BEWARE: Gardasil for HPV could be dangerous

« Hillary
BEWARE: HPV vaccine can be dangerous
Hi ladies,
I am not sure how many of you may have young daughters, but be cautious of the Cervical Vaccine, and its side affects. Please read the attached information above. My 14 year old cousin is in the hospital paralyzed at this moment going through a series of testing. The testing has been diagnosed a Guillian-Barre Virus.

When Morgan had her first dose of the vaccine it caused her to sleep for 12 hours, and her parents did not connect that the vaccine was a problem. She is a very active young lady, and loves to sleep, so, they assumed that it was exhaustion.

However, Monday, Morgan had a 2nd dose of the vaccine, and by Tuesday early afternoon she was paralyzed. I am told that there are findings that this vaccine is causing life threatening side-effects. I have not had time to find articles or research connecting the virus with the vaccine, but the medical professionals in Memphis are claiming that they are almost certain that the vaccine is the cause.

And, I just heard from a medical professional friend tonight that Merck is planning to use this vaccine on young women in third world countries. To cut to the chase; for experimental purposes., but of course this is not Merck’s claim.

So, if anyone finds some research to share, please let me know, and I will do the same. And, if there are women with children that have done well with the vaccine, please share your side.
I don’t recall the report, but my plate has been way too full this summer and I have had problems keeping track of things lately, except for what is in front of me. Anyway, Governor Perry attempted to make the vaccine mandatory in Texas, but Congress put a stop to it.
And, I don’t know the whole story of why Vicki, Morgan’s mom agreed to the vaccine. Usually, she will discuss these matters with her sister and I before taking this type of step Then, we research and she will make a final decision. Trust me, she is beating herself up over it. When things calm down for them, then, I will get more of the details.

Arguments
The argument for compulsory vaccination rests in the historic use of such measures to combat epidemics of serious diseases that were easily spread through casual contact between school aged children. Compulsory vaccination of children has nearly eradicated specific childhood diseases, in part by increasing overall immunity through the herd factor which protects those who have opted out or who cannot be vaccinated for health reasons. The US Supreme Court affirms that the public health benefits outweigh individual liberties (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 1944)[i].

With an argument also based in the historic use of compulsory vaccinations, opponents point out that while effective, such measures have not been used for rare diseases or for diseases that are transmitted specifically through sexual contact. The sexual and intimate nature of HPV transmission combined with the rarity of cervical cancer negates the public health benefit argument. Unlike some states, Missouri only provides for medical and religious opt-outs, leaving, leaving little recourse for those who oppose mandatory vaccination for a variety of other reasons.

On both sides of the mandate issue, supporters and detractors bolster their arguments by citing specific areas of concern:

Safety:
Proponents: Approval by the Food and Drug Administration ensures a level of safety. All vaccines have some bad outcomes, and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) provides compensation such injuries.

Opponents: Gardasil, manufactured by Merck, is believed to have been fast-tracked via the FDA’s Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA, 1992) under which pharmaceuticals pay user fees to the FDA, who developed standards for reduced approval time for new drugs. The recent Vioxx (also Merck) scandal is evidence that the approval process has faults. Missouri only allows religious and doctor-approved medical opt-outs, leaving little recourse for safety concerns. The National Vaccine Information Center is calling on the FDA and CDC to warn that Gardasil should not be combined with other vaccines. Professional groups, such as the Society of Adolescent Medicine and the American Academy of Pediatrics, and independent physicians, such as W. Gary Sherman, M.D., Professor of Clinical Pediatrics, Washington University Medical School[ii], support the vaccine but caution the rush to mandate.

Market and politics:
Proponents: The NVICP Program reduces liability to pharmaceutical companies, which, in turn, sparks competition and research for new vaccines.
Opponents: Merck recently stopped aggressive lobbying for compulsory vaccination programs in many states due to public outcry about business influencing politics. Contributions to state candidates and party committees nationwide have totaled $2.45 million since the 2000 election cycle. In Texas, Merck donated thousands of dollars to key political races, and lobbyists have been directly tied to the Governors’ office. Between 2001 and 2004, Merck donated $38,000 to Missouri races and spent $2,000 on lobbying. Information on 2006–2007 lobbying expenditures is not available through the Missouri Ethics Commission at this time.

Cost, access, and disparity:
Proponents: The current cost for the three-dose vaccine is $360, which is cost-prohibitive for low-income women. Legislation will mandate access to vaccines for all females of certain ages.
Opponents: Screening is responsible for the dramatic decrease in cancer rates. Despite increased affordability of vaccines, there is concern that without statewide screening, the disparity between urban and rural cancer rates will continue. An appropriate use of funding would include insuring affordable and accessible screening throughout the state, including every rural county.

Gender issues:
Proponents: compulsory vaccination will ensure protection even for those girls whose mothers who might be negligent about voluntarily vaccination.
Opponents: The vaccine has only been fully tested and approved for females despite the fact that males also carry the virus. Additionally, mandating compliance with vaccination implies that women are not capable or responsible enough to make informed decisions about their sexual health. Mandating vaccination for females who will ultimately bear the burden of risk and safety raises questions of ownership of female bodies and eliminates responsibility for heterosexual males. Men who have sex with men and men living with HIV/AIDS need access to HPV vaccines.

Sexual Promiscuity, Parental Rights, and Opt-Out Provisions:
Proponents: There is no evidence to indicate that being protected from HPV will lead to promiscuity.
Opponents: Conservative groups predict an increase in sexual promiscuity. These groups object to state control over their children as they override the rights of parents to make decisions in the best interest of their children. These groups use the same arguments to block comprehensive sex education and to promote abstinence-until-marriage policies and funding.
Possible unintended consequence: The concern over sexual promiscuity could lead to a strengthened policy and funding support for sexuality education in the schools to be totally eliminated or more restricted to abstinence-until-marriage. This is a critical consideration based on evidence that knowledge about sexual health options increases screening, which ultimately reduces HPV and cancer.