Cervical Cancer Vaccine ‘Not a Guarantee’
December 30, 2009
Good Health
By Ritu Bhatia
Women’s groups and doctors slammed advertisements issued by two pharmaceutical majors that claimed vaccination against (HPV) was the best way of preventing cervical cancer.
The objection from Sama Resource Centre for Women and Health and Saheli Women’s Resource Centre to Glaxo-SmithKline (GSK) India and Merck marketing HPV vaccines as a “protection against cervical cancer” comes a few days after the Central Drugs Standards Control Organisation (CDSCO) also took notice of the advertisements.
In a showcause notice issued to GSK India, the CDSCO cited objections raised by experts who said that the advertisements claiming that a vaccine can prevent cervical cancer were inaccurate and misleading. According to doctors, the drug majors appear to have oversimplified the complexity of cervical cancer and this could mislead consumers.
Researchers also point out that protection from HPV need not always translate into protection from cancer. “The vaccination doesn’t always protect women from cervical cancer because this virus isn’t the only cause of cervical cancer,” said Dr Sidharth Sahni, a surgical oncology consultant at Artemis Health Institute.
The available HPV vaccines protect against only two types of viruses associated with cervical cancer. “There are several types of HPVs associated with cervical cancer, and vaccines have not been proved to be effective against all of them,” said Bhudev Chandra Das, former director of the Institute of Cytology and Preventive Oncology and now a professor of biomedical research at Delhi University.
Ideally, the HPV vaccine should be administered to adolescent girls. Over the past year, paediatricians across the country have been urging parents of teenagers to administer them this vaccine.
But what many fail to mention is that this should only be given to those who have had no sexual exposure. “We first need to identify the target group for this vaccination,” Sahni added.
Vani Subramaniam of Saheli said the pharmaceutical companies were hiding information about the side effects of the vaccines. According to Anjali Shenoy of Sama, the health lobby should concentrate more on increasing awareness on screening the cancer rather than its vaccines.
Annual Pap Smears Thing of the Past?
November 20, 2009
ABC News
By Lauren Cox and Dr. Joshua Hundert
Pap smears may no longer be called “annuals” if doctors follow new cervical cancer screening recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
The group announced today that women should start getting cervical cancer screenings at age 21 instead of 18, and that women could wait longer between the screenings — regardless of when a woman starts having sex.
Women in their 20s with normal Pap smear results now should get screenings every two years instead of every year, and women in their 30s can wait three years between screenings, according to the new ACOG guidelines.
After a week of uproar over the controversial recommendations for less mammogram screenings for women, doctors say they will have to wait and see how the public reacts to the new pap smear guidelines.
“This is not a radical change in screening practices. This is something that’s been coming gradually since the 1980s,” said Dr. Alan G. Waxman, who helped write the new guidelines.
Some doctors hailed the decision as a way to reduce a host of problems caused by excessive screening; yet, a few others worried it might trigger more women to neglect annual checkups with gynecologists.
Waxman said the move toward fewer screenings will reduce unnecessary treatment in young women and protect them from future pregnancy complications.
On one hand, college-aged women have very high HPV infection rates. Dr. John Curtin, of The Cancer Institute at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City said 70 percent of all college-aged sexually active people have contracted HPV. These high infection rates translate into a high number of abnormal pap smears.
Aspirin – More Dangerous Than Swine Flu
November 20, 2009
Natural News
By Mike Adams
The CDC now reports that nearly 4,000 Americans have been killed by H1N1 swine flu. This number is supposed to sound big and scary, motivating millions of people to go out and pay good money to be injected with untested, unproven H1N1 vaccines. But let’s put the number in perspective: Did you know that more than four times as many people are killed each year by common NSAID painkillers like aspirin?
