| |
|
| | The Truth Seekers Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts | | Arizona blocking HPV shot | Views: 15600 | | May 17, 2007 4:33 pm | | Arizona blocking HPV shot | # | 
Danielle (Dani) Cutler | | State Senate would block cervical-cancer shot for girls
Amanda J. Crawford
The Arizona Republic
May. 17, 2007 12:00 AM
State lawmakers made a pre- emptive strike Wednesday to block health officials from requiring that teenage girls get a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer.
As states across the country debate the merits of making the vaccine for human papillomavirus, or HPV, mandatory for schoolchildren, the Arizona Senate has inserted an unusual prohibition in its bipartisan budget proposal. It would prevent health officials from even having that conversation here.
The issue: HPV, which causes about 70 percent of all cervical cancer, is a sexually transmitted disease.
advertisement
State health officials, who have the authority under state law to decide which vaccines to require, say the prohibition is unnecessary. The vaccine is not even on the list of vaccines they will consider requiring in coming years.
But they would like to have the option eventually and worry that the Senate move sets a dangerous precedent by politicizing decisions normally left up to experts in public health.
The vaccine has become a hot-button issue across the U.S. with social conservatives rallying against requiring it because they say it sends the wrong message to young people about sex.
"This is not a disease that schoolchildren catch sitting at a desk," said Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, which backed the prohibition.
The HPV vaccine has made political waves nationwide since federal health authorities recommended last summer that it be given to all middle-school girls. Supporters heralded the vaccine as a lifesaver that could help prevent cervical cancer, which kills thousands of women in the United States each year. Recent studies also link HPV to throat cancer. About one in for young people ages 15 to 24 are infected with some strain of HPV, health officials say.
But the vaccine is mired in controversy. Only one manufacturer, Merck, currently has a vaccine on the market, and it's expensive, costing $360. Critics accuse politicians of bowing to the company's lobbying efforts when moving to make it mandatory. In Texas, the governor earlier this year issued an executive order, requiring it for schoolchildren, that was overturned by the state Legislature this month.
Right now, only one state, Virginia, has added it to its list of required vaccines for schoolchildren. But about half of all state legislatures considered such a requirement this year, said Jody Hatz of the National Conference of State Legislatures. She said she knows of no other state that has gone the opposite direction, like Arizona may, to block a requirement.
The vaccine already is being administered in Arizona, although it is not required for school. Officials normally don't require a vaccine until it is already widely used.
The Senate budget includes millions of dollars in additional funding to provide vaccines, including the HPV vaccine, to underinsured children or young adults on Medicaid.
But senators tied that money to the prohibition on making the vaccine a requirement for school.
Proponents of the prohibition say they don't trust state health officials to make the right decision about the vaccine. Sen. Karen Johnson said she is wary about vaccines in general and believes they may be tied to problems such as autism in children. But on this issue, she said, she has found much greater support among her colleagues because the disease is tied to sex. The Mesa Republican said she worries that vaccinating girls who are 11 or 12 will encourage them to be promiscuous.
"If they get a shot and they know it has to do with a sexually transmitted disease, I think it absolutely sends the wrong message to children," she said.
That's an argument that her opponents find ludicrous.
The vaccine is recommended for young girls to catch them before they ever become sexually active to protect them in later years. Plus, families can easily opt out of the state's vaccination requirements if they don't agree on personal grounds, says Sen. Debbie McCune Davis, D-Phoenix, who also serves as program director for the Arizona Partnership for Immunization.
She said she doesn't want the Legislature to require the vaccine because she doesn't think it is a decision that should be made by politicians. But she says that those backing the prohibition fear the vaccine because they don't trust the science behind it.
"I don't see anything to be afraid of," she said. "This is a vaccine that prevents cervical cancer and will allow a generation of women to live their lives without fear of the disease."
An attempt by Sen. Amanda Aguirre, D-Yuma, to strip the prohibition out of the budget failed. The Senate and House must still agree on a budget proposal before it goes to the governor for her signature. Gov. Janet Napolitano has said that she would sign the Senate budget proposal as is.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0517hpvvaccine0517.html
A great move I think by the State Senate, but again I am drawn to the comments. One irked me enough I had to actually respond!
Dani
Private Reply to Danielle (Dani) Cutler | | May 17, 2007 5:08 pm | | re: Arizona blocking HPV shot | # | 
Chris Lekander | | Thanks for the news Dani, I'm glad of this:
"The Senate budget includes millions of dollars in additional funding to provide vaccines, including the HPV vaccine, to underinsured children or young adults on Medicaid.
But senators tied that money to the prohibition on making the vaccine a requirement for school."
I'm curious, what was the comment that irked you?
The idea that it sends a bad message to kids is weird IMO. But a manditory vaccine for something like this is also weird. Merck stands to gain the most by lobbying for it to be manditory!
Smiles,
Chris
The Living Well Living Room Network Moderator: http://4rites-network.ryze.com/
Self Help Junkie: http://selfhelpjunkies.blogspot.com
Private Reply to Chris Lekander | | May 17, 2007 5:39 pm | | re: re: Arizona blocking HPV shot | # |
Danielle (Dani) Cutler | | Here's my comment, I quote the comment in my response:
Re: Storychat (0517hpvvaccine0517.html)
Posted by: Dani8600 (IP Logged)
Date: May 17, 2007 01:24PM
Michelle3441 wrote: "This shot needs to be mandatory for the low income people who can't afford it as optional. If you don't want to protect your child from possibly getting HPV in the future then don't get it. Just because you give the shot doesn't mean kids are going to have sex. This is a disease you can get at any age just like Polio and MMR. You get the vaccine at the time in your life it will do the most benefit. It's a shame that our society is so sexually uptight that they can't see the bigger picture of saving lives."
Um, with all due respect, I think you need to do a little more research into HPV. You may be able to get it at any age, but you can only get it through sexual contact or through genital contact (from what I read), so there is absolutely no reason to assume that girls are going to be sexually active and require this vaccine. Also, that was a rather unfair thing to say that it should be mandatory for "the low income people". What exactly are you suggesting? That low-income people are more sexually active than average-income people, or above-income people?
This issue has nothing to do with society being "sexually uptight" (which I agree it certainly is). It has everything to do with putting needless drugs in your body when they may not be necessary.
---All ready over 10 pages of comments- definitely a hot topic! But it's an important one.Private Reply to Danielle (Dani) Cutler | | May 18, 2007 7:53 am | | re: re: re: Arizona blocking HPV shot | # |
-=Topper=- | |
"This is not a disease that schoolchildren catch sitting at a desk," said
Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, which backed the
prohibition.
Does that irk me? Yes it does. The ideology is sick and twisted. Because as
much as they block medical progress, these are the same people that buy stock in
Lockheed Martin, Boeing, And General Dynamics.
These people should set aside their dismal ideology and puritan ways and buy
stock in Merck.
