HPV Researcher Blasts HPV Vaccine Marketing

fwdailynews.com features an article today about Diane M. Harper who is speaking out about the lies being told about the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccination. Harper is a scientist, professor and director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth Medical School in New Hampshire.

The article starts

A lead researcher who spent 20 years developing the vaccine for humanpapilloma virus says the HPV vaccine is not for younger girls, and that it is "silly" for states to be mandating it for them.

Not only that, she says it's not been tested for effectiveness in younger girls, and administering the vaccine to girls as young as 9 may not even protect them at all. And, in the worst-case scenario, instead of serving to reduce the numbers of cervical cancers within 25 years, such a vaccination crusade actually could cause the numbers to go up.

"Giving it to 11-year-olds is a great big public health experiment,"

Is Harper a Right-wing wacko like me? Her qualifications:

Internationally recognized as a pioneer in the field, Harper has been studying HPV and a possible vaccine for several of the more than 100 strains of HPV for 20 years - most of her adult life.

The article points out that the vaccine doesn't protect against all strains of HPV, which could lead parents and girls with a false sense of security.

She also points out that the drug has not been tested on girls as young as the vaccine is being recommended for (11 or in some cases 9 years of age).

A number of people have repeated the fallacy that the vaccine is a "vaccine against cancer," but the "mainstream" media should know better than this. The fact that a number of articles have called Gardasil a vaccine against cancer is either sloppy journalism or pure propaganda, because reporters are in a position to know better--and should be doing better research. But as the article says from Harper:

It is not a cancer vaccine or cure. It is a prophylactic - preventative - vaccine for a virus that can cause cancer.

It is not 100 percent effective against all HPVs. It is 100 percent effective against two types that cause 70 percent of cervical cancers.

The actual tests on the younger girls, ages 9 to 15, were only for safety and immune response, Harper said, and then only as a shot by itself, or in combination with only one other vaccine, Hepatitis B. It has not been tested in conjunction with any other shots a girl receives at about age 11, Harper said.

So far more than 40 cases of Guillian-Barre syndrome - a dangerous immune disorder that causes tingling, numbness and even paralysis of the muscles have been reported in girls who have received the HPV vaccine in combination with the meningitis vaccine.

Again, this is not just some Right-wing pro-family sex-hater saying this (actually I LOVE sex--in the right circumstances), but a scientist:

In the end, inoculating young girls may backfire because it will give them a false sense of protection. And, for both young girls and women, because the vaccine's purpose has been so misinterpreted - and mis-marketed - Harper feels that too many girls and women who have had the vaccine will develop a false sense of security, believing they are immune to cancer when they are not, and failing to continue with their annual Pap exams, are crucial to diagnosing dysplasia before it can develop into cancer.

This is an another important point which is not brought out in most of these HPV vaccination discussions: Pap exams will stop most cervical cancers, without exposing young girls to dangerous drugs and a false sense of security that may promote promiscuity.

Another important consideration not mentioned in this article is that Merck, the manufacturer, is only counting on the vaccine to be effective for 5 years. If you vaccinate a girl at 11 (the min. age for the South Dakota initiative), when may it wear off? When she's 16. If girls are going to become sexually active before marriage, when is that likely to happen? High school and college.

Hmmm....

More Deaths Associated with HPV Vaccine

From Lifesite.net:

As of May 11, 2007, the 1,637 adverse vaccination reactions reported to the FDA via the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) included 371 serious reactions. Of the 42 women who received the vaccine while pregnant, 18 experienced side effects ranging from spontaneous abortion to fetal abnormalities.

Side effects published by Merck & Co. warn the public about potential pain, fever, nausea, dizziness and itching after receiving the vaccine. Indeed, 77% of the adverse reactions reported are typical side effects to vaccinations. But other more serious side effects reported include paralysis, Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and seizures.

Judicial Watch informed LifeSiteNews.com that a subsequent request for information on adverse reactions to the HPV vaccine, covering the period from May 2007 to September 2007, found that an additional 1800 adverse reactions have been reported, including more deaths. Exactly how many more deaths will be released in the coming days, Judicial Watch's Dee Grothe informed LifeSiteNews.com.

I think the risk of the HPV vaccination is too high, especially when the cervical cancer often caused by the Human PapillomaVirus (HPV) can be prevented by pap smears and abstinence.

