Perhaps these comments would carry more weight if the person making them had a vagina and cervix, and had to deal with the consequences of an HPV infection and the consequent cancers it might produce. until he does, it's just another paternalistic man pontificating about womens' bodies.

Dangerous Government Spins Finds a New Target: Children

By Pam Martens

Does this sound familiar: a massive disinformation campaign is launched. Leading U.S. experts speak out against the contrived "facts." Their voices are either ignored or ridiculed. The manipulated game plan plays out. The U.S. loses credibility around the world.

Today, the United States has on its hands a dangerous debacle that could finish off what little credibility we have left on the world stage. It follows an almost identical play script to the Iraq occupation and involves Merck's vaccine, Gardasil, for treating human papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually transmitted disease and, ostensibly, preventing cervical cancer.

The disinformation campaign is rolled out as follows: A U.S. government agency, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), issues a press release heralding the launch of a "New Vaccine for Prevention of Cervical Cancer.� Except there is no evidence this vaccine prevents cervical cancer as illuminated April 16 in a front page story in the Wall Street Journal, "Questions on Efficacy Cloud a Cancer Vaccine." According to the article, �In clinical trials, 361 of 8,817 women who received at least one shot of Gardasil went on to develop precancerous lesions on their cervixes within three years of vaccination, just 14% fewer than in a placebo control group.�

Another government agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approves the vaccine for the national Vaccine for Children's Program and over 20 U.S. states, under heavy lobbying by Merck, have legislation quickly introduced to make the vaccine mandatory for 11 and 12 year old girls. (The stated premise is that the vaccine should be given before the onset of sexual activity.) Except there are no studies to show the vaccine works in this age group and there are insufficient studies on its safety in this population, according to FDA's own documents.

Using the same heavy-handed and ethically questionable marketing tactics it used in the U.S., Merck has licensed the vaccine in 52 countries with Australia this month initiating nationally funded mass inoculations of school girls aged 12 to 18. The vaccine is under review for licensing in an additional 50 countries, according to Merck's web site.

In what strikingly resembles the Judith Miller affair in the lead up to the Iraq war, where Ms. Miller's writings in The New York Times effectively became the credible public voice of dubious government claims, The Times has, inexplicably, written two editorials advocating making this new, unproven, inadequately tested drug mandatory as a condition for entering public school for 11 and 12 year old girls. The Times went so far as to applaud the Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, for making the vaccine mandatory for school girls in his state while not mentioning that he had illegally bypassed the state legislature and issued an executive order. They suggested that "Other states would be wise to follow the same path." (A Vaccine to Save Women's Lives, February 6, 2007.) The Texas state legislature is in the process of overturning that order.

In the same editorial, The Times stated: "There is no doubt that Merck�s vaccine against the human papillomavirus, given in three shots over eight months, is highly effective."

But far from "no doubt" there was massive doubt and it was coming from leading health experts with a chorus calling it an "experiment" on the public because of inadequate testing.

One of the very researchers who had been involved in the clinical trails for the vaccine, Dr. Diane Harper, a top level scientist and professor at Dartmouth Medical School in New Hampshire, stated the following in the Fort Wayne Daily News: "Giving it to 11-year-olds is a great big public health experiment...There also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue...It's not been tested in little girls for efficacy. At 11, these girls don't get cervical cancer -- they won't know for 25 years if they will get cervical cancer."

Even the FDA had doubt. Buried at the bottom of its June 8, 2006 letter to Merck licensing Gardasil, it indicated that it did not believe sufficient studies had been done to prove the safety of the vaccine on 11 and 12 year old girls: ��a sufficient number of children 11-12 years of age will be studied to permit an analysis of safety outcomes. The final study protocol will be submitted by December 31, 2006. Patient accrual will be completed by December 31, 2008.�

Another health expert at a sister agency of the FDA, Joseph DeSoto, physician and scientist at the National Institutes of Health wrote an OpEd for the Charleston, West Virginia Daily Mail on January 23, 2007, urging the state not to mandate the vaccine for young girls: "... according to the data presented to the FDA, which I have reviewed�the risk for pelvic inflammatory disease, appendicitis and gastroenteritis is doubled... Here we are talking about forcing a person to undergo mandatory drug therapy (vaccination), when they have no disease..."

On April 4, the oldest newspaper in New Hampshire, the Keene Sentinel, ran a feature story on Gardasil in its Health section. Quoting Dr. Laura Scheinblum, an area pediatrician, the article stated: ��the HPV vaccine has shown few side effects except for some soreness at the site of the injection�.� In reality, the Federal government�s own Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) is publishing reports of seizures, convulsions, internal bleeding, loss of consciousness, life threatening swelling in the throat, loss of hair in children and hundreds of other adverse events.