70% isn't exactly 5 - 15 or even 25%. It is a rather large number I think.
Puritan values in a trade off for beneficial health?
They are just a tad nuts.
Private Reply to -=Topper=- | | May 18, 2007 11:04 am | | re: re: re: re: Arizona blocking HPV shot | # |
Danielle (Dani) Cutler | | Forgive me, my friend, but you are confusing me with your position.
Are you saying they shouldn't block the shot, and require it?
~DaniPrivate Reply to Danielle (Dani) Cutler | | May 18, 2007 3:01 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: Arizona blocking HPV shot | # |
-=Topper=- | |
No, not in the least. They should support it. 70% to me is a big number. In
the long run it may prove to keep cervical cancer from happening at all. As it
is, I think it is a right step.
I think the notion that it promotes sex is silly at best.
Private Reply to -=Topper=- | | May 18, 2007 3:17 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: Arizona blocking HPV shot | # |
Chris Lekander | | The notion that it promotes sex is a red herring.
Why should it be manditory? Why not a voluntary thing offered to everyone?
Best,
Chris
The Living Well Living Room Network Moderator: http://4rites-network.ryze.com/
Self Help Junkie: http://selfhelpjunkies.blogspot.com
Private Reply to Chris Lekander | | May 18, 2007 3:47 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Arizona blocking HPV shot | # |
-=Topper=- | |
Why not? Chris, support your thesis here. They are against this due to a
moral issue. Other than Merck making a big dime. What is yours? There are other
shots they give, other vaccines, why not this one?
Why not is all I have. And maybe with such a vaccine my sister may not have
had to endure cervical cancer.
All I have to answer your question is why not, with reason. How about you?Â
Private Reply to -=Topper=- | | May 18, 2007 4:19 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Arizona blocking HPV shot | # | 
Wicked Witch of the West | | I'll give you some why nots, Topper.
Merck is PAYING legislators to try and get this shit made mandatory because not enough people have gotten the vaccine voluntarily. Merck is spending millions to try and make billions which is exactly how much they will rake in if they can get every state on board with this crap. Texas jumped first and the legislators in their state were smart enough to override what I can only guess is a pretty fucking pathetic governor.
HPV is a COFACTOR in cervical cancer, but in relation to the number of people who actually carry HPV, very few ever get cancer. There are more than 100 strains of HPV and 80% of all women will have acquired an infection from one of them by the time they are 50 and every year (pay close attention here) about 6.2 million women and MEN get a new HPV infection each year. Why are we not giving this to boys? Just because they don't have a cervix, we shouldn't protect them from spreading it to unknowing partners?
This vaccine can NOT PREVENT cervical cancer (pay close attention to that tagline the next time you read or listen to the advertisements). Can it reduce the number of cases of cervical cancer, perhaps, but since it's not even been on the market for a year, how on earth do we know that? Do we really think a bunch of lab rats are good indicators? It took ten years before key questions in relation to prevention where known on the Hep B vaccine, why do we think this one will not take just as long?
It should be my CHOICE and my child's CHOICE whether or not she has this vaccine. I certainly don't think that anyone is going to run out and have sex just because they are vaccinated, but I don't think it's up to our flipping government to decide whether or not my child must have this and at what age. It's pathetic, the government trying to tell people their kids can't attend schools unless they have been pumped full of shit.
My husband and I fought with hospital staff about vaccines for our newborn cause we chose to do none until she was two months of age. And, even then, we did individual vaccines cause I refuse to give my child a Hep B shot when she is not at risk and won't be anytime soon. My own pediatrician agrees that the HPV thing is being forced way too quickly and it's one shot that should never be mandatory, but always a choice.
It burns me that every time I sign a piece of paperwork about why I'm not vaccinating my child for something that it's religiously based. WTF can't it just be because I refuse to give my kid things that she does not need. Every year companies like Merck come up with more shit that we MUST have to live eternally. And every year, we find out that some of this shit is more deadly then a smoking gun. The guys at Merck and in my government want to pump their kids up, then they should go for it, but leave me and mine the fuck alone.Private Reply to Wicked Witch of the West | | May 18, 2007 4:56 pm | | re: Arizona blocking HPV shot | # |
Chris Lekander | | "Why not is all I have." You are just as capable of supporting your thesis.
Your sister may not have had to endure cervical cancer if she had been presented with a choice to get a vaccine that was not manditory also.
I'm not sure I like the idea of manditory vaccines at all regardless what the vaccine is for. I didn't make a big deal of that for my children because I choose to have them vaccinated. That didn't mean that I thought it was right for it to be manditory. However, it is true that my kids can't get HPV sitting in school, can they?
But your point about the moral issue is a good one. If morally I were opposed to my teenager having sex, I likewise wouldn't necessarily want her to get a vaccine that "protects" her against a virus she won't get if she's not sexually active. Give her the choice and me as her parent the choice to tell her - this is good for your future protection, go ahead and get the vaccine.
Why don't I want it to be manditory? Because, it sets a precedent around things that are choices. There are hundreds of things we could make manditory that are choices. Why is tobacco legal? How about alcohol? These would make just as much sense to make rulings around. Wouldn't they?
My Merck argument was enough though. They are prematurely forcing this to make a buck. They won't have the care or insight to make sure its a good thing before they lobby to make it manditory. Then when it turns out to cause autism or something else, they'll say "whoops sorry about that we can't be held responsible and even though we made a billion dollars on it, tough luck guinea pigs." And they'll have more billions to help get the courts to agree.
Best,
Chris
The Living Well Living Room Network Moderator: http://4rites-network.ryze.com/
Self Help Junkie: http://selfhelpjunkies.blogspot.com
Private Reply to Chris Lekander | | May 19, 2007 4:05 pm | | re: re: Arizona blocking HPV shot | # |
Wicked Witch of the West | | Commentary on HPV Vaccine Mandates
Barbara Loe Fisher, NVIC president
The American people are speaking out about HPV vaccine mandates. In every public poll that is taken by the print or broadcast media, a majority of responders vote "NO" when asked if they want HPV vaccine mandates for sixth grade girls. Some state legislators have responded to the will of the people, like in Colorado, and have voted "No" to proposed mandates. A visionary physician member of the U.S. Congress, Georgia's Rep. Phil Gingrey, has introduced legislation to prohibit federal money from being used by states to mandate HPV vaccine. But other legislators, such as those in Virginia, have already quickly voted "yes" to HPV vaccine mandates. They apparently chose to listen to Merck rather than listening to the people who voted them into office.
While the people are saying "NO MANDATES" and the politicians are voting for or against mandates, NVIC continues to monitor GARDASIL adverse event reports being filed in VAERS, as well as counsel women and parents of daughters who suffered sudden collapse with seizure activity; pain, tingling, and numbness in hands; speech and vision loss and other serious health problems after being injected with GARDASIL.
