Objections to Gardasil HPV Vaccine
Dawn Richardson, Parents Requesting Open
Vaccine Education (PROVE)
On Thursday, June 29th, the Advisory Committee
on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued a
unanimous decision to recommend vaccinating
all preteen (11 and 12 year old) girls with
multiple doses of the new HPV vaccine.
Many months prior to the vote, those in favor
of the vaccine had mounted an impressive but
dangerous distraction campaign of focusing
the media on the "morality" issues
of the vaccine to distract and suppress public
debate on the very real outstanding safety
and efficacy questions.
The following excellent objection to giving
adolescent girls the HPV vaccine "Gardasil"
is written by a Texas Board Certified Obstetrician
Gynecologist who is also the father of vaccine
injured children. Share this with family,
friends, and especially your health providers
so they can look at this objectively instead
of under the influence of the marketing by
the manufacturer who is now poised to make
billions of dollars without any responsibility
for the harm they may cause. Remember - everytime
ACIP puts a new vaccine on the schedule, it
invokes IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY FOR THE VACCINE
MANUFACTURER - parents won't be able to file
a lawsuit against MERCK for the injuries and
health problems this vaccine may cause their
daughter.
Additionally, another very well written piece
outlining even more concerns on the HPV vaccine
was put out by the National
Vaccine Information Center.
Together, these two pieces ought to make
parents really think about whether or not
they want this shot given to their daughter.
Please pass this on.
OBGYN Against ACIP HPV Vaccine Decision
I am a Board Certified Obstetrician Gynecologist
and have several objections to the ACIP "recommendations".
Most of the following is taken directly form
the Gardasil package insert.
First, the endpoint is the prevention of
"High Grade disease", this encompasses
CIN II-III and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS)
which are "immediate and necessary precursors"
for squamous cell and adenocarcinoma of the
cervix. The MAXIMUM of the median follow up
in any of their studies is FOUR years. However,
the time course from CIN III to invasive cancer
averages between 8.1 to 12.6 years. Claiming
this vaccine "prevents cervical cancer",
with the longest median study subject being
4 years, is ludicrous.
Furthermore, the vast majority of women clear
or suppress the virus to levels not associated
with CIN II or III and for most women this
occurs promptly. The duration of HPV positivity
(which is directly related to the likelihood
of developing a high grade lesion or cervical
cancer) is shorter, and the likelihood of
clearance is higher, in younger women.
Therefore, vaccinating these children against
HPV with a vaccine that is of unknown duration
of efficacy will only postpone their exposure
to an age which they are less likely clear
the infection on their own and be subject
to more severe disease. This would require
an unknown number of boosters and is a setup
for complacency in the older population that
is a recipe for disaster. Furthermore, the
likelihood for regression to a normal pap
from CIN II is 40%. This beats Gardasil’s
"best" reduction of CIN II-III of
only 12%. In this case, "first do no
harm” rules.
Furthermore the vaccine only "protects"
against 4 high risk HPV subtypes. We are currently
screening for 13 "high risk" HPV
subtypes. This may lead to an increase in
infection with other and possibly more aggressive
subtypes.
The study of the vaccine in children and
adolescents is limited to only measuring the
development of antibodies to the HPV subtypes
in the vaccine. There is absolutely no evidence
that the vaccine prevents anything when administered
at this young age. Merck expects you to extrapolate
their adult data to the immune response in
children. If they were really interested in
vaccine efficacy in children, should it not
be studied properly in children?
Currently, precancerous lesions are readily
identifiable and treatable in the developed
world. The only utility of this vaccine may
be in third world countries in which regular
screening is not available and cervical cancer
is still a major cause of morbidity and mortality.
All of the data reported and advertised by
Merck is based on world wide morbidity and
mortality related to cervical cancer. Nowhere
will you find specific data related to developed
nations.
I have personally witnessed the devastation
caused by severe vaccine reaction, including
patients, their children, nurses and my own
family. To proceed with mass vaccination against
this embellished "threat" is irresponsible.
Clayton Young, M.D., F.A.C.O.G.
PROVE(Parents Requesting Open Vaccine Education)
prove@vaccineinfo.net (email) http://vaccineinfo.net
(website)
PROVE provides information on vaccines, and
immunization policies and practices that affect
the children and adults of Texas. Our mission
is to prevent vaccine injury and death and
to promote and protect the right of every
person to make informed independent vaccination
decisions for themselves and their family.
|
Use the information provided on this site as an educational resource for determining your options and making your own informed choices. It is not intended as medical advice or to diagnose, prescribe, or treat any specific illness.