The concentration of wealth, and its appendages of power and control of message, have reached unprecedented levels in America with tentacles now extending into the editorial pages of The New York Times and news pages of New England dailies. Children in Iraq have been dying for four years because of this unbridled disinformation and now children in America and around the world are threatened by it. What will it take to say, "Enough!"

--------------------------

Pam Martens is a public interest researcher living in New Hampshire.

Over 30 years ago an excellent vaccine was introduced by the pharmaceutical company Merck to provide protection against infection by the sexually-transmitted Hepatitis B virus, an infectious agent that causes considerable world-wide morbidity and mortality. At the time, the vaccine was billed as a tool to eliminate chronic hepatitis and liver cancer, two diseases often associated with Hepatitis B virus infections. Yet, currently, the world faces a yearly mortality rate of approximately 1 million people as a direct consequence of Hepatitis B virus infection. Furthermore, antiviral treatments for Hepatitis B virus are now in great demand but had not been discovered or developed, due in large part to the lack of anticipation of their need in the wake of the vaccine hype. After all, the Hepatitis B virus vaccine was going to eliminate the disease just as polio and smallpox had been.

Recent claims suggest that the newly approved vaccine that protects against Human Papillomaviruses (HPV) types 16 and 18, (also produced by Merck), will eliminate cervical cancer. The lobbying efforts by Merck to persuade Canada to advocate for their agenda in preventing a devastating disease would be commendable if promises surrounding the HPV vaccine were that simple. However, it should be noted that a key element missing from this scheme is the use of HPV antiviral treatments for those people currently infected with the virus, such as women presenting with a positive Pap smear. It is only via this multi-tiered approach�Pap testing, antiviral treatment, and vaccination�that the goal of eliminating high risk HPV and cervical cancer will be realized.

It should be noted that significant obstacles stand in the way of implementing a successful vaccine program for any sexually-transmitted disease, and especially HPV. According to the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Merck, an estimated 5.5 - 6.2 million Americans become infected with HPV each year (it should be noted that recently published studies suggest that up to 25% of US women are infected with HPV), and about 20 million Americans are currently infected. Therefore, a very large fraction of the US (and world) population is already infected with HPV, and vaccination of these individuals against HPV will not eliminate the virus, nor will it reduce their risk of cervical cancer. High-risk HPV is predominantly a sexually transmitted virus that is carried by both men and women, though currently the vaccine is approved only for women. Therefore, men will continue to be major carriers unless the male population can become fully vaccinated, a process that is only theoretical a present and will likely not happen because men would be vaccinated for largely altruistic reasons since their risk of cancer from HPV is small. The HPV vaccine is presently not approved by the FDA for men.

In addition, there are numerous high-risk HPV types that the vaccines will not prevent: over 13 types of human papillomaviruses are currently known to cause cervical cancer, only 2 of which are targeted by the vaccines. Thus, the numerous cancer-causing HPVs that have the potential to replace those 2 HPVs targeted by the vaccines are an additional obstacle in the on-going effort to eradicate cervical cancer. Another type of obstacle is that many parents are hesitant or unwilling to have their children vaccinated against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) due to numerous issues, including social and moral concerns. It is being recommended that 12-year old girls be the target population for vaccination, yet cervical dysplasia (pre-cancerous disease caused by HPV resulting in a positive Pap smear) generally presents itself on average in women in their early 30�s. Therefore, a considerable lag (perhaps several generations) is anticipated before any significant relief in cervical cancer prevalence is realized. For these and other reasons it is very important to distinguish the reality of HPV disease etiology from the Merck marketing literature.

To draw a comparison with the hepatitis B virus vaccine, it has been shown, after nearly three decades on the market, that more adults die each year from Hepatitis B virus infection than from any other vaccine-preventable disease. In light of these disappointing results, the efficacy of a HPV vaccine in eliminating cervical cancer is questionable, and most projections disregard considerable previous experience with vaccination against other STDs. In addition, there remains a real need for the development of medicines to treat those who are currently suffering from complications due to HPV infections. For these people, the vaccine is meaningless.