Now, an HPV vaccine researcher has spoken out publicly in opposition to mandates, citing among other concerns the fact that there have been 40 cases of GBS reported after GARDASIL was given simultaneously with meningococcal vaccine. At the same time, the CDC published its official HPV vaccine recommendation in the Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, instructing doctors to give GARDASIL in combination with other vaccines, including meningococcal vaccine, even though they admit "no data exist on administration of quadrivalent HPV vaccine with vaccines other than hepatitis B vaccine...."
CDC officials associated with these recommendations are exhibiting an appalling lack of concern for individual and public health by cavalierly recommending that GARDASIL be given to every 11 year old girl in America, when they know that Merck only studied the vaccine in a few hundred 11 year old girls. This callous disregard for human life is compounded by telling doctors to give GARDASIL to little girls in combination with other vaccines when "no data exist" to support the safety of that policy.
Tragically, most doctors blindly trust the scientific validity of CDC vaccine recommendations. Many doctors refuse to report serious health problems suffered by children after vaccination because CDC officials have taught them to believe that vaccine associated health problems are a "coincidence" and have nothing to do with the vaccine(s) recently given to a child. Fewer than 10 percent of all doctors obey the safety provisions in the federal National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which includes mandatory reporting of vaccine adverse events because there are no sanctions for failing to report.
Just this week, a mother told NVIC that her daughter's doctor refused to report to VAERS that her daughter suffered a sudden collapse with seizure activity and other neurological signs within 30 minutes of being injected with GARDASIL. How many more doctors are refusing to report because they are in collective denial about vaccine risks?
The lesson that America is learning from the GARDASIL fiasco is that those who operate America's mass vaccination program arrogantly wield their considerable power by negligently putting policy before science and money before lives. There is about $4 billion dollars riding on the successful mandating of HPV vaccine for every girl in America, but trillions more riding on the precedent it will set.
The rollout of HPV vaccine today, marked by a callous indifference for minimizing vaccine injuries, is paving the way for the rollout of HIV vaccine tomorrow. One day soon the CDC and vaccine manufacturers will be telling the public that a little bit of the virus associated with AIDS injected into our children won't hurt them at all, especially if it is given with many other vaccines at the same time. They will try to politicize the ensuing debate by making it all about sex and poor kids not having access in order to try to divert attention from the lack of scientific proof the vaccine is safe and effective in children. The HIV vaccine ads will blanket the airwaves and editorials will call for pre-teens to line up and roll up their sleeves. Every state legislator in the country will be pressured to vote for school mandates.
And nobody will have a clue about just how dangerous that future HIV vaccine is for either individual or public health.
No forced vaccination. Not in America.
National Vaccine Information Center
email: news@nvic.org
voice: 703-938-dpt3
web: http://www.nvic.org
NVIC E-News is a free service of the National Vaccine Information Center and is supported through membership donations.
NVIC is funded through the financial support of its members and does not receive any government subsidies. Barbara Loe Fisher, President and Co- founder.
Learn more about vaccines, diseases and how to protect your informed consent rights at www.nvic.org Private Reply to Wicked Witch of the West | | May 19, 2007 4:08 pm | | re: re: re: Arizona blocking HPV shot | # |
Wicked Witch of the West | | This article contains just about every "why not" a person can find to keep this shit away from our kids.
VACCINE SAFETY GROUP RELEASES GARDASIL REACTION REPORT
Calls on FDA and CDC to Warn Doctors and Parents to Report to VAERS
PRNewswire
(Feb. 21) Washington, D.C. – The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) today released a new analysis of the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports of serious health problems following HPV vaccination (Merck’s GARDASIL) during the last six months of 2006.
Out of the 385 individual GARDASIL adverse event reports made to VAERS, two-thirds required additional medical care and about one-third of all reports were for children 16-years-old and under, with nearly 25 percent of those children having received simultaneously one or more of the 18 vaccines that Merck did not study in combination with GARDASIL.
NVIC is calling on the FDA and CDC to warn parents and doctors that GARDASIL should not be combined with other vaccines and that young girls should be monitored for at least 24 hours for syncopal (collapse/fainting) episodes that can be accompanied by seizure activity, as well as symptoms of tingling, numbness and loss of sensation in the fingers and limbs, all of which should be reported to VAERS immediately.
“Because Merck only studied GARDASIL in fewer than 1200 girls under age 16 in pre-licensure trials, it is critical that doctors and parents be made aware of the nature of the initial adverse event reports coming into VAERS and that they report serious health problems after vaccination when they occur,” said NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher. “There are twice as many children collapsing and four times as many children experiencing tingling, numbness and loss of sensation after getting a GARDASIL vaccination compared to those getting a Tdap (tetanus-diphtheria- acellular pertussis) vaccination. There have been reports of facial paralysis and Guillain-Barre Syndrome. And doctors who give GARDASIL in combination with other vaccines are basically conducting an experiment on their young patients because Merck has not published any safety data for simultaneous vaccination with any vaccine except hepatitis B vaccine.”
According to NVIC’s report, a majority of GARDASIL adverse event reports to VAERS involved those who suffered fever, nausea, headache or pain; 14 percent were for syncopal episodes with or without neurological signs; and 8 percent experienced tingling, numbness and loss of sensation, facial paralysis or Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Although adverse event reports to VAERS do not prove causation, they can provide an early warning sign that a new vaccine may be causing health problems that could be important. For example, reports to VAERS of bowel blockage (intussusception) in babies following receipt of Merck’s Rota Teq (rotavirus) vaccine prompted the FDA to issue a public warning to doctors and consumers on Feb. 13.
“About 4 reports per day were filed with VAERS in December 2006 for the HPV vaccine,” said NVIC Health Policy Analyst Vicky Debold, RN, Ph.D. “Some of these girls are being injured when they collapse after getting the vaccine and others are complaining of neurological symptoms that should not be ignored. Doctors and nurses should take note of the patient safety issues related to giving this vaccine. Giving GARDASIL simultaneously with any of the 18 vaccines Merck did not study in combination is not an evidence- based guideline and should involve informed consent and a signed patient release. To avoid unnecessary injuries, teenage girls should be vaccinated laying down, not be left unattended and probably should not walk or drive themselves home from the doctor’s office after they get vaccinated.”
NVIC also found that there were several VAERS reports of HPV infection, genital warts and cervical lesions after GARDASIL vaccination. It is unknown if the girls were infected with HPV before being vaccinated or if GARDASIL failed to protect them. One case of HPV infection occurred in a 22-year-old girl who had participated in a Merck GARDASIL trial in 2003 when she had shown “strong conversion to all 4 vaccine types” but “tested positive for high risk HPV” in 2006, according to the VAERS report.
