagerly marketing such
> a dangerous and ineffective vaccine? Aren’t there other ways they could
> make a profit? While Merck’s behavior is probably adequately explained by
> the profit motive, what about those in the Health and Human Services
> bureaucracy who apparently see Gardasil as medicine’s gift to women? What
> motivates them?
>
> I (Steve) think that they see Gardasil as what one might call a “wedge”
> drug. For them, the success of this public vaccination campaign has less to
> do with stopping cervical cancer, than it does with opening the door to
> other vaccination campaigns for other sexually transmitted diseases, and
> perhaps even including pregnancy itself. For if they can overcome the
> objections of parents and religious organizations to vaccinating
> pre-pubescent—and not sexually active--girls against one form of STD, then
> it will make it easier for them to embark on similar programs in the future.
>
> After all, the proponents of sexual liberation are determined not to let
> mere disease—or even death—stand in the way of their pleasures. They
> believe that there must be technological solutions to the diseases that
> have arisen from their relentless promotion of promiscuity. After all, the
> alternative is too horrible to contemplate: They might have to learn to
> control their appetites. And they might have to teach abstinence.
> ------------
> --
> I work here
> I blog here &
> here
> I tweet here
> Lean about my professional career
> here
> I post fun stuff here
> Lately, I've been spending a lot of time
> here

Merck Researcher Admits: Gardasil Guards Against Almost Nothing

Based on some responses I've received to this posting, I thought I should share a link to this article at Medscape (I'm assuming they are can be considered a trusted source):

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/578110

Please note how this article begins with a notice that it replaces an earlier article which was about the problems related to the HPV vaccine. After publishing it, they received some complaints, vetted it more carefully, and found that the article was ridden with errors.

If you read the new article, you'll see that Dr. Harper remains an advocate for HPV vaccines. She was worried that Merk was overly aggressive with the advertising of the vaccine and did not point out some of the warnings as clearly as she liked - for example, people with auto-immune problems should more carefully consider whether or not they receive this vaccine.

For me, this article in Medscape and others like it that interview Dr. Diane Harper directly, call in to question the veracity of the article hosted at the Population Research Institute. I apologize for not being more specific about that with my last posting.

Last but not least, I apologize to our friends at Merck for misspelling the name of their vaccine that caused all of this uproar in the first place. ;)

John

On Oct 30, 2011, at 3:51 PM, John Canning wrote:

