The HPV Vaccine – What Every Mother with a Daughter Should Know

I’d like to take the time to break this article down into my own words and add additional research but I am short on time and sleepy. Instead, I will copy the article directly which I think speaks for itself. This article is worth reading. It’s worth trying to understand and conceptualize the deception that goes into making people believe that certain vaccines are necessary and/or worth the risk. If I were to pick out the most ridiculous vaccine available on the market today I’d have to say that this one would be up there at the top. Please, please don’t give your daughter this vaccine without first researching the vaccine. Not only could your daughter be affected but your grandchildren.

This article came from Mercola HERE:

Once you educate yourself and know the facts about Gardasil, the truth about HPV, and the statistics of cervical cancer, it will become quite clear just how outrageously useless — and dangerous — this vaccine really is.

The FDA, in not-so-rare form, insists there’s no medical reason to be worried about the side effects of Gardasil. “We’re monitoring the safety of the HPV vaccine very carefully, and the only adverse event that causes some concern is fainting after the vaccine,” says Robert Ball, director of the FDA’s office of biostatistics and division of epidemiology.

He continues to say, “Higher rates of Guillain-Barré have been associated with the swine flu vaccine and possibly with the meningitis vaccine Menactra, but it is no more common in those who get Gardasil than in those who don’t.”

Alright. Let’s say you agree with the idea that the cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome are pure coincidence, despite the fact that they occur within days or weeks of vaccination.

But what about the deaths?

Infant deaths following Merck’s rotavirus are routinely disguised under the label SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome). So what do we have when healthy teenagers drop dead for no reason? SAD — Sudden Adolescent Death? Will that be the next big thing? Will there be SAD campaigns, with physicians educating the public about proper sleeping positions until you’re well into your 20’s?

Let’s get real.

I recently read a comment online from one mother who said she’d do anything in her power to make sure her children were protected, and she couldn’t understand “the narrow-minded opinions” and “fear mongering” of Gardasil nay-sayers.

“Would you rather your daughters died of cervical cancer?” she wrote.

Well, that’s just it, right there! As I will show you, the chances of your daughter dying of cervical cancer are already VERY LOW, and the possibility of Gardasil sparing them from cervical cancer is so RIDICULOUSLY LOW that no reasonable person could argue for the use of this HPV vaccine if they knew all the facts.

How Likely are You to Develop and Die From Cervical Cancer?

According to the CDC, cervical cancer used to be the leading cause of cancer death for women in the United States. However, in the past 40 years, the number of cervical cancer cases and the number of deaths thereof have decreased significantly. It is believed that this decline is the result of many women getting regular Pap tests, which can find cervical pre-cancer before it turns into cancer.

According to the U.S. Cancer Statistics: 2004 Incidence and Mortality report, 11,892 women in the U.S. were told that they had cervical cancer in 2004, and 3,850 women died from the disease. The American Cancer Society mirrors these statistics, estimating that about 3,870 women will die from cervical cancer in the U.S. in 2008.

Well. We’ve already lost 18 girls, some as young as 12, in the effort to spare them from the mere possibility of cervical cancer later in life. Others have developed debilitating and potentially life-threatening ailments within weeks of being vaccinated, and others still have had spontaneous abortions or given birth to babies with birth defects.

Also consider this: Cervical cancer usually develops in your late 20s to mid 30s. The protection period of Gardasil is estimated to be 5 years. That means, if you receive your first set of shots when you’re 10 years old, you’d need at least 2 to 4 additional booster shots to make it through your 30s. And THAT means you’ll have to expose yourself to the potential side effects of Gardasil over and over and over again.

But now to the real clincher, and I want you to read the following section as many times as you need to let this truly sink in…

U.S. statistics show there are 30 to 40 cervical cancer cases per year per one million women between the ages of 9 and 26, which is the age bracket that Gardasil targets (and was tested on).