In a May 18, 2006 Background Document for the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRPBAC), the FDA staff stated that Merck clinical trial data indicated there may be “the potential for GARDASIL to enhance cervical disease in subjects who had evidence of persistent infection with vaccine-relevant HPV types prior to vaccination.” Girls and women now being vaccinated with GARDASIL are not routinely being tested for active HPV infection before vaccination.
The FDA staff also questioned whether the “HPV types not contained in the vaccine might offset the overall clinical effectiveness of the vaccine.” There are more than 15 types of HPV associated with cervical cancer but GARDASIL only contains HPV types 16 and 18. It is unknown whether non-vaccine HPV types will become more dominant in the future. However, there are indications this could occur because some of the seven strains of pneumococcal contained in Wyeth’s PREVNAR vaccine, which was recommended by the CDC for universal use in all babies in 2000, have been replaced by some of the more than 80 other pneumococcal strains not contained in the vaccine.
VAERS is a passive surveillance system and depends upon voluntary reporting of serious health problems following vaccination, even though safety provisions in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 mandated that health care providers report vaccine adverse events. There have been estimates that fewer than 10 percent, even as low as 1 to 4 percent, of adverse events which occur after prescription drug or vaccine use are ever reported to government adverse event reporting systems.
“If only 1 to 4 percent of all adverse events associated with GARDASIL vaccination are being reported to VAERS, there could have been up to 38,000 health problems after GARDASIL vaccination in 2006 which were never reported,” said Fisher. “How many girls are really having short-term health problems associated with getting this vaccine that could turn into long-term neurological or immune system disorders? And how many will go on to develop fertility problems, cancer or damage to their genes, all of which Merck admits in its product insert that it has not studied at all? We just don’t know enough to be mandating GARDASIL for anyone, much less vulnerable 11 to 12 year old girls entering puberty.”
For a copy of NVIC’s Report on VAERS and GARDASIL, references for this statement and information about how to report a vaccine reaction to VAERS, go to www.nvic.org.Private Reply to Wicked Witch of the West | | May 20, 2007 6:13 am | | re: re: re: re: Arizona blocking HPV shot | # |
L J | | They put a live virus in these shots. A certain percentage of girls will have skin outbreaks because of these live viruses. Even as the Army treats these vaccinations as experiments. Children have been made sick because of these tests. Nonetheless this is about money and not about sexuality. These inoculations are untested harm children and are therefore only about pushing an ideology of said money. Anyone who forces children on this stuff is asking to destroy the next generation of human beings. This is the same ploy they pull with anti-depressants that make children suicide. Toxic drugs and quick solutions are never the answer. The problem, reaction solution club needs to get a wake up call and stop pushing their ideologies for more money.
(CBS 5) SAN FRANCISCO Federal health officials presented new data Wednesday on the adverse reactions of a vaccine for human papilloma virus that also works to prevent some cancer in women.
The vaccine, Gardasil, acts to prevent cervical cancer by blocking certain strains of the human papilloma virus.
Hundreds of thousands of girls and young women have gotten at least one dose of Gardasil since the FDA approved it last June.
Dr. Barbara Moscicki is a pediatrician at the University of California at San Francisco Medical Center and has studied Gardasil. The vaccine represents a breakthrough, says Dr. Moscicki, and that "this vaccine is so exciting that we can actually make a huge change in cancers worldwide."
Now, there's new information about the three-dose vaccine's adverse side effects.
The Centers for Disease Control collected more than 500 complaints since the vaccine's approval last June, including: soreness at the injection site, fainting or dizziness and fever or nausea.
And, while Gardasil is considered safe, the vaccine is still surrounded by controversy.
Dr. Moscicki said, "We need to make the vaccine better than it is. It still only protects against 70 percent of invasive cancers. It doesn't protect 100 percent, and isn't that what we would like?"
There's also a concern brewing over making the vaccine mandatory for 11- and 12-year-old girls in order to attend school.
At least 20 states are considering it, including California. Critics complain the action preempts parental choice and may promote promiscuity.
One mother in San Francisco told CBS 5 HealthWatch that she's "very much for abstinence. I think that should be emphasized much more because with abstinence you have no need for the drugs and no exposure to the virus and I think that really does solve the problem."
However, 44 percent of teens in a recent survey report they've already had intercourse or oral sex by the end of 10th grade, and that young girls who have sex too soon face a risk that a vaccine can't prevent.
Dr. Bonnie Halpern-Feisher, a psychologist at the UCSF, conducted the survey and says girls are reporting more negative consequences about having sex before they are emotionally ready, and that they are "feeling guilty, feeling bad about themselves and being used."
As for the California legislation that would make the vaccine mandatory for school girls, it's too early to tell if it's going to become law.
However, it's clearly time for parents to have an honest and frank talk with their teens about sex.
http://cbs5.com/health/local_story_052190156.html%20Private Reply to L J | | May 20, 2007 12:43 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: Arizona blocking HPV shot | # |
Wicked Witch of the West | | "However, it's clearly time for parents to have an honest and frank talk with their teens about sex."
While this statement is very true, it's time for everyone to wake up and realize we have to talk to our children about sex well before they are teenagers. When I hear about 11 and 12 year old girls having babies, it makes me want to vomit. All the crap that goes on with teachers taking advantage of innocence, kids catching God only knows what, and having babies when they are still just babies might be stopped if we just stopped being so damned uptight and tight-lipped about sex. The current generation of children are exposed to sex almost from the day they are born. Hell, even Disney movies and shows make subtle sexual references. These people that think a vaccine will send their kids sex life into high gear need a swift kick in the ass from reality. On the other hand, people that think this will save their kids from ever having to endure something as awful as cancer need to learn not to pin their hopes and faith on something as shallow and greedy as our government and big pharmaceuticals.Private Reply to Wicked Witch of the West | | May 20, 2007 3:41 pm | | re: Arizona blocking HPV shot - why not ? | # | 
James Booth | | .
"HPV, which causes about 70 percent of all cervical cancer, is a sexually transmitted disease."
... taken from the original AR article.
"Statistics
Cervical cancer once was the leading cause of cancer death for women in the United States.
However, during the past 4 decades, incidence and mortality (the number of deaths each year)
from cervical cancer have declined significantly, primarily because of the widespread use of the
Papanicolaou (Pap) test to detect cervical abnormalities. 1 According to the U.S. Cancer
Statistics: 2003 Incidence and Mortality report, 11,820 women were diagnosed with cervical
cancer in 2003, and 3,919 women died from the disease that same year. 2 It is estimated that
more than $2 billion per year is spent in the United States on the treatment of cervical cancer. 3"
- http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/statistics/
Pursuing one of my semi-favourite activities here ...
11,820 equals .0000394 percent, or a very tiny portion of a percentage point among a 300 million population ...
... so HPV is apparently the cause of less than three quarters of .0000394
11,820 very important lives, Dave, including your sister's, yet ...
Vaccinating an entire (100%) population on that basis represents what ?
"a right step" ? Fear ?