> Hi Folks -
>
> I wasn't sure what to make of this article, so I tried to find its source on the web. I also tried to learn a bit more about Dr. Diane Harper and found numerous articles where she says was misquoted quite badly in other articles, some of which were picked up by the likes of CBS and MSNBC. Since it had the makings of an internet urban legend, I thought snopes.com would be a good resource. And, sure enough, they pick things apart quite nicely and provide footnotes to support their claims:
>
> http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/gardasil.asp
>
> Bottom line is that there is some accuracy mixed in with what I would consider a careless disregard for fact. For example, of the 15,000 (now 19,000, depending on the article), adverse effects reported to the CDC, 94% were non-serious, such as swelling around the vaccine point or fainting after receiving the vaccine. Of the 6% that were serious, they have been closely monitored. Of the 23 deaths reported since the vaccine was introduced, none of the deaths were linked to the vaccine.
>
> I think it's important to know the Population Research Institute of Virginia is the source of the article quoted by Dr. Betancourt. This is a non-profit group who's mission is to debunk the myth of overpopulation, to eliminate abortion, etc.:
>
> http://www.pop.org/about/our-mission-801
>
> Cheers!
>
> John
>
> --
>
>
> On Oct 30, 2011, at 10:54 AM, Brandon Betancourt wrote:
>
>> A patient posted this on our Facebook Page. She wanted to see if we had any
>> thoughts on the issue. Have any of you heard anything on this woman Dr.
>> Diane Harper?
>>
>>
>>
>> http://pop.org/content/merck-researcher-admits-gardasil-guards-against-a...
>>
>> Here is another link to CBS
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/19/cbsnews_investigates/main52534...
>>
>>
>> By Joan Robinson and Steven W. Mosher
>>
>> - Weekly Briefing: 2009
>> (v11)
>>
>> On the morning of 2 October 2009, one of us (Joan) joined an audience of
>> mostly health professionals and listened as Dr. Diane Harper, the leading
>> international developer of the HPV vaccines, gave a sales pitch for
>> Gardasil. Gardasil, as you may know, is the new vaccine that is supposed to
>> confer protection against four strains of the sexually transmitted Human
>> Papillomavirus (HPV).
>>
>> Dr. Harper came to the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination
>> to prove to us the real benefits of Gardasil. Sadly, her own presentation
>> left me (Joan) and others filled with doubts. By her own admission,
>> Gardasil has the doctors surrounding me glaring at a poor promise of
>> efficacy as a vaccine married to a high risk of life-threatening side
>> effects.
>>
>> Gardasil, Dr. Harper explained, is promoted by Merck, the pharmaceutical
>> manufacturer, as a “safe and effective” prevention measure against cervical
>> cancer. The theory behind the vaccine is that, as HPV may cause cervical
>> cancer, conferring a greater immunity of some strains of HPV might reduce
>> the incidence of this form of cancer. In pursuit of this goal, tens of
>> millions of American girls have been vaccinated to date.
>>
>> As I sat scribbling down Merck’s claims, I wondered why such mass
>> vaccination campaigns were necessary. After all, as Dr. Harper explained,
>> 70% of HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment in one year.
>> After two years, this rate climbs to 90%. Of the remaining 10% of HPV
>> infections, only half coincide with the development of cervical cancer.
>>
>> Dr. Harper further undercut the case for mass vaccination campaigns in the
>> U.S. when she pointed out that “4 out of 5 women with cervical cancer are
>> in developing countries.” (Harper serves as a consultant to the World
>> Health Organization (WHO) for HPV vaccination in the developing world.)
>> Indeed, she surprised her audience by stating that the incidence of
>> cervical cancer in the U.S. is so low that “if we get the vaccine and
>> continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in
>> the US.”
>>
>> If this is the case, I thought, then why vaccinate at all? From the murmurs
>> of the doctors in the audience, it was apparent that the same thought had
>> occurred to them.
>>
>> In the U.S. the cervical cancer rate is 8 per 100,000
>> women.1
>> Moreover,
>> it is one of the most treatable forms of cancer. The current death rate
>> from cervical cancer is between 1.6 to 3.7 deaths per 100,000
>> women.2
>> The
>> American Cancer Society (ACS) notes that “between 1955 and 1992, the
>> cervical cancer death rate declined by 74%” and adds that “the death rate
>> from cervical cancer continues to decline by nearly 4% each
>> year.”3
>>
>> At this point, I began to wriggle around in my seat, uncomfortably
>> wondering, is the vaccine really effective? Using data from trials funded
>> by Merck, Dr. Harper cheerfully continued to demolish the case for the
>> vaccine that she was ostensibly there to promote. She informed us that
>> “with the use of Gardasil, there will be no decrease in cervical cancer
>> until at least 70% of the population is vaccinated, and in that case, the
>> decrease will be very minimal. The highest amount of minimal decrease will
>> appear in 60 years.”
>>
>> It is hard to imagine a less compelling case for Gardasil. First of all, it
>> is highly unlikely that 70% or more of the female population will continue
>> to get routine Gardasil shots and boosters, along with annual PAP smears.
>> And even if it did, according to Dr. Harper, “after 60 years, the
>> vaccination will [only] have prevented 70% of incidences” of cervical
>> cancer.
>>
>> But rates of death from cervical cancer are already declining. Let’s do the
>> math. If the 4% annual decline in cervical cancer death continues, in 60
>> years there will have been a 91.4% decline in cervical cancer death just
>> from current cancer monitoring and treatment. Comparing this rate of
>> decline to Gardasil’s projected “very minimal” reduction in the rate of
>> cervical cancer of only 70 % of incidences in 60 years, it is hard to
>> resist the conclusion that Gardasil does almost nothing for the health of
>> American women.
>>
>> Despite these dismal projections, Gardasil continues to be widely and
>> aggressively promoted among pre-teen girls. The CDC reports that, by 1 June
>> 2009, over 26 million doses of Gardasil have been distributed in the
>> U.S.4 With
>> hopes of soon tapping the adolescent male demographic, Merck, the
>> pharmaceutical manufacturer of the vaccine, and certain Merck-funded U.S.
>> medical organizations are targeting girls between the ages of 9 and
>> 13.5