According to Merck, Gardasil was shown to reduce pre-cancers by 12.2% to 16.5% in the general population. So, instead of ending up with 30 to 40 cases of cancer per million, per year, in that age bracket, the HPV vaccine can potentially bring it down to 26 to 35 cases of cervical cancer.

What that means is that you would have to vaccinate one million girls to prevent cervical cancer in 4 to 5 girls.

Further, about 37 percent of women who develop cervical cancer actually die from the disease, so vaccinating ONE MILLION girls would prevent 1 to 2 DEATHS per year, at the bargain-basement price of $360 million per year, plus potentially lifelong suffering for an untold number of women, which has no price tag.

Is this REASONABLE?

Understanding the HPV – Cancer Connection

There are more than 100 types of human papillomaviruses (HPVs). Of them, about 40 types of HPV affect your genitals or sex organs, and can cause genital warts, for example. 10-30 strains can lead to cervical cancer. The remainder can cause to skin infections and common warts on your hands and feet.

The CDC web site states that certain types of HPV can infect your cervix and lead to cervical cancer over many years. (This may be one of the reasons why cancer rates keep dropping, because there’s sufficient amount of time to treat any abnormalities if you’re getting regular Pap smears.)

It also says that in 90 percent of women infected, HPV clears up on its own within two years, at which point your cervical cells go back to normal. It is only when the HPV virus lingers for many years that these abnormal cells could turn into cancer.

Additionally, it’s important to know that the vast majority of abnormal Pap tests do NOT equate to cancer. Even abnormal Pap tests showing pre-cancerous cells of the CIN II grade clear by themselves without treatment 40 percent of the time.

And, current treatment of pre-cancers has limited the progression to actual cancer to only 1 percent. So, just like the polio vaccine, Merck’s HPV vaccine is coming out at a time when cervical cancer is already on a steady decline, and anyone who starts talking about how Gardasil has reduced cervical cancer rates in the next few years is likely talking absolute nonsense.

Informed Consent: Understand the Numerous Dangers of the HPV Vaccine

First of all, the Gardasil vaccine contains just four types of HPV out of the more than 100 strains. So if you contract one of the 96+ types that aren’t included, you’re out of luck. And, if you’ve already been exposed to one of the four types of virus in the vaccine, it doesn’t work against those either.

This means that even if you accept the risks and get vaccinated, your chances of getting some form of HPV are still very high. Whether or not the HPV virus will lead to genital warts or cervical cancer, however, depends in large part on the state of your immune system.

Gardasil, on the other hand, can damage your immune system, and can potentially lead to death. The main causes of death include blood clots, acute respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, and “sudden death” due to “unknown causes” shortly after receiving the vaccine. Again, 11 of the reported deaths occurred within 2 weeks of vaccination, and 7 within 2 days, so whatever the mechanism that induces death, it’s quick and efficient.

Other side effects include:

• Miscarriages and spontaneous abortion
• Genital wart outbreak, even in patients who had tested negative for HPV and genital warts prior to vaccination
• Facial warts and warts on hands and feet
• Anaphylactic shock
• Loss of consciousness
• Grand mal seizures
• Coma
• Paralysis

Says Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch, “Given all the questions about Gardasil, the best public health policy would be to reevaluate its safety and to prohibit its distribution to minors. In the least, governments should rethink any efforts to mandate or promote this vaccine for children.”

It’s also important to know that Merck has NOT evaluated Gardasil’s potential carcinogenity or genotoxicity.

There is currently no way of knowing how the HPV vaccine affects fertility, birth defects, cancer, if it can pass through breast milk, or if it can alter your genes or the genes of your future children (genotoxicity).

However, five subjects who got the vaccine around the time of conception had babies with birth defects, whereas no birth defects occurred among the subjects who received a placebo. Likewise, earlier last year when there were “only” 1,637 adverse reports, 18 of 42 women who had received the vaccine while pregnant experienced side effects ranging from spontaneous abortion to fetal abnormalities.

Also remember that you cannot sue Merck if your child dies after receiving the vaccine.