There are obvious "meaningful purposes" in requiring every "teenage girl" to be vaccinated.
- social and psychological conditioning
- pharmaco profits
- setting precedent for other "mandatory" actions
- setting precedent for "state as parent" (a "cold-war" scare term)
- less social justice through clogged legal system
- big prison profits
What we need is access to good preventive medical care for all citizens - not more controls.
... especially not mandatory "health" in the name of "what is best for the public"
What we need is more self-determination and less economic slavery.
Our bodies are not for sale.
JBPrivate Reply to James Booth | | May 21, 2007 2:35 am | | re: Arizona blocking HPV shot - why not ? | # |
Danielle (Dani) Cutler | | What bothers me the most, is the implication that is being made in those states (like Texas which caused the most rukus) who have made this vaccine mandatory. It's like saying that because you are black you are more likely to be violent. (I ONLY say that as an example of the ridiculousness- not to bring a race issue into this. ;-) )
Arizona has done a good thing blocking health officials from making the vaccine mandatory. It certainly doesn't mean it is not available to those who want their children to have it, but in no way should it ever be mandatory.
~DaniPrivate Reply to Danielle (Dani) Cutler | | May 21, 2007 10:58 am | | re: re: Arizona blocking HPV shot - why not ? | # |
James Booth | | .
Bullseye, Dani
JBPrivate Reply to James Booth | | May 21, 2007 11:50 am | | re: re: Arizona blocking HPV shot - why not ? | # |
-=Topper=- | |
With what has been presented here, I have to agree that making this mandatory
may be more dangerous than what it pertains to protect.
Private Reply to -=Topper=- | | May 21, 2007 12:02 pm | | re: re: Arizona blocking HPV shot - why not ? | # |
James Booth | | .
I erred in placing the word "percent" behind .0000394
.0000394 is a percentage accurately stated as .00394 percent
JBPrivate Reply to James Booth | | May 22, 2007 2:00 pm | | re: re: re: Arizona blocking HPV shot - why not ? | # |
Wicked Witch of the West | | States Balk at Cancer Vaccine Mandate
By SHANNON McCAFFREY
The Associated Press
Sunday, May 20, 2007; 2:57 PM
ATLANTA -- For a time, Georgia was poised to become the latest state to require preteen girls to be vaccinated against a virus that causes cervical cancer.
A powerful state Republican lawmaker proposed making the vaccine mandatory for girls entering sixth grade, and the governor included $4.3 million in his budget to make it available to some 13,000 girls whose family's insurance policies wouldn't cover it.
But state lawmakers nixed the plans after aggressivelobbying by religious conservatives, who argued that could promote promiscuity. The human papillomavirus that causes cervical cancer is transmitted through sexual contact.
Similar proposals were introduced in 23 other states and the District of Columbia, but only Virginia has signed such a mandate into law.
Proposals in many states died or were watered down to only provide parents with educational materials instead of requiring the vaccine. In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry signed an executive order requiring vaccinations for sixth-grade girls, but the Legislature then passed a bill blocking the order.
Over the past several months, a vaccine that once was hailed as a breakthrough to prevent cancer deaths has become embroiled in some of the nation's most politically charged issues: teen sex, parental control, state mandates, a backlash against vaccines and a suspicion of drug companies.
"It encapsulates so many issues that are at the core of politics and health policy right now," said Alina Salganicoff, director of women's health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation.
The vaccine Gardasil was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in June 2006. The federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices followed with a recommendation that all girls be vaccinated at age 11 or 12. The three-dose treatment costs $360.
Cervical cancer kills 10 women a day in the U.S. and one in four U.S. women ages 14 to 59 is infected with HPV, according to a recent report from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While Gardasil is not a magic bullet, it protects against the strains of HPV that cause 70 percent of cervical cancers cases.
With the vaccine potentially saving many lives, cervical cancer survivor Lori Grice said, she was "completely dumbfounded" that it had become fodder for the culture wars.
"If this were a vaccine for prostate cancer they would have to call in the National Guard to keep the men from storming the place," said Grice, of Statesboro, Ga.
Grice said she plans to have her 6-year-old daughter vaccinated when she's old enough. She said her daughter can "make every right choice," avoiding IV drug use and premarital sex, "but she can marry someone who's a carrier of HPV, develop cervical cancer and die."
The sponsor of the Georgia bill, state Sen. Don Balfour, has said it is a great thing for the health of women in the state.
"It's good for your daughters," he said in a February hearing.
Others saw the vaccine mandate proposals differently.
The religious conservatives did not want the government to mandate a vaccine for "something that is only contracted through sexual activity," said Sadie Fields, executive director of the Georgia Christian Alliance.
Some parents insist that they should decide when their preteen daughter should be offered a vaccine that involved a discussion about sex.
Moira Gaul, director of women's and reproductive health at the conservative Family Research Council, said her group doesn't oppose the vaccine, but doesn't want it required.
"We think parents ought to be given a choice about what is best for their children," she said.
Others were turned off by what they saw as heavy-handed lobbying by the drug's maker, Merck and Co. Critics saw a drug company trying to get rich.
And there were worries that not enough was known about the drug's long-term health effects. As ammunition, critics pointed to Merck's recall of it's popular arthritis drug Vioxx because of increased heart risks. Merck has since said it will not lobby states for mandate bills.
Others argue politics is winning out over public health.
"It's really a shame that politics and ideology are getting in the way of saving lives," said Cantu Hinojosa, assistant director of government relations for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Hinojosa noted that the mandate bills including the new law in Virginia have opt-out provisions for parents who don't want their daughters vaccinated.
Still, Hinojosa said five states Indiana, New York, North Dakota, Utah and Washington _ have agreed to fund public education campaigns, which she said is a positive first step.Private Reply to Wicked Witch of the West | | May 22, 2007 8:58 pm | | re: re: re: re: Arizona blocking HPV shot - why not ? | # |
Danielle (Dani) Cutler | | Isn't it interesting how one side argues to not make it mandatory because it would be as if we are assuming girls WOULD have sex, and another side argues not to make it mandatory because it would CAUSE girls to have sex.
Both agreeing on something for different reasons. Well, as long as it keeps the vaccine from becoming mandatory, I have no complaints.
DPrivate Reply to Danielle (Dani) Cutler | | May 22, 2007 9:57 pm | | re: Arizona blocking HPV shot | # | 
Eric Renouf | | I'm somewhat troubled by the general one-sidedness of this whole thread. The only valid point that has been brought up so far is the question of safety and efficacy, and that's being used incorrectly. On that point I'd argue the medical professionals and scientists are likely better to make full evaluations than all of us (unless any of you happen to fit that bill).
The idea that it's a good thing for politicians to override the scientific conclusions of professionals who study the field full time is a scary one to me. Almost any time a recommendation to make something like this mandetory is being made there is a period available for public comment. That seems like the right forum for people to raise the safety concerns. A legislative session is the wrong time.