The premature imprimatur given the HPV vaccines by Canadian officials is not good medical policy because it ignores considerable experience with previous and less complicated STDs vaccines. The rhetoric employed by those who follow the Merck marketing script tends to raise false hopes and to have a chilling effect upon research that may benefit those millions of people worldwide who are currently infected with �high-risk� HPV. In other words, if cervical cancer will soon be eliminated or prevented by an HPV vaccine, why should a treatment of those infected by HPV be pursued? The answer, of course, comes from experience with the Hepatitis B virus: history has told us that STDs are extremely difficult to treat via vaccination, that HPV presents even greater challenges than the Hepatitis B virus, and that we should not abandon the search for antiviral treatments due to false or over-inflated rhetoric. We should be skeptical of those flogging the HPV vaccine as a �cure� for cervical cancer, and be wary of committing huge government resources for an enforced vaccination program that targets only two of the many high-risk HPV viruses. Instead, a responsible multi-tiered approach should be introduced which includes recognition of a need and role for antiviral treatments.

Over 30 years ago an excellent vaccine was introduced by the pharmaceutical company Merck to provide protection against infection by the sexually-transmitted Hepatitis B virus, an infectious agent that causes considerable world-wide morbidity and mortality. At the time, the vaccine was billed as a tool to eliminate chronic hepatitis and liver cancer, two diseases often associated with Hepatitis B virus infections. Yet, currently, the world faces a yearly mortality rate of approximately 1 million people as a direct consequence of Hepatitis B virus infection. Furthermore, antiviral treatments for Hepatitis B virus are now in great demand but had not been discovered or developed, due in large part to the lack of anticipation of their need in the wake of the vaccine hype. After all, the Hepatitis B virus vaccine was going to eliminate the disease just as polio and smallpox had been.

Recent claims suggest that the newly approved vaccine that protects against Human Papillomaviruses (HPV) types 16 and 18, (also produced by Merck), will eliminate cervical cancer. The lobbying efforts by Merck to persuade Canada to advocate for their agenda in preventing a devastating disease would be commendable if promises surrounding the HPV vaccine were that simple. However, it should be noted that a key element missing from this scheme is the use of HPV antiviral treatments for those people currently infected with the virus, such as women presenting with a positive Pap smear. It is only via this multi-tiered approach�Pap testing, antiviral treatment, and vaccination�that the goal of eliminating high risk HPV and cervical cancer will be realized.

It should be noted that significant obstacles stand in the way of implementing a successful vaccine program for any sexually-transmitted disease, and especially HPV. According to the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Merck, an estimated 5.5 - 6.2 million Americans become infected with HPV each year (it should be noted that recently published studies suggest that up to 25% of US women are infected with HPV), and about 20 million Americans are currently infected. Therefore, a very large fraction of the US (and world) population is already infected with HPV, and vaccination of these individuals against HPV will not eliminate the virus, nor will it reduce their risk of cervical cancer. High-risk HPV is predominantly a sexually transmitted virus that is carried by both men and women, though currently the vaccine is approved only for women. Therefore, men will continue to be major carriers unless the male population can become fully vaccinated, a process that is only theoretical a present and will likely not happen because men would be vaccinated for largely altruistic reasons since their risk of cancer from HPV is small. The HPV vaccine is presently not approved by the FDA for men.

In addition, there are numerous high-risk HPV types that the vaccines will not prevent: over 13 types of human papillomaviruses are currently known to cause cervical cancer, only 2 of which are targeted by the vaccines. Thus, the numerous cancer-causing HPVs that have the potential to replace those 2 HPVs targeted by the vaccines are an additional obstacle in the on-going effort to eradicate cervical cancer. Another type of obstacle is that many parents are hesitant or unwilling to have their children vaccinated against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) due to numerous issues, including social and moral concerns. It is being recommended that 12-year old girls be the target population for vaccination, yet cervical dysplasia (pre-cancerous disease caused by HPV resulting in a positive Pap smear) generally presents itself on average in women in their early 30�s. Therefore, a considerable lag (perhaps several generations) is anticipated before any significant relief in cervical cancer prevalence is realized. For these and other reasons it is very important to distinguish the reality of HPV disease etiology from the Merck marketing literature.

To draw a comparison with the hepatitis B virus vaccine, it has been shown, after nearly three decades on the market, that more adults die each year from Hepatitis B virus infection than from any other vaccine-preventable disease. In light of these disappointing results, the efficacy of a HPV vaccine in eliminating cervical cancer is questionable, and most projections disregard considerable previous experience with vaccination against other STDs. In addition, there remains a real need for the development of medicines to treat those who are currently suffering from complications due to HPV infections. For these people, the vaccine is meaningless.