Drug companies have cleverly manipulated the government so that they are immune from prosecution. Instead they’ve made the U.S. taxpayers foot the bill for the hundreds of millions of dollars that are paid out to families of children who are harmed or killed every year from vaccines.

And even though it is nearly impossible to get one of these payments, more than $1.5 billion has been paid out to affected families already. So ponder on these stats if you haven’t already taken a firm position on the vaccine issue.

Good Example of How to Fake a Safety Study

In yet another less-than-ethical twist, Merck was permitted to use an aluminum-containing placebo instead of a standard saline placebo. Since Gardasil contains 225 mcg of aluminum, using an aluminum-containing placebo may paint an entirely inaccurate picture of its level of safety, since you’re apt to get similar, detrimental side effects in the placebo group.

In fact, about 60 percent of those who received either Gardasil or the aluminum placebo had systemic adverse events including:

• Headache
• Fever
• Nausea
• Dizziness
• Vomiting
• Diarrhea,
• Myalgia (muscle pain)

Gardasil recipients had more serious adverse events such as gastroenteritis, appendicitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, asthma, bronchospasm and arthritis.

You should also know that aside from being injected with four types of HPV proteins, girls and women who receive this vaccine also receive the following adjuvants:

1. Aluminum adjuvants, which have been linked to neurological damage including multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease

2. Polysorbate 80, which has been linked to infertility in mice.

3. Sodium borate, a main ingredient in roach killer.

How To Reduce Your Risk of Cervical Cancer to Virtually Zero

The following have been shown to be associated with increased risk of cervical cancer:

• Nutritional deficiencies, especially vitamin A and folate
• Mineral deficiency (zinc, selenium, calcium and iron)
• Smoking
• Birth control use
• Douching

It is believed that smoking has more to do with the progression of an HPV infection to cervical cancer than any other single factor, as smokers with HPV go on to develop cervical cancer much more frequently than infected non-smokers.

Cervical cancer is also well documented to be caused by an infection acquired through sexual contact. So in addition to avoiding smoking and eating a nutritious diet, it is behaviorally avoidable.

According to a New England Journal of Medicine study, the use of condoms reduces the incidence of HPV by 70 percent, offering FAR better protection than Gardasil’s protection rate of 12.2 to 16.5 percent.

As I’ve already mentioned, in 90 percent of all cases, your immune system is strong enough to clear up an HPV infection without ANY treatment. So maintaining a strong immune system is vital to beat HPV as well as any other infection or disease.
Related Articles:

The HPV Vaccine: Preventive Care or Human Sacrifice?

Gardasil — New Video Reveals Hidden Dangers

Why Use Vaccine for HPV When Green Tea Works?

Read Full Post »

Developments in the Vaccine-Autism Debate

A picture of Camden having an allergic reaction to
peanut. She became allergic to at least 5 different foods
within a week of her immunizations.

 

Many of you know that we stopped vaccinating Camden at 14 months of age after witnessing a severe deterioration in her health following her 12 month immunizations (which were given at 14 months). After watching my own daughters immune system fight to cope with a massive onset of food allergies within a week of her immunizations, I delved into research. It changed my life forever, to say the least. More importantly it caused me to no longer accept medicine or medicinal practices at face value. I learned that inevitably I am in charge of my child’s health and all though there are many health professionals out there to assist me in the process that it is I who must live with the results of the medical decisions that I make on a daily basis.

I consent that there is very little scientific research at this point connecting the large rise in food allergies to vaccines. Some interesting studies and research have been done but not nearly enough to scientifically prove a causation. Then again, the research has hardly been done at all. There is little funding for such research and like any other suspected reactions to vaccines I can only suspect that I will never have a final answer. Among masses of other parents I am left to struggle with what research there is, what my parenting intuition and experience tells me and the left is left up to prayer.

The Vaccine-Autism link has been argued back and forth for over a decade now. All though there has been no definitive connection (and some argue none whatsoever) between autism and vaccines it has nonetheless caused many parents to research, halt or delay the recommended vaccine schedule. Autism, of course, is only one of the many reasons parents have come to question the current vaccine schedule (or vaccines themselves) but it has definitely received the most attention.