EricPrivate Reply to Eric Renouf | | May 23, 2007 1:25 pm | | re: re: Arizona blocking HPV shot | # |
Wicked Witch of the West | | I guess some people buy whatever "medical professionals" sell them. I've spent a great deal of time researching vaccines and other medications that the medical community and our government want to pump into our bodies. There are plenty of vaccines that do have a place and time and have gone a long way in helping to actually eradicate a disease. Is this vaccine one of them, according to what I've read so far, nope.
Still looking for some more why nots...
http://www.school-vaccine.com/index.htmPrivate Reply to Wicked Witch of the West | | May 23, 2007 1:54 pm | | re: re: Arizona blocking HPV shot | # |
Wicked Witch of the West | | Eric -
I hope you don't take this wrong way, but I don't think you understand the full gist of what is occurring in relation to the attempts to make this vaccine mandatory. The facts are and they have been clearly stated on this thread and you can google it you will be able to verify that Merck after finding that this vaccine wasn't quite the top-seller that they had hoped it would be, began to line legislative pockets in an attempt to get this legislation pushed through. This legislation isn't about protecting women, it's about money, pure and simple. If they wanted to protect women, then men would be required to be vaccinated as well since they can be carriers of HPV. If they cared about women, then they would wait until more is known about the effects of the vaccine on the human body and whether or not some of the health concerns could indeed be valid. Can you imagine vaccinating an entire generation of children with this and finding out five to ten years from now that it can cause sterility. If that's the chance some parents are willing to take, that is there choice. But don't take away my choice or judge my parenting skills because I choose to let my child make the choice for herself when she is ready.
Pushing through something so young is almost unheard of when it comes to vaccines such as this. The vaccine for chicken pox was around for several years as was the one for Hep B before any states took action to make them required for children to attend daycare and schools. They were both elective quite some time before any states ever considered making them mandatory. Granted, every state allows an out for parents who want to claim "religious" reasons for not having a child vaccinated (that's a whole other issue in itself), but that's not the point. The point is that big pharmaceuticals are pushing this stuff off as necessary, when in reality it's less about necessary and more about money. There are way too many unknowns when it comes to this vaccine and my own doctor has admitted that.
Cervical cancer has been reduced significantly by educating women on the importance of regular paps. I'd much rather see my tax dollars spent paying for paps for women that perhaps can't afford it, then paying for shots that might result in nothing. Private Reply to Wicked Witch of the West | | May 23, 2007 8:40 pm | | re: re: re: Arizona blocking HPV shot | # |
Eric Renouf | | Hi WWotW,
I'm glad to hear that you are so active and spend so much time investigating your health. I have to say that my natural inclination (which I'm battling here :) is to be somewhat dismissive of people who involve in their argument the insightful observation that companies try to make money. Of course they do, that's what they're there for. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether what they're offering is beneficial to us. Guess what, the people who sell you vitamins are trying to make money too, as are the people who publish the books you read. I don't think we should necessarily boycot those things because people may have a vested interest in convincing us to buy their products (although I guess there is some reason to be skeptical about vitamins).
I have to confess that I have, apparently, not spent as much time reading about vaccines in general nor this one in particular as you have. As I said though, what troubles me is the idea that politicians overriding scientists on what is mostly (though not exclusively) a scientific issue. Either there is a net benefit for society or there isn't. There are plenty of related issues where politicians are similarly ignoring scientific concensus to what could be all of our detriment (see climate change for perhaps the most series such example). You likely have some valid concerns about the efficacy and safety of this vaccine, and as I observed most times that something like this is being done there is a period available for public comment. For all of our benefit I hope that you and those like you speak loudly then so that your message is sure to be taken into consideration.
It is also perhaps worthy of noting that in February because of the public backlash that you've been referencing here Merck announced that they were going to stop lobbying state legislatures. Now they may simply be being quieter about it, but if you're going to continue to state that they're doing this perhaps some evidence that they have broken their comments of several months ago would be useful.
I think that your argument about if they really care about women they'd vaccinate boys too is a little odd, since it seems to completely undercut your argument that Merck is trying to do anything they can to make a buck. If it was possible to argue efficacy of prevention by vaccinating men too why on earth is Merck eliminating roughly half of their potential customers? I'd guess it's because it's not efficacious, or at the very least such usage has yet to be studied.
As I said, I haven't really studied the issue, nor do I know if I'd be qualified to really evaluate all the data on my own. There is clearly debate going on even within the medical and scientific community. I don't know how well represented each side of the debate is, nor do I know how well received members are on either side of it. In short, I don't currently know enough to have a strong opinion about this vaccine in particular. I just want our politicians to interfere in scientific findings as rarely as possible. That being said, it is the scientists job to present the details and facts, and it is the policy makers (i.e. politicians) jobs to put that information to proper use. Scientists should simply present this will likely save X number of lives and Y people will suffer because of it. From there we can hopefully make rational decisions.
Eric
P.S. Better get ready, you're about to have twice the fight on your hands as GSK is in the final stages of having their own vaccine approved by the FDA!Private Reply to Eric Renouf | | May 24, 2007 12:39 am | | re: re: re: re: Arizona blocking HPV shot | # |
L J | | I've dug up most of my old findings, which you can read, save and pass around.
HPV vaccination rash effect. Don't know if this is irreversible etc. She and the other children are guinea pigs. Thank the FDA and support shots if you want to see more of these in the future.
This was an article I can no longer find due to the sell-out media's overwhelming vaccine positive articles.
http://dliv.com/sammy1.jpg
http://dliv.com/sammy2.jpg
http://dliv.com/sammy3.jpg
http://vaccineawakening.blogspot.com/2007/02/nvic-releases-gardasil-report-merck.html
----------------------------------------------------------
Child hood vaccines loaded with a form of mercury. Children are given mercury containing dosages of mercury on average as a toxic substance they claim is non-toxic, from childhood children undergo a series close 18-25 mandatory shots. Why are children still so sick? The truth is medicine companies make more with you being sick and not healthy. Who could do this to children? Many times they don't care about the future of the mankind or their own children, while some in the profession don't know it's going on. Kinda like how the Big Tobacco said cigarettes were safe for many years.
Thimerosal
http://whale.to/vaccines/thimerosal.htm
Methylmercury
In general, fish-eating fish such as shark, swordfish, marlin, larger species of tuna, walleye, largemouth bass, and chain pickerel have higher levels of methylmercury than herbivorous fish such as tilapia, trout, and herring. Within a given species of fish, older and larger fish have higher levels of methylmercury than smaller fish. Fish that develop in water bodies that are more acidic also tend to have higher levels of methylmercury. Methylmercury has a half-life in human blood of about 50 days, and is lipid soluble, allowing it to be absorbed very easily into the GI tract.