The July 1998 issue of The American Journal of Medicine explains it as follows:
“Conservative calculations estimate that approximately 107,000 patients are hospitalized annually for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-related gastrointestinal (GI) complications and at least 16,500 NSAID-related deaths occur each year among arthritis patients alone.” (Singh Gurkirpal, MD, “Recent Considerations in Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug Gastropathy”, The American Journal of Medicine, July 27, 1998, p. 31S)
So for every person the CDC claims was killed by H1N1 swine flu this year, common painkillers like aspirin have killed four! Yet you don’t see the CDC, FDA, WHO or mainstream media running around screaming about the extreme dangers of aspirin, do you? All those deaths apparently don’t matter. Only swine flu deaths lead to hysteria.
Understanding risk
According to death statistics tables available on the ‘net, you are ten times more likely to die in a car accident this year than be killed by swine flu.
Nearly 100,000 Americans die every year from adverse reactions to FDA-approved prescription drugs. That’s twenty-five times the number of people killed by H1N1 swine flu (even if you believe the CDC’s numbers). So where’s the big warning about the dangers of prescription drugs? Why isn’t the CDC warning Americans about an “epidemic of dangerous drugs” that poses a far greater threat to your health?
The answer, of course, is that health authorities want to push people to buy vaccines that are about to become worthless (they’re only good before swine flu fizzles out). And the only way to sell more vaccines to people who don’t need them is to hype up a bunch of scare stories by citing bold statistics that make H1N1 swine flu seem really, really dangerous.
But the flu is no more dangerous than aspirin. In fact, H1N1 swine flu may be safer than aspirin.
Here’s another quote from the New England Journal of Medicine:
“It has been estimated conservatively that 16,500 NSAID-related deaths occur among patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis every year in the United States. This figure is similar to the number of deaths from the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and considerably greater than the number of deaths from multiple myeloma, asthma, cervical cancer, or Hodgkin’s disease. If deaths from gastrointestinal toxic effects from NSAIDs were tabulated separately in the National Vital Statistics reports, these effects would constitute the 15th most common cause of death in the United States. Yet these toxic effects remain mainly a “silent epidemic,” with many physicians and most patients unaware of the magnitude of the problem. Furthermore the mortality statistics do not include deaths ascribed to the use of over-the-counter NSAIDS.” (Wolfe M. MD, Lichtenstein D. MD, and Singh Gurkirpal, MD, “Gastrointestinal Toxicity of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs”, The New England Journal of Medicine, June 17, 1999, Vol. 340, No. 24, pp. 1888-1889.)
Did you catch that? The 16,500 figure for deaths each year doesn’t even include over-the-counter painkiller drugs! If you add in those numbers, you’re probably looking at something closer to 40,000 Americans kills each year by these drugs. And that makes these drugs 1000% more deadly than swine flu (because 40,000 is ten times greater than 4,000).
Click here for the full report
Anxiety Vaccine? What Next?!
October 23, 2009
Natural News
By Mike Adams
There’s a new vaccine for nicotine addiction, and another one for drug addiction. There’s an AIDS vaccines (which doesn’t work) and a vaccine for cervical cancer that’s been approved for use on boys (boys don’t have a cervix). Through the pharmaceutical industry, the big push for vaccines is on!
But why, exactly? Is there suddenly a new rash of epidemic disease requiring vaccine treatments? No, not really. What’s new is the way Big Pharma is latching on to these diseases as new opportunities to sell more drugs.
There’s a huge shift underway from drugs designed for sick people to a whole new class of drugs manufactured for healthy people. The new paradigm is that people need drugs before they get sick, as a sort of “protection” against sickness. Drugs, in essence, are being positioned as nutrients — things the human body needs in order to be healthy. And from the moment you’re born, you’re considered deficient in these drugs. That’s why babies are injected with vaccines within minutes after being born. There’s a strong belief in the medical industry that babies are born deficient in vaccines and that such deficiencies must be “corrected” as soon as possible.
This simple but powerful shift in the marketing strategy of Big Pharma has expanded the potential customer based from a subset of the population (people who are sick) to the entire world population. Now, everybody needs a vaccine for something say the drug companies. All that’s necessary for the financial success of these scheme is to convince sick people that they need more drugs (or vaccines), and that’s easily accomplished through disease mongering campaigns (like the current fear push over H1N1 swine flu).