In an interesting twist last month the government conceded it’s first case awarding compensation for a family that presented their case in “Vaccine Court.” The settlement has left a lot of unanswered questions however because of the way that the court established the basis of compensation. They have stated that the child had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder that was aggravated by her vaccinations thus resulting in an ASD diagnosis.

I would also question, which came first? The chicken or the egg? In other words, did the mitochondrial disorder come first or did autism (and the development of a mitochondrial disorder) come first. In addition, is it possible that the mitochondrial disorder is environmentally driven or was this a condition the child was born with. Meaning, is there something else in the environment (vaccine, diet or otherwise) that promoted the development of the mitochondrial disorder in the first place, if it indeed preceded the autism.

I found David Kirby’s article very helpful in addressing this case and it’s possible implications. All though I think this could possibly be a positive step in at least identifying to the general public that vaccines can pose a risk and hopefully become a catalyst for more research and study into the possible ramifications of vaccines, I hardly think it is the step forward that we wish it would be. Personally, I would not be shocked to see this flipped around and used as a tool to justify the validity and safety of vaccines as long as you don’t have an underlying mitochondrial disorder. Thus, possibly providing a false sense of security to parents who are concerned about the possible health risks that vaccines may pose. I hope that it becomes more, I hope that it is the fuel to set off a wildfire of research and acceptance that vaccines can and do pose harm to some children the way they are currently manufactured and the schedule in which they are now recommended.

Here is the article written by David Kirby. It was obtained from HuffingtonPost.com

Government Concedes Vaccine-Autism Case in Federal Court – Now What?

Posted February 25, 2008 | 12:42 PM (EST)

---

Read More: Autism, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Autism Thimerosal, Autism Vaccines, Concession, Hhs, Kennedy Krieger, Mitochondria, Oxydative Phosphorylation, Thimerosal, Vaccine, Vaccine Court, Breaking Living News

Buzz up!

After years of insisting there is no evidence to link vaccines with the onset of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the US government has quietly conceded a vaccine-autism case in the Court of Federal Claims.The unprecedented concession was filed on November 9, and sealed to protect the plaintiff’s identify. It was obtained through individuals unrelated to the case.The claim, one of 4,900 autism cases currently pending in Federal “Vaccine Court,” was conceded by US Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler and other Justice Department officials, on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, the “defendant” in all Vaccine Court cases.The child’s claim against the government — that mercury-containing vaccines were the cause of her autism — was supposed to be one of three “test cases” for the thimerosal-autism theory currently under consideration by a three-member panel of Special Masters, the presiding justices in Federal Claims Court.Keisler wrote that medical personnel at the HHS Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation (DVIC) had reviewed the case and “concluded that compensation is appropriate.”The doctors conceded that the child was healthy and developing normally until her 18-month well-baby visit, when she received vaccinations against nine different diseases all at once (two contained thimerosal).Days later, the girl began spiraling downward into a cascade of illnesses and setbacks that, within months, presented as symptoms of autism, including: No response to verbal direction; loss of language skills; no eye contact; loss of “relatedness;” insomnia; incessant screaming; arching; and “watching the florescent lights repeatedly during examination.”Seven months after vaccination, the patient was diagnosed by Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a leading neurologist at the Kennedy Krieger Children’s Hospital Neurology Clinic, with “regressive encephalopathy (brain disease) with features consistent with autistic spectrum disorder, following normal development.” The girl also met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) official criteria for autism.In its written concession, the government said the child had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder that was “aggravated” by her shots, and which ultimately resulted in an ASD diagnosis.

“The vaccinations received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder,” the concession says, “which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of ASD.”

This statement is good news for the girl and her family, who will now be compensated for the lifetime of care she will require. But its implications for the larger vaccine-autism debate, and for public health policy in general, are not as certain.

In fact, the government’s concession seems to raise more questions than it answers.