WIKI URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylmercury
Animal models
Hornig has taken different strains of mice, one strain predisposed to autoimmune disorders, and exposed them to mercury-preserved vaccines or to the form of mercury once present in many childhood vaccines -- at the same schedule, roughly, that children were receiving around the turn of the last century. Two of the three mouse strains appeared to suffer negligible evidence of harm, but the third strain, compromised by vulnerability to autoimmune dysfunction, developed behaviors consistent with autism. She described the occurrence of behaviors reminiscent of autism in the sensitive group, and detailed additional findings such as enlarged brains, common among children with autism. The onset of behavioral and brain abnormalities was associated with the appearance of autoreactive antibody deposits in the brains of the sensitive mice. She has been attacked for the study.
According to Hornig, when several genetic markers are present, singly or in combination, children may be at much greater risk for mercury toxicity.[1] These markers may affect how efficiently the children produce the raw materials they need to detoxify, and how vulnerable their metabolic and immune system responses are to neurodevelopmental disruptions caused by mercury or other common environmental pollutants. Children whose immune systems respond inappropriately to heavy metals or other toxicants or whose metabolic machinery may be less efficient at detoxifying may have a greater vulnerability to develop autism or other neurodevelopmental conditions. These genetic markers run in families, with conditions including arthritis, colitis, chronic fatigue syndrome, lupus, celiac disease, Parkinson's Disease, and Alzheimer's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mady_Hornig
FDA advisers back 5-in-1 childhood vaccine
If approved, concoction could eliminate 7 of the jabs kids receive.
WASHINGTON - A five-in-one vaccine that could reduce the number of jabs children receive is both safe and effective, federal health advisers said Thursday.
The endorsement makes it more likely the Food and Drug Administration will approve the Sanofi Pasteur vaccine, called Pentacel. The FDA is not required the follow the advice of its outside advisers but usually does.
The vaccine is meant to prevent diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio and bacterial infection caused by Haemophilus influenzae type b, or Hib. Hib disease can cause meningitis, pneumonia and arthritis.
The endorsement came even though several FDA advisers questioned the efficacy of the Hib component of the vaccine. The panel recommended follow-up studies on the vaccine if it wins approval.
If approved, the vaccine could eliminate seven of the 23 federally recommended injections children now must endure through age 18 months, according to Sanofi Pasteur, the vaccines business of Paris-based Sanofi-Aventis. The vaccine would be given in four doses, at 2 months, 4 months and 6 months and finally at 15 months to 18 months.
The vaccine was first sold in Canada in 1997 and is now available in eight other countries, the company said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16813053/
BASIC FACTS TO KNOW ABOUT VACCINATIONS
Vaccination Liberation
1. Vaccines are toxic.
*Vaccines contain substances poisonous to humans (i.e. mercury, formaldehyde, aluminum, etc.) Vaccine package inserts contain this and other information required by law to be disclosed to the public. Although these inserts are produced for consumers, doctors do not make them available to their patients.
*Vaccines are grown on and contain foreign tissue and altered genetic material of both human and animal origin.
2. Immunization (the act of injecting vaccines) depresses and disables brain and immune function. Honest, unbiased scientific investigation has shown vaccinations to be a causative factor in many illnesses including:
*Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (aka SIDS, crib or cot death)
*developmental disorders (autism, seizures, mental retardation, hyperactivity, dyslexia, etc.)
*immune deficiency (i.e. AIDS, Epstein Barre Syndrome, etc.)
*degenerative disease (i.e. muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, cancer, leukemia, lupus, fibromyalgia, etc.)
3. The high rate of adverse vaccine reactions is being ignored and denied by conventional medicine.
*Prior to 1990, doctors were not legally required to report adverse reactions to the Center for Disease Control (CDC).
*Adverse reactions are considered "normal", are ignored or diagnosed as other diseases. Even with this poor system, reported damage is substantial.
*Despite their current legal obligation, less than 10% of doctors report the damage they witness to the CDC.
*Throughout history, many prominent medical and non-medical health professionals around the world have voiced their vehement opposition to vaccination calling it scientific fraud.
4. Mass Vaccination Programs systematically and recklessly endanger the public while disregarding our rights.
*Since vaccination breaks the skin, it is technically a surgery. All surgeries by law require informed consent. Informed consent is rarely attained before vaccines are administered.
*Doctors vaccinate the unwitting and uninformed. The vaccine manufacturers' package inserts which contain biased industry claims and the bare minimum required by law to reveal are not routinely made available to consumers so that they can make a more informed choice.
*Double-talk and unethical enforcement such as threats, intimidation and coercion are used to ensure vaccination compliance.
5. There is no proof that vaccinations are safe or effective.
*There are no control group studies. Authorities consider that "to not vaccinate" is unethical and have refused to study unvaccinated volunteers. If control studies were done according ' to honest science, vaccination would be outlawed.
*Studies which have been done are not designed to eliminate the examiners bias. Authorities who compile and report disease statistics work closely with and have a vested interest in companies which produce the vaccines. In other industries, this kind of bias is not tolerated. Injuries and deaths in these studies are attributed to anything but vaccination to skew the results and make it appear that vaccines have some merit.
6. Laws allow drug companies to violate the public trust.
*In private vaccine damage suits, information is revealed condemning vaccines as deadly.
*Vaccine manufacturers use "gag orders" as a leverage tool in vaccine damage legal settlements to restrict the plaintiff from disclosing to the public the truth about the dangerous nature of vaccines. Our government has allowed these unethical tactics to be used which jeopardize public welfare.
7. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1987 is a pacifier.
*This compensation program pretends to acknowledge the existence of vaccine damage by making "right" the wrongs done. Nothing in this Act attempts to avert these adverse events from happening in the future.
*This Act is the result of vaccine producers pressuring the government to "immunize" them from private lawsuits which can run an average of $4 million per case.
*The fund is made up of tax added into the cost to the consumer of each vaccine, thereby making vaccine consumers pay for one another's and perhaps their own injury; the vaccine manufacturers have made themselves quite "immune" from accountability. In recent years it has become even more difficult to be compensated through this program due to the parameters for determining vaccine damage changing and coroners now ruling out vaccine damage and charging the parents with Shaken Baby Syndrome.
8. Private insurance companies, which do the best liability studies, have totally abandoned coverage for damage to life and property due to:
*Acts of God
*Nuclear war and nuclear power plant accidents
*Vaccination
9. Vaccination is not emergency medicine.
*It is claimed that vaccines avert a possible future risk and yet people are pressured to decide on the spot. A doctor's use of fear and intimidation to force compliance is not ethical. Vaccines are drugs with potential serious adverse reactions. Time and forethought should be given before a decision is made.
10. There is no law enforcing vaccination for babies or anyone else.
*Vaccination is linked with school attendance but is not compulsory. Exemptions from vaccinations, although restricted and monitored, are part of every state public health law and can be expanded by public pressure.