More Questions About the HPV Vaccine

From the Wall Street Journal Online:

The company prefers to point to a subset of 4,616 trial participants who were mostly free of HPV when they were vaccinated. Only 52 of these women went on to develop precancerous lesions on their cervixes over the next three years, 46% fewer than among the placebo group. Merck says this smaller group of women is the one most representative of the 11- and 12-year-old girls for whom Texas and Virginia have required vaccination.

That's a pretty good reduction. However, people should know that the vaccine isn't a magic shield that's going to prevent an HPV infection; in the media and government hype, the fact that it doesn't even protect against all strains of HPV has been lost.

Another fact that's been glossed over:

Safety is another issue. Merck tested the vaccine in only a few hundred 11- and 12-year-old girls. Some doctors consider that number too small to declare the vaccine safe for preteen girls, given the big changes their bodies undergo.

And if you get your daughter vaccinated at age 11, which is the opening of the recommended vaccination window, she may be unprotected by the time she is most likely to become sexually active; researchers say the vaccine may no longer be effective in as little as 5 years.

If you want the vaccine for yourself or your daughter, have at it. Even though relatively inexpensive Pap tests have reduced cervical cancer by 80% already. Just be aware of all the facts.

But mandating it as some states have done, or leaving the taxpayers to foot the bill as we've done in South Dakota, is wrong.

HPV Vaccine: A Painful Way to Avoid Responsibility

From MSNBC, it seems the Human Papillomavirus vaccine being offered at taxpayer expense in South Dakota is particularly painful and often causes fainting in the young girls who get it.

Officials at Merck & Co., which makes the vaccine, acknowledge the sting. They attribute it partly to the virus-like particles in the shot. Pre-marketing studies showed more reports of pain from Gardasil than from dummy shots, and patients reported more pain when given shots with more of the particles.

Meanwhile, U.S. health officials have noticed a rise in reports of vaccine-associated fainting in girls. From 2002-2004 there were about 50 reports of fainting; from 2005 until last July, there were about 230. About 180 of those cases followed a shot of Gardasil, which came on the market in 2006.

HPV is a sexually transmitted disease that can cause cervical cancer.

I'd rather teach my daughter the value of being responsible than expose her to this new, painful drug and give her the mistaken impression that it's going to protect her from the consequences of premarital sex.

Vaccinations Gone Wild: ACP Makes a Statement on HPV

The American College of Pediatricians has issued a statement on Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccinations as a requirement for entry into public schools. Seems they're opposed to it.

A couple of excerpts from their statement that illustrate a little of why many family-values-conscious parents have a problem with promoting widespread HPV vaccinations:

this vaccine prevents a disease which is exclusively sexually transmitted; mandating it as early as 9 years of age places the medical provider in an ethical dilemma. First, the administration of the vaccine requires explanation to both the parent and the child. Parents may have chosen not to introduce the subject of sexual activity to their nine year olds due to their physical and emotional immaturity. Also, most 9-12 year old children are not sexually active; many have not entered puberty. Forcing a parent to forsake his/her better judgment and discuss this information with the child would be inappropriate and unnecessarily intrusive.

The American College of Pediatricians recommends that parents use the availability of this vaccine to usher in a discussion of human sexuality in a way consistent with their culture and values at a time when they determine their child is ready to receive the information. Parents should closely monitor their children’s activities, reinforce their values, and consent to vaccination when appropriate. At that time, physicians should introduce the value of sexual abstinence as the only way to completely eliminate the risks associated with sexual activity.

Apparently it isn't just Bible-thumpers who have a concern about HPV vaccinations. Besides, there usually is a practical aspect to most biblically-based concerns. God doesn't tell us not to do something just to spoil our fun.

CNN Reports on 9,749 Adverse Gardasil Reactions

Okay, liberals, it's "real" now. CNN, the Clinton News Network, is reporting on the problems with the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil.

Some 9,749 adverse reactions and 21 deaths have been reported in connection with the Gardasil vaccination.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) still says Gardasil is safe, though nearly 10,000 adverse reactions is getting pretty high to call "anecdotal."

Last year, Dr. Diane Harper, one of the researchers who developed Gardasil, criticized the aggressive marketing campaign Merc and state governments initiated for Gardasil vaccinations.

While South Dakota only made the vaccine available at taxpayer expense, some states tried to make vaccination mandatory.

Since Gardasil doesn't stop other STDs, and doesn't even stop all forms of HPV, and women can still get cervical cancer even without HPV, and pap smears are still recommended despite the vaccination, I think we'll forgo the Gardasil risk for my daughter.