1) Is there a connection between vaccines, mitochondrial disorders and a diagnosis of autism, at least in some cases?

Mitochondria, you may recall from biology class, are the little powerhouses within cells that convert food into electrical energy, partly through a complex process called “oxidative phosphorylation.” If this process is impaired, mitochondrial disorder will ensue.

The child in this case had several markers for Mt disease, which was confirmed by muscle biopsy. Mt disease is often marked by lethargy, poor muscle tone, poor food digestion and bowel problems, something found in many children diagnosed with autism.

But mitochondrial disorders are rare in the general population, affecting some 2-per-10,000 people (or just 0.2%). So with 4,900 cases filed in Vaccine Court, this case should be the one and only, extremely rare instance of Mt disease in all the autism proceedings.

But it is not.

Mitochondrial disorders are now thought to be the most common disease associated with ASD. Some journal articles and other analyses have estimated that 10% to 20% of all autism cases may involve mitochondrial disorders, which would make them one thousand times more common among people with ASD than the general population.

Another article, published in the Journal of Child Neurology and co-authored by Dr. Zimmerman, showed that 38% of Kennedy Krieger Institute autism patients studied had one marker for impaired oxidative phosphorylation, and 47% had a second marker.

The authors — who reported on a case-study of the same autism claim conceded in Vaccine Court — noted that “children who have (mitochondrial-related) dysfunctional cellular energy metabolism might be more prone to undergo autistic regression between 18 and 30 months of age if they also have infections or immunizations at the same time.”

An interesting aspect of Mt disease in autism is that, with ASD, the mitochondrial disease seems to be milder than in “classic” cases of Mt disorder. In fact, classic Mt disease is almost always inherited, either passed down by the mother through mitochondrial DNA, or by both parents through nuclear DNA.

In autism-related Mt disease, however, the disorder is not typically found in other family members, and instead appears to be largely of the sporadic variety, which may now account for 75% of all mitochondrial disorders.

Meanwhile, an informal survey of seven families of children with cases currently pending in Vaccine Court revealed that all seven showed markers for mitochondrial dysfunction, dating back to their earliest medical tests. The facts in all seven claims mirror the case just conceded by the government: Normal development followed by vaccination, immediate illness, and rapid decline culminating in an autism diagnosis.

2) With 4,900 cases pending, and more coming, will the government concede those with underlying Mt disease — and if it not, will the Court award compensation?

The Court will soon begin processing the 4900 cases pending before it. What if 10% to 20% of them can demonstrate the same Mt disease and same set of facts as those in the conceded case? Would the government be obliged to concede 500, or even 1,000 cases? What impact would that have on public opinion? And is there enough money currently in the vaccine injury fund to cover so many settlements?

When asked for a comment last week about the court settlement, a spokesman for HHS furnished the following written statement:

“DVIC has reviewed the scientific information concerning the allegation that vaccines cause autism and has found no credible evidence to support the claim. Accordingly, in every case under the Vaccine Act, DVIC has maintained the position that vaccines do not cause autism, and has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination.”

3) If the government is claiming that vaccines did not “cause” autism, but instead aggravated a condition to “manifest” as autism, isn’t that a very fine distinction?

For most affected families, such linguistic gymnastics is not so important. And even if a vaccine injury “manifested” as autism in only one case, isn’t that still a significant development worthy of informing the public?

On the other hand, perhaps what the government is claiming is that vaccination resulted in the symptoms of autism, but not in an actual, factually correct diagnosis of autism itself.

4) If the government is claiming that this child does NOT have autism, then how many other children might also have something else that merely “mimics” autism?

Is it possible that 10%-20% of the cases that we now label as “autism,” are not autism at all, but rather some previously undefined “look-alike” syndrome that merely presents as “features” of autism?

This question gets to the heart of what autism actually is. The disorder is defined solely as a collection of features, nothing more. If you have the features (and the diagnosis), you have the disorder. The underlying biology is the great unknown.