*Departments of Health, Education and the American Medical Association personnel profit from the sale of vaccines. They keep the existence of and details about exemptions relatively unknown.
http://www.vaclib.org/basic/basicfct.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
What the military and vaccine companies don't want you to know about the Anthrax Vaccines given to our soldiers. I haven't even begun to look into the bird-flu shot, but I hear that it causes suicides to rise among children and teens.
The smallpox vaccine is made from a live virus related to smallpox called vaccinia, not the smallpox virus. It was made by infecting calves with vaccinia and scraping off pustules that formed on their sides. That method would never be approved by the Food and Drug Administration today. The Immunity to vaccinia also provides immunity to smallpox. The vaccine stimulates the immune system to react against the vaccinia virus, and develop immunity to it. In 1982, the only active licensed producer of vaccinia vaccine in the United States, were the makers of military vaccines, Wyeth Laboratories. In 1983, distribution to the civilian population was discontinued.
http://www.hcvets.com/data/transmission_methods/smallpox_vaccine.htm
Soldier’s Smallpox Inoculation Sickens Son
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: May 18, 2007
A 2-year-old boy spent seven weeks in the hospital and nearly died from a viral infection he got from the smallpox vaccination his father received before shipping out to Iraq, according to a government report and the doctors who treated him.
The boy, who lives in Indiana and has recovered, became ill in early March, two weeks after his father’s deployment was delayed and he was allowed to make a trip home. Over the next few weeks, the boy suffered kidney failure and lost most of his skin to the disease, eczema vaccinatum.
Experts said the father, who had eczema in childhood, should never have been given the vaccine because that fact made him more susceptible to side effects like vaccinia infection. And they said military doctors should have been doubly cautious because the son, too, suffered from eczema and would have been highly susceptible to infection. Military procedures call for asking about such conditions in soldiers and their families.
Vaccinia is the live virus used in smallpox vaccine. After vaccination, the body develops a resistance to vaccinia, a disease that is generally milder than smallpox, and the resistance also works against smallpox. The injection site can spread the vaccinia virus, however, and people without strong immune systems are particularly susceptible.
Smallpox was officially declared eradicated by the World Health Organization in 1979, and inoculation of military personnel was suspended in 1990. But after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the subsequent cases of anthrax sent through the mail, the government began vaccinating military personnel and many health care workers, with 1.2 million vaccinated as of March of this year.
Since then, a handful of vaccinia cases have been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including one, described in the May 4 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, of vulvar infection in an Alaskan woman whose sex partner was a serviceman.
Dr. Inger Damon, the acting head of the disease center branch concerned with pox viruses, said, “I think this number of cases certainly raised our awareness and led to discussions between ourselves and the D.O.D.”
An account of the case was published this week in the morbidity report. According to the report, which did not give the family’s name, the boy was taken to the University of Chicago Comer Children’s Hospital on March 3.
Dr. Madelyn Kahana, the chief of pediatric intensive care medicine at the hospital, said in an interview that the child had been covered with “mounds of pox” that reminded her of photos of bees swarming over beekeepers. “I’m a veteran of 25 years of practice in the I.C.U.’s, and I thought I’d seen it all,” Dr. Kahana said. “But this was stunning to the eye.”
Dr. John F. Marcinak, an associate professor of pediatrics who worked 16 hours a day with the boy, said that in the first weeks of the case, “it was really touch and go.”
The doctors gave the boy narcotics to render him unconscious and free of pain. They also inserted a breathing tube and put him on mechanical ventilation to counter the breathing problems that can come with heavy doses of narcotics.
Doctors worked with the disease control centers to get shipments of Vaccinia Immune Globulin Intravenous. They also used an antiviral drug, Cidofovir. That drug, which has been associated with kidney problems in some cases, may have caused another crisis in which the boy’s kidneys began failing and his abdomen filled with fluid.
“He looked like he was going to die,” Dr. Kahana recalled.
The doctors worked with the Food and Drug Administration to allow the use of an experimental drug for smallpox, ST-246, from Siga Technologies, which appeared to begin turning the case around.
Meanwhile, doctors drained the boy’s distended abdomen and cut away the dead skin, a process called debridement that is commonly used in burn victims. They put skin from cadavers over his exposed flesh to promote healing underneath and dressed the wounds.
The child’s mother also developed lesions on her face and index finger. She has recovered, but because of her infection, she had to be confined to his room and witnessed every procedure performed on her child. The military brought the father back from Iraq after the boy became ill.
The procedures for smallpox vaccination were hammered out through long discussion to prevent those who were particularly susceptible to the side effects from receiving it, said Dr. William Schaffner, who served on the C.D.C. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
The case, Dr. Schaffner said, raises the question of “whether the stringent procedures that were initially put in place have eroded somewhat.”
In an editorial accompanying the report, the authors said that the military was studying the incident, “which will determine whether screening and education practices need to be modified.”
The boy’s skin grew back at a phenomenal rate and shows remarkably few signs of the ravages of the disease, Dr. Kahana said. She attributed the recovery to “a lot of good, diligent care and a lot of luck — and maybe divine intervention.”
As for his emotional recovery from the ordeal, she said, “He doesn’t remember a thing.” She added, however, “His mom remembers all of it.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/18/health/18smallpox.html?ref=health
Woman gets smallpox-vaccine virus via sex
New partner received injection days earlier; CDC identified germ strain
Updated: 4:28 p.m. ET May 3, 2007
NEW YORK - Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention describe the case of a woman who developed a genital infection after having sexual contact with a military serviceman who had been recently vaccinated against smallpox.
The infection was from the vaccinia virus, the type of virus contained in the smallpox vaccine. Vaccinia is closely related but less virulent than the smallpox virus, variola, and usually results in just a localized infection.
The case, described in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, involved an otherwise healthy woman who was seen at a public health clinic in Alaska last year for painful vaginal tears that were not the result of violence or abuse. The woman reported having a new sexual partner in the days preceding the clinic visit.
Story continues below ↓advertisement
A viral swab of a labial lesion was taken and sent to the Alaska State Virology Laboratory, but investigators were unable to identify the virus. The specimen was ultimately sent to the CDC where it was identified as a vaccine-strain vaccinia virus.
At a follow-up interview, the woman revealed that her new sexual partner was a male military service member stationed at a nearby base. Further investigation revealed that this individual had been vaccinated against smallpox three days prior to the start of his relationship with the patient.
“The most frequently reported sites of vaccinia infections caused by unintentional transfer are the face, nose, mouth, lips, genitalia, anus and eye,” according to the report. “To prevent transfers, healthcare providers should educate vaccinees regarding proper hand washing after bandage changes or other contact with the vaccination site.”
Since this case surfaced, four cases of nongenital vaccinia tied to contact with recently vaccinated service members have been reported.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18475013/Private Reply to L J |  | |
| |