Merck Plans Expansion of HPV Vaccine to Boys

You may recall that last year there was a lot of discussion about the Gardasil vaccinations against several strains of HPV (Human Papillomavirus). In some states they have been mandated for young girls of school age. Some states like South Dakota have not mandated them, but have offered them to school-age girls at taxpayer expense.

We shouldn't be surprised, but now the manufacturer, Merck, is looking to expand into the male market.

From Associated Press:

The sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer in women is poised to become one of the leading causes of oral cancer in men, according to a new study.

The HPV virus now causes as many cancers of the upper throat as tobacco and alcohol, probably due both to an increase in oral sex and the decline in smoking, researchers say.

Though we often discuss frank topics at Dakota Voice, still, I don't think I need to go any further in explaining the connection between male and female HPV here.

Actually, this isn't the first we've heard about the risk of oral cancer from HPV. Last May I posted an excerpt from a Canadian article on the subject.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again because the truth of it hasn't changed a bit.

How smart is it to go to all this vaccination expense, trouble, and risk of immunizing our children, when sexual responsibility will do the job at zero cost and zero risk?

God's design for human sexuality is one man and one woman for life. When we follow the manufacturer's instructions, we don't have to worry about STDs. They're just not an issue. Acting responsibly saves us time, money and worry.

We didn't have these kinds of problems on a wide scale when America was a nation interested in honoring and obeying God. Is our sexual freedom really worth all these problems?

Merck's vaccine tied to 3 deaths

From WorldNetDaily, on the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine:

At least three deaths and more than 1,600 adverse reactions including spontaneous abortion and paralysis have been connected to Merck & Co.'s new vaccine for the human papillomavirus, a treatment the company has lobbied state lawmakers to make mandatory for young girls across the nation.

Maybe you want to take a chance like this with your daughter's health and life, but I'll teach mine to be sexually responsible and take my chances that she'll heed. She's a smart girl with the ability to control herself.

I'd Rather Immunize Than Parent

The Rapid City Journal has an editorial today advocating the taxpayer funded HPV vaccine.

One of the important aspects they gloss over is that it isn't "free" as they claim. It's being paid for by the taxpayers, which is you and me. Unlike mumps or measles, HPV is pretty much exclusively behaviorally related. So the taxpayers get to pay to protect people from exercising responsibility.

The editorial board also says remaining abstinent until marriage isn't "always attainable" when the girl grows up. Well, that's true. Many may not, especially if we demonstrate to them that we don't expect them to. And if as an adult they decide to ingore their parents advice and have sex before marriage, they can march themselves down to the nearest clinic and pay for their own HPV vaccination.

Some of those posting comments to the "Rapid Reply" at the bottom of the story have some telling remarks, such as "Reader":

"I think those mothers who feel heir daughters are saving themselves until marriage should wake up. This isn't the Leave it to Beaver generation anymore. The kids are engaging in "promiscuous" behavior in their early teens now, both male and female. It's not uncommon anymore to see kids as young as 13 or 13 going to the doctor for problems relating to sex."

With that kind of defeatist attitude that says, "I expect my kids to screw around," perhaps people like this SHOULD get their children immunized from the few strains of one STD that they can. Apparently there isn't going to be any parental reinforcement of responsibility to help protect these girls.

Pot Smoking Redux

After a lengthy comment left by kmprophet regarding my previous post on this today, it seemed worthwhile to revisit the subject.

I guess I've seen it all now (no, there are plenty of liberals left, so I'd better not say that). But quoting Jesus' admonition to love our fellow man to justify drug use...that's a good one.

This study was done at Yale University, neither a bastion of moral uprightness nor a government agency. Similar results were obtained by British researchers. So while you might disagree with it, kmprophet, I don't think it's fair to call it "government propaganda."

I agree with you that government's concern for our safety is questionable at times, but why add to the dangers by legalizing a drug which carries health hazards and is primarily used for recreational intoxication.

Another important observation that I failed to bring out in the previous post is that apparently what pot smokers tell you is suspect (surprise) as well:

While the doctors expected to see marijuana improve the conditions of their schizophrenic subjects — since their patients reported that the drug calmed them — they found that the reverse was true.

Finally, to the best of my knowledge, marijuana isn't purported to cure cancer, just ease the pain of cancer and some cancer treatments. And the active ingredient--THC--can be obtained in pill form already, with more variations of THC pills currently undergoing testing. As with the HPV vaccine and calling it a "cancer vaccine," it's becoming a pattern to mask something that's less than reputable in terms which will illicit a sympathetic emotional response.