But let’s say the government does determine that these kids don’t have actual “autism” (something I speculated on HuffPost a year ago). Then shouldn’t the Feds go back and test all people with ASD for impaired oxidative phosphorylation, perhaps reclassifying many of them?

If so, will we then see “autism” cases drop by tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people? Will there be a corresponding ascension of a newly described disorder, perhaps something like “Vaccine Aggravated Mitochondrial Disease with Features of ASD?”

And if this child was technically “misdiagnosed” with DSM-IV autism by Dr Zimmerman, how does he feel about HHS doctors issuing a second opinion re-diagnosis of his patient, whom they presumably had neither met nor examined? (Zimmerman declined an interview).

And along those lines, aren’t Bush administration officials somewhat wary of making long-distance, retroactive diagnoses from Washington, given that the Terry Schiavo incident has not yet faded from national memory?

5) Was this child’s Mt disease caused by a genetic mutation, as the government implies, and wouldn’t that have manifested as “ASD features” anyway?

In the concession, the government notes that the patient had a “single nucleotide change” in the mitochondrial DNA gene T2387C, implying that this was the underlying cause of her manifested “features” of autism.

While it’s true that some inherited forms of Mt disease can manifest as developmental delays, (and even ASD in the form of Rhett Syndrome) these forms are linked to identified genetic mutations, of which T2387C is not involved. In fact little, if anything, is known about the function of this particular gene.

What’s more, there is no evidence that this girl, prior to vaccination, suffered from any kind of “disorder” at all- genetic, mitochondrial or otherwise. Some forms of Mt disease are so mild that the person is unaware of being affected. This perfectly developing girl may have had Mt disorder at the time of vaccination, but nobody detected, or even suspected it.

And, there is no evidence to suggest that this girl would have regressed into symptoms consistent with a DSM-IV autism diagnosis without her vaccinations. If there was such evidence, then why on earth would these extremely well-funded government attorneys compensate this alleged injury in Vaccine Court? Why wouldn’t they move to dismiss, or at least fight the case at trial?

6) What are the implications for research?

The concession raises at least two critical research questions: What are the causes of Mt dysfunction; and how could vaccines aggravate that dysfunction to the point of “autistic features?”

While some Mt disorders are clearly inherited, the “sporadic” form is thought to account for 75% of all cases, according to the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation. So what causes sporadic Mt disease? “Medicines or other toxins,” says the Cleveland Clinic, a leading authority on the subject.

Use of the AIDS drug AZT, for example, can cause Mt disorders by deleting large segments of mitochondrial DNA. If that is the case, might other exposures to drugs or toxins (i.e., thimerosal, mercury in fish, air pollution, pesticides, live viruses) also cause sporadic Mt disease in certain subsets of children, through similar genotoxic mechanisms?

Among the prime cellular targets of mercury are mitochondria, and thimerosal-induced cell death has been associated with the depolarization of mitochondrial membrane, according to the International Journal of Molecular Medicine among several others. (Coincidently, the first case of Mt disease was diagnosed in 1959, just 15 years after the first autism case was named, and two decades after thimerosal’s introduction as a vaccine preservative.)

Regardless of its cause, shouldn’t HHS sponsor research into Mt disease and the biological mechanisms by which vaccines could aggravate the disorder? We still do not know what it was, exactly, about this girl’s vaccines that aggravated her condition. Was it the thimerosal? The three live viruses? The two attenuated viruses? Other ingredients like aluminum? A combination of the above?

And of course, if vaccine injuries can aggravate Mt disease to the point of manifesting as autism features, then what other underlying disorders or conditions (genetic, autoimmune, allergic, etc.) might also be aggravated to the same extent?

7) What are the implications for medicine and public health?

Should the government develop and approve new treatments for “aggravated mitochondrial disease with ASD features?” Interestingly, many of the treatments currently deployed in Mt disease (i.e., coenzyme Q10, vitamin B-12, lipoic acid, biotin, dietary changes, etc.) are part of the alternative treatment regimen that many parents use on their children with ASD.