The premature imprimatur given the HPV vaccines by Canadian officials is not good medical policy because it ignores considerable experience with previous and less complicated STDs vaccines. The rhetoric employed by those who follow the Merck marketing script tends to raise false hopes and to have a chilling effect upon research that may benefit those millions of people worldwide who are currently infected with �high-risk� HPV. In other words, if cervical cancer will soon be eliminated or prevented by an HPV vaccine, why should a treatment of those infected by HPV be pursued? The answer, of course, comes from experience with the Hepatitis B virus: history has told us that STDs are extremely difficult to treat via vaccination, that HPV presents even greater challenges than the Hepatitis B virus, and that we should not abandon the search for antiviral treatments due to false or over-inflated rhetoric. We should be skeptical of those flogging the HPV vaccine as a �cure� for cervical cancer, and be wary of committing huge government resources for an enforced vaccination program that targets only two of the many high-risk HPV viruses. Instead, a responsible multi-tiered approach should be introduced which includes recognition of a need and role for antiviral treatments.

When vaccinations were first introduced as a means of protecting people from infections there was tremendous opposition from both inside and outside the medical community. Today smallpox is all but a thing of the past, and numerous other diseases are no longer a problem with millions of lives saved.

The process does work, but of course there is need to continue research to find more effective processes. Why though, should we refuse protection for some young women just because the protection is not 100% effective. Isn't half a loaf better than no bread?

I do not see the relevance of comparing hepatitis B virus and human papilloma viruses. They are different organisms, so I am not clear why the success or failure with one would be relevant to the success or failure with the others. Heptavax is a useful protective vaccination, and if HPV vaccination is as successful then it should be considered.

I wonder why the virulence (if that is the correct word) of the opposition to vaccination against an STD is so great. Is there some underlying ulterior opposition other than a purely medical one? If so it should be honestly stated. If the opposition is purely medical, then let the arguments go ahead. I would be especially interested in hearing the opinions of sexually active young ladies. They are, after all, the group who is most directly involved.

The comment "sexually-transmitted Hepatitis B virus" makes it seem that Hepatitis B is fundamentally an STD. It can be passed that way, but it is fundamentally a disease transmitted with bodily fluids. That means sex may be involved but does not have to be, and needles, spit and other things can also transmit it non sexually. It is not an STD in the sense that syphilis or gonorrhea are.

Then the very misleading "currently, the world faces a yearly mortality rate of approximately 1 million people as a direct consequence of Hepatitis B virus infection" in an attempt to prove that vaccination has failed. No mention, of course, as to where in the world these people live and whether they actually received the vaccine.

In contrast read the Wikipedia article, which points out, "The vaccine is highly effective. In endemic countries with high rates of hepatitis B infection, vaccination of newborns has not only reduced the risk of infection, but has also led to marked reduction in liver cancer." Thus indicating the very useful nature of hepatitis B vaccinations and proving.

Sorry, the last sentence should continue:
"and proving how effective it is."

ammonra,

Small pox and HPV are completely different organisms so by your own reasoning you should not compare the two.

Also the effectiveness of the small pox vaccine can be in question. Don't forget the US went absolutely nuts after 9/11 and said that there was limited protection to small pox.

The poster child of vaccines is the polio shot, if you look at the decline of polio you can see that it had dropped of significantly a few years before the vaccine was used. This is because of an increase in sanitary conditions. Clean living prevented the disease.

As for the assertation that the only reason this is implemented is through some sort of corruption, the argument does have some validity. In the US they would have stopped producing vaccines if the goverment didn't start covering all legal cost arising from vaccine injury. Also drug companies only care about money. If you have to spend 1 million to make 10 million it is a no brainer.

Last thing, Universities have stopped allowing Wikipedia citations becuase they are not fact checked to the level of any other source.

The comment about smallpox and HPV (and Hep B) is well taken, but the original comparison was by someone else, I would remind you. Sauce for the goose and all that.

The effectiveness of smallpox is not in question. It eliminated smallpox as a disease, to the degree that the only remaining virus are in government hands, so people stopped being vaccinated. That is why the US went "absolutely nuts" (as you put it), because there is no longer enough vaccine to protect everybody in case of terrorist release of smallpox virus. It was not because the vaccine doesn't work. It does.

I am not enamoured of pharmaceutical companies particularly, and I agree they are primarily profit driven as nearly all companies are, but what else would you expect a corporation to be. That is their raison d'etre. I reject the conspiracy and corruption theories, however, I think they are irrational. Companies do things to make money and sometimes things that cost money. Some large corporations are altruistic, despite their profit taking.

Despite the problems at Wikipedia regarding the accuracy of their information in a few cases, the information found there is a good starting point and the I encourage you to follow up on the point it made. I also note that Opinion250 is not a university but a place for opinionated people, so Wikipedia references are quite acceptable. Particularly is that so when the original long posts are surprisingly similar to articles by journalists (not scientists) in the Wall Street Journal, hardly a repository of peer reviewed science (do a Google search on Pam Martens).

Once again an error:
"The effectiveness of smallpox vaccine is not in question".