It's just that with these pills, they don't carry the same satisfaction for recreational drug use, and don't serve to muddy the waters of enforcment for those who are clearly smoking pot for recreational intoxication.

They're having problems with armed robberies, burglaries, vagrancy and resale to nonqualified persons out in California where it's legal by state law (still illegal under federal law). Many want to shut it down there because some folks are realizing it's a big smoke screen (excuse the pun) and more trouble than it's worth.

Even a liberal British newspaper recently apologized for pushing legalized marijuana because they've faced the fact that it's doing more societal harm than they understood.

If smoking pot was the only way for pain sufferers to get relief, I might support it's use...but it isn't. If the "medial" marijuana movement wasn't being pushed by (among others) a lot of pot-heads who clearly just want a smokescreen to make it difficult to stop recreational use, I might be more open to it.

But neither of these are the case.

Homosexuals Seek HPV Vaccination

Seems young girls aren't the only ones who can be immunized against the consequences of sexual irresponsibility.

From Gay.com in the UK, now homosexuals are getting Gardasil shots in the hopes it will prevent one of the many health hazards of homosexual sex:

Gay men are queuing up to get a vaccine licensed to protect women against cervical cancer – because it may protect against anal cancer too.

Private healthcare clinics in the UK are reporting a high level of demand from men for Gardasil, the new vaccine against the human papilloma virus (HPV), even though it’s only licensed for adult use in women.

Dr Sean Cummings of gay men’s clinic Freedom Health told the BBC he had vaccinated dozens of men since the vaccine became available in the last few weeks.

Half Right

KELO has a story on Planned Parenthood's offer of free HPV vaccinations.

Their headline, however, is inaccurate and misleading: Cervical Cancer Vaccine Offered." It isn't a vaccine against cervical cancer; it's a vaccine against the Human Papilloma Virus, a sexually transmitted disease that can cause cervical cancer. Many media outlets around the country have made this "mistake," so KELO isn't alone.

To give credit where it's due, though, they do explain this in the last sentence of the article:

The vaccine is aimed at a virus that comes from sexual activity.

As Pat Powers says at the South Dakota War College today, Planned Parenthood isn't doing any favors to conservatives who support the taxpayer-funded immunizations.

Stiffing the Taxpayers for What We Should Accomplish On Our Own

There's a lot of discussion going on over at the South Dakota War College (and several of the SD blogs) about Governor Rounds' plan to give free (free at the taxpayers expense) HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) vaccinations to the girls of South Dakota.

For those who may not be familiar with HPV, it's a sexually transmitted disease that already infects about 20 million people, and can cause cervical cancer.

Conservatives don't like the idea of this vaccination because they fear it will promote promiscuity by short-circuiting one of the natural consequences of sex outside of marriage. Liberals (predictably) ballyhoo conservatives as mean and wanting to sexually oppress women.

This debate is similar to the one about AIDS and AIDS research. Why do we need to spend billions on a disease that can be eradicated by simply ACTING MORALLY? If you don't do drugs and don't have sex outside of marriage, AIDS would go away pretty quick. And, gee, moral restraint doesn't cost a dime. But no, I guess it's worth billions of dollars to us to be able to screw whatever we want whenever we want and in whatever way we want, huh?

Besides, it doesn't even protect against all strains of HPV. And it doesn't protect against many other STDs such as chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, or AIDS. It therefore stands a high likelihood of instilling a false sense of security which may result in greater suffering from those STDs that promiscuous people remain vulnerable to.

One of the comments somewhere on one of the blogs makes, I think, the best point of all. If you want to come up with a vaccine which will do what simple discipline will accomplish for free, then have at it. But should the taxpayers pay for it? I don't think so.

If you do think so, then why not have the state pay for every vaccination--after all, most diseases (mumps, measles, etc.) don't require immoral behavior to get them. So the case for taxpayer funding for these diseases is even greater. Of course, socialists out there would LOVE that idea anyway, because they believe the government should do everything for people, alleviating them from the responsibility of doing anything for themselves or paying for anything themselves, or even thinking for themselves. But I'm not one of them.

If you plan on not teaching your daughter to be sexually responsible and wait until marriage, and if you plan on not instilling the kind of values in her that will prompt her to seek a husband of like values, then go ahead and take the lazy way, ignore responsibility, and just send the taxpayers the bill.

Others Question HPV Vaccination, Too

The HPV vaccination discussion isn't just confined to South Dakota. Terence Jeffrey, editor of Human Events, has a column on TownHall.com today on the subject.