>> As
>> CBS news reports, “Gardasil, launched in 2006 for girls and young women,
>> quickly became one of Merck's top-selling vaccines, thanks to aggressive
>> marketing and attempts to get states to require girls to get the vaccine as
>> a requirement for school
>> attendance.”6
>>
>> Just as I began, in my own mind, to question ethics of mass vaccinations of
>> prepubescent girls, Dr. Harper dropped another bombshell. “There have been
>> no efficacy trials in girls under 15 years,” she told us.
>>
>> Merck did study a small group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated,
>> but did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of
>> effective HPV antibodies.
>>
>> If I wasn’t skeptical enough already, I really started scratching my head
>> when Dr. Harper explained, “if you vaccinate a child, she won’t keep
>> immunity in puberty and you do nothing to prevent cervical cancer.” But it
>> turned out that she wasn’t arguing for postponing Gardasil vaccination
>> until later puberty, as I first thought. Rather, Dr. Harper only emphasized
>> to the doctors in the audience the need for Gardasil booster shots, because
>> it is still unknown how long the vaccine immunity lasts. More booster shots
>> mean more money for Merck, obviously.
>>
>> I left Dr. Harper’s lecture convinced that Gardasil did little to stop
>> cervical cancer, and determined to answer another question that she had
>> largely ducked: Is this vaccine safe?
>>
>> Here’s what my research turned up. To date, 15,037 girls have officially
>> reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event
>> Reporting System (VAERS). These adverse effects include Guilliane Barre,
>> lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many
>> others. The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported
>> deaths.7
>>
>> Dr. Harper, who seems to specialize in dropping bombshells, dropped another
>> in an interview with ABC News when she admitted that “The rate of serious
>> adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical
>> cancer.”8 This
>> being the case, one might want to take one’s chances with cancer,
>> especially because the side effects of the vaccine are immediate, while the
>> possibility of developing cancer is years in the future.
>>
>> In the clinical studies alone, 23 girls died after receiving either
>> Gardasil or the Aluminum control injection. 15 of the 13,686 girls who
>> received Gardasil died, while 8 died among the 11,004 who received the
>> Aluminum shot. There was only one death among the group that had a saline
>> placebo. What this means is that 1 out of every 912 who received Gardasil
>> in the study died.9, see p.
>> 8
>> The
>> cervical cancer death rate is 1 out of every 40,000 women per
>> year.10
>>
>> The numbers of deaths and adverse effects are undoubtedly underestimates.
>> Dr. Harper’s comments to ABC News concur with the National Vaccine
>> Information Center’s claim that “though nearly 70 percent of all Gardasil
>> reaction reports were filed by Merck, a whopping 89 percent of the reports
>> Merck did file were so incomplete there was not enough information for
>> health officials to do a proper follow-up and
>> review.”11
>> On
>> average, less than 10 percent—perhaps even less than 1 percent—of serious
>> vaccine adverse events are ever reported, according to the American Journal
>> of Public Health.12
>>
>> Given the severity and frequency of Gardasil adverse reactions, I
>> definitely wasn’t the only one in Dr. Harper’s audience who winced when she
>> dismissed most Gardasil side effects as “easily just needle phobia.”
>>
>> Due to the young age of the trial participants and the short duration of
>> the studies, the effects of Gardasil on female fecundity have not been
>> studied. I did discover, in my post-conference reading, that Polysorbate
>> 80, an ingredient in the vaccine,13, see p.
>> 12
>> has
>> been observed in a European clinical study to cause infertility in
>> rats.14 Is
>> this an additional concern? Time will tell.
>>
>> I do not wish to give the impression that Dr. Harper presented, even
>> inadvertently, a consistently negative view of her own vaccine. She did
>> tout certain “real benefits,” chief among them that “the vaccine will
>> reduce the number of follow-up tests after abnormal PAP smears,” and
>> thereby reduce the “relationship tension,” “stress and anxiety” of abnormal
>> or false HPV positive results.
>>
>> To me, however, this seems a rather slim promise, especially when weighed
>> against the deaths and side effects caused by the Gardasil campaign. Should
>> millions of girls in the United States, many as young as 9, be put at risk,
>> so that sexually active adults can have less “relationship tension” about
>> false positive HPV results? Is the current rate of death, sterility and
>> serious immune dysfunction from Gardasil worth the potential that in 60
>> years a minimal amount of a cervical disease (that is already decreasing on
>> its own) may perhaps be reduced?
>>
>> But what I really wanted to know is why Merck is so eagerly marketing such
>> a dangerous and ineffective vaccine? Aren’t there other ways they could
>> make a profit? While Merck’s behavior is probably adequately explained by
>> the profit motive, what about those in the Health and Human Services
>> bureaucracy who apparently see Gardasil as medicine’s gift to women? What
>> motivates them?
>>
>> I (Steve) think that they see Gardasil as what one might call a “wedge”
>> drug. For them, the success of this public vaccination campaign has less to
>> do with stopping cervical cancer, than it does with opening the door to
>> other vaccination campaigns for other sexually transmitted diseases, and
>> perhaps even including pregnancy itself. For if they can overcome the
>> objections of parents and religious organizations to vaccinating
>> pre-pubescent—and not sexually active--girls against one form of STD, then
>> it will make it easier for them to embark on similar programs in the future.
>>
>> After all, the proponents of sexual liberation are determined not to let
>> mere disease—or even death—stand in the way of their pleasures. They
>> believe that there must be technological solutions to the diseases that
>> have arisen from their relentless promotion of promiscuity. After all, the
>> alternative is too horrible to contemplate: They might have to learn to
>> control their appetites. And they might have to teach abstinence.
>> ------------
>> --
>> I work here
>> I blog here &
>> here
>> I tweet here
>> Lean about my professional career
>> here
>> I post fun stuff here
>> Lately, I've been spending a lot of time
>> here