And, if a significant minority of autism cases can be linked to Mt disease and vaccines, shouldn’t these products one day carry an FDA Black Box warning label, and shouldn’t children with Mt disorders be exempt from mandatory immunization?

8) What are the implications for the vaccine-autism debate?

It’s too early to tell. But this concession could conceivably make it more difficult for some officials to continue insisting there is “absolutely no link” between vaccines and autism.

It also puts the Federal Government’s Vaccine Court defense strategy somewhat into jeopardy. DOJ lawyers and witnesses have argued that autism is genetic, with no evidence to support an environmental component. And, they insist, it’s simply impossible to construct a chain of events linking immunizations to the disorder.

Government officials may need to rethink their legal strategy, as well as their public relations campaigns, given their own slightly contradictory concession in this case.

9) What is the bottom line here?

The public, (including world leaders) will demand to know what is going on inside the US Federal health establishment. Yes, as of now, n=1, a solitary vaccine-autism concession. But what if n=10% or 20%? Who will pay to clean up that mess?

The significance of this concession will unfortunately be fought over in the usual, vitriolic way — and I fully expect to be slammed for even raising these questions. Despite that, the language of this concession cannot be changed, or swept away.

Its key words are “aggravated” and “manifested.” Without the aggravation of the vaccines, it is uncertain that the manifestation would have occurred at all.

When a kid with peanut allergy eats a peanut and dies, we don’t say “his underlying metabolic condition was significantly aggravated to the extent of manifesting as an anaphylactic shock with features of death.”

No, we say the peanut killed the poor boy. Remove the peanut from the equation, and he would still be with us today.

Many people look forward to hearing more from HHS officials about why they are settling this claim. But whatever their explanation, they cannot change the fundamental facts of this extraordinary case:

The United State government is compensating at least one child for vaccine injuries that resulted in a diagnosis of autism.

And that is big news, no matter how you want to say it.

NOTE: Full text of the government’s statement is posted here.

David Kirby is the author of “Evidence of Harm – Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic, A Medical Controversy” (St. Martins Press 2005.

Read Full Post »

And the plot thickens… Merck’s MMR II recalled in Canada

So, I’m pretty sure most of us haven’t heard about this recall yet.

On December 12th, Alberta Canada recalled the MMR II vaccine which was distributed in Alberta after 5 patients had anaphylactic reactions to the vaccine during a vaccination campaign. All of the patients were adult, had an allergy history and have fully recovered. Clearly, however, something is amiss. Merck Frosst Canada is currently soliciting reports of any adverse reactions elsewhere.

The five cases of illness came from lot 1529U which was distributed in Alberta and has been recalled. They have also recalled two other lots which were made from the same materials: 1528U and 1680U.

And yet through it all comes the very commonly heard phrase told to parents “there is no need to worry…”

Here are some articles that address the topic:

http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/12/merck-recalls-1-million-doses-of-hib-vaccine/

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=479a7b73-a93c-4505-8c15-3160b3773b80

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=dd3bb1a6-60ac-4f6f-a4fa-262c917c438e&k=682

Read Full Post »

Vaccine Recall

Did anyone catch this very underplayed announcement?

Merck has recalled 1.2 million doses of the Hib vaccine, specifically PedvaxHib and Comvax. The recall was issued because, according to Merck, “The company cannot assure sterility for these specific vaccine lots.” According to their Q&A in regards to the recall they have this to say:

“The potential for contamination of any individual vaccine is low, and, if present, the level of contamination would be low. However, because they cannot guarantee the sterility of these specific lots of vaccine, Merck is conducting this recall.”

Uh huh. Sure. Also interesting to note. Neither Merck or the FDA are big on advertising this recall on their main pages. There is absolutely no announcement or link to a recall announcement on their front pages. Why?

Take Merck for example. Even when you click on “Patients and Caregivers” there is nothing mentioned. Nor is it mentioned if you follow the “Product News” section in the bottom middle of their homepage. And if you type in the keyword “recall” in their search function it returns nothing in regards to the current recall. The only place you’ll find this hidden gem on their website is by clicking on the header “Newsroom” under “Press Releases”. For a company whose motto is “Where patients come first,” they sure seem to be challenged in communicating important safety information to their patients.