Several states, as well as the District of Columbia, are now contemplating legislation that would mandate these injections for girls enrolling in 6th grade. The Lancet, a prestigious British medical journal, recently editorialized that the injections ought to be mandated for boys, as well.

The only questions are: Should people be forced to take them? Who should bear the cost?

Ultimately, any mandate for a venereal-disease vaccine is aimed at socializing the risk of promiscuous sexual behavior. It is about using the power of government to make all of the people bear some of the cost created by the reckless behavior of some of the people.

His column says that the FDA found some adverse affects in some tests involving placebos, such as fever, nausea, dizziness, diarrhea and vomiting. Parents should consider these and the potential for long-ranging side effects about which we know nothing at this stage.

For social conservatives such as myself, here is what we believe is the ultimate motivation of such a vaccination hype:

Advocates of universal vaccination against venereal diseases realize that traditional cultural values are an obstacle to creating their sought-after, if never attainable, Utopia where people can engage in promiscuous sex without fear of consequence.

After all, why such massive insistence on widespread, taxpayer-funded vaccination against a disease you won't get if you behave morally?

It doesn't matter whether it's pushed by by a Democrat or a Republican. The motivation behind the HPV vaccination craze from the top down is disturbing. And I think Jeffrey nails what that motivation is really about.

HPV Vaccinations Controversial in Several States

There was considerable discussion in the South Dakota blogosphere of the "free" HPV vaccinations initiative of Governor Rounds a few weeks ago.

It seems the issue of vaccinations for something that could be avoided with moral behavior--especially when mandated--is causing a ruckus in other states.

Earlier in the week I read about the controversy in Texas. Now this from OneNewsNow.com about Virginia:

But Michelle Newman, interim director of Concerned Women for America of Virginia, is urging the General Assembly to hold off on the mandatory vaccination legislation, calling such a measure a 'rush to judgment.' Advocating the vaccinations, she says, 'is going to encourage many parents to not bother to look further into some of the side effects that could happen, which was analyzed by the National Vaccine Information Center.'

I normally have no beef with pharmaceutical companies, but Merk is actively lobbying to make these vaccinations mandatory. When you couple that with the fact that it doesn't cost a penny to keep your legs closed or your fly zipped, that doesn't sit well with me. Merk has a right to promote its product, but mandates and taxpayer funding for such things are altogether different.

With even USA Today's opinion page urging restraint, it appears this isn't the slam-dunk some people once thought it was.

CDC Looking at Gardasil-Related Problems

A number of problems with the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccination Gardasil have been identified since South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds made it available at taxpayer expense.

In addition to concerns from the American College of Pediatricians, Dr. Diane Harper, a lead researcher for the vaccine, has criticized the aggressive marketing campaign of the drug.

There have been several deaths tied to Gardisil.

LifeSiteNews reports that deaths and side effects from the drug are becoming so commonplace that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is starting an investigation into complaints.

Judicial Watch, a public interest group, has closely monitored Gardasil since it was released by creator Merck in 2006, periodically detailing statistics on the numerous side effects users have experienced. The most recent report alleges that the drug has been responsible for 21 deaths and 9,749 adverse reactions, including 78 outbreaks of genital warts and 10 miscarriages.

As daunting as these current statistics are, it seems that even they may be gravely underestimating the health risks associated with using Gardasil. A study by the New England Journal of Medicine claims that only about 10% of drug induced side effects are reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

If you're considering immunizing your daughter with Gardasil, you might want to think twice.

Education on the Issues Goes a Long Way

I've received some good but predictable emails on my Rapid City Journal piece on Governor Rounds' Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccination plan.

Here are a couple of excerpts:

Perhaps you should read the information on when the vaccination is effective for a girl. By the time your child is an adult, the vaccine will be of no value.

This reader should check out what the Centers for Disease Control has to say about the vaccination. Age isn't a factor; only previous sexual contact.

Here's another:

...you go to far in talking about "irresponsibility." Girls ought to be protected--not necessarily from their lack of responsibility--from the possible lack of responsibility by their future husbands.

I addressed that in my column:

If someday she plans to marry a man who made the mistake of not waiting for marriage, I would encourage her to get the vaccination during her engagement.

A little reading and education goes a long way in understanding the issues. When we take the time to investigate matters for ourselves, and stop relying on the pablum we're fed by a media that has an agenda, we often find things aren't as they've been portrayed.

And we often find that virtue and responsibility, while still no cake walk, are more attainable than we might have thought.