As far as the Food and Drug Administrations website goes the only way I could find info on the recall was to type in “merck recall” into the search function. I found no info on their Homepage, under Hot Topics, under Recalls & Alerts, under Press Releases, or under Drug Safety. The keyword search of recall also does not return the Merck Recall (at least not on the first page, I didn’t feel like searching through all 10 pages). Nope. To find information on this recall from the FDA or Merck you basically all ready need to know it exists.

Thank you Nikki for pointing out to me that I didn’t even find the current recall from the FDA site. The link I found by searching “Merck Recall” was from a recall back in 2001. She finally found the correct recall by searching under “Comvax Recall.” Astounding. I find it hard to believe that the FDA couldn’t find a simpler way to communicate this recall.

Here are the links to where I finally found the announcement of this recall on both sites:

FDA: http://www.fda.gov/cber/recalls/merhav121001.htm

http://www.fda.gov/cber/recalls/merckhib121107.htm – thank you Nikki!

Merck: http://www.merck.com/newsroom/press_releases/product/2007_1212.html

By the way, I took screen-shots of these websites to illustrate my point but I can’t figure out how to get the screen-shots into wordpress. It doesn’t allow me to paste and I can’t figure out how to save the screen-shots as an image that I could upload. If anyone knows how to do this, please let me know.

And why no screen-time on the news? Why did Brittney Spears and Stacy Peterson and every other news story that doesn’t affect the average American take precedence over this recall alert? Because pharmaceutical companies have their hands in many arenas of life that many of us don’t recognize or don’t want to believe.

So help spread the word. Because you can believe this would be the top news story airing around the nation if this vaccine had been manufactured in say, China…

Editing to add:

There also seems to be a lack of online news coverage of this recall as well. I’m hoping everyone will air this story more starting tomorrow 12/13. For now, here are the top results from google on “Merck Recall”. Notice the almost complete lack of real information on this recall. When you search “Merck Recall” most of the results belong to other recalls that have occured in the past.

Reuters, the number 1 result, dedicated a whole 3 sentences to the recall: http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSWBT00804820071212

Huliq.com: http://www.huliq.com/44645/hib-vaccine-recall-merck-due-contamination

Emaxhealth: http://www.emaxhealth.com/90/19013.html

MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22224884/

Additionaly, when I searched under “Vaccine Recall” the top result was still Reuters outstanding 3 sentence coverage. Also pulled up were:

About.com: http://pediatrics.about.com/b/2007/12/12/hib-vaccine-recall.htm

Winknews.com: http://www.winknews.com/news/local/12448056.html

The search also returned the Huliq, emaxhealth and TADA…

**the FDA recall (which was the last result on page 1 – interesting)

Thanks to Amercianmum for your viewing pleasure I give you the following screen shots taken just after midnight on 12/13/2007.

 

**Merck’s Home Page**

Nothing in regards to recall

**Merck’s Patients & Caregivers Page**

Still no info about recall…

**Merck Product News**

Nope, nothing here…

**Merck Newsroom**

Finally!! Something about the recall

 

Here are the FDA screen-shots. There is no excuse.

 

**The FDA Homepage Top Screen**

Nothing at all in regards to Merck Recall

 

**FDA Homepage Bottom Page**

Nothing here either…

**FDA Link to Press Releases**

Nothing here…

 

**FDA Recalls Top of Page**

Wouldn’t it make sense for it to be here? It’s not…

**FDA Recalls Middle Page**

It wasn’t further down the screen either, look at the dates

Here is the first FDA Search. Searched “Recall”

Nothing here…

***FDA Search “Recalls”

How about if I add an “S”? …. Nope, still nothing

***FDA Search: Merck Recall”

This should definitely pull it up. Nope, the old recall of 2001

FDA Search “Comvax Recall”

Tada there it is…

Read Full Post »