Bypassing the need for scientific evidence
There’s another important shift taking place alongside the big vaccine push: A shift away from “evidence-based medicine” to a new medical paradigm of “dogmatic belief.”
Medicines that treat sick people, you see, have to be proven to work. There have to be clinical trials, and some percentage of those sick people (only 5% or so, typically) have to show some sort of improved response after taking the medicine. This is the so-called “gold standard” of modern medicine. But with vaccines, no proof of efficacy is required. No placebo-controlled studies need to be conducted at all. Vaccines can be openly marketed and prescribed without any evidence that they actually work.
This is the new “free pass” for Big Pharma — a class of medicine that requires no proof! They merely need to be injected into a few hundred people who are observed for as little as two weeks to see if anybody died or collapses into a coma. That’s all the testing that’s required (and sometimes even less). No long-term safety tests are required or pursued, and, importantly, there is no requirement that the vaccine proves it actually works to reduce flu infections (or HPV infections, etc.).
In essence, by pushing for a vaccine approach to virtually everything, including nicotine addictions, the pharmaceutical industry has transformed itself from a small industry that only served sick people with scientifically-proven medicines to a huge global industry that sells vaccines to everyone and needs no proof that they even work. By any assessment, it’s a brilliant strategy for increasing pharmaceutical profits.
Hiding the truth
October 19, 2006
Reuters
By Matthew Jones
The teenage girl who died shortly after being immunized against cervical cancer was killed by a malignant chest tumor and not by a reaction to the vaccine manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, an inquest heard on Thursday.
Natalie Morton, 14, fell ill on Monday after being vaccinated at her school under a national immunization program against the sexually transmitted human papilloma virus (HPV).
She died a few hours later after being admitted to hospital.
“The pathologist has confirmed today at the opening of the inquest into the death of Natalie Morton that she died from a large malignant tumor of unknown origin in the heart and lungs,” said Dr Caron Grainger, joint director of public health for the Coventry area where Natalie died.
“There is no indication that the HPV vaccine, which she had received shortly before her death, was a contributing factor to the death, which could have arisen at any point,” Grainger said in a statement.
In paying tribute to Natalie, her stepfather Andrew Bullock said she was “kind, fun-loving and had a beautiful smile.”
“We will miss her very much,” he told reporters.
The Department of Health said the immunization program was continuing and that to date more than 1.4 million doses of Cervarix have been administered.
Manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline had recalled the batch of vaccine used at the school pending an investigation.
“GSK’s deepest sympathies lie with the parents at this very sad time,” said a spokeswoman on Thursday, adding that she did not want to comment further.
The program to vaccinate girls aged 12 to 13 began in September 2008 to fight cervical cancer, which is the 12th most common women’s cancer in Britain, killing more than 1,000 each year.
News of Morton’s death came shortly before U.S. health regulators again delayed a decision on whether to allow Glaxo to sell Cervarix in the United States where a panel of specialists has recommended its use.
An advisory panel to Japan’s Health Ministry backed the vaccine earlier this week.
Click here for the full report.
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Not Caused by Virus
October 15, 2009
Natural News
By Mike Adams
Beware, readers, when you see articles in the mainstream media claiming that a retrovirus causes Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). The stories quote new research published in the journal Science which claims that this virus — known as XMRV — was found in 67% of CFS sufferers but only 4% of the general population. From there, the media leaps to the wild conclusion that CFS is caused by this virus.
What you need to know is that this disinformation is laying the groundwork for a future CFS vaccine that will be pushed on the population in much the same way as HPV vaccines are now. The first step in getting the public to accept yet another vaccine is to brainwash people into thinking that yet another disease is caused by a virus. From there, it’s only a matter of time before drug companies start talking about offering “treatment” in the form of a vaccine.
This is a play-by-play mirror image of the fraudulent push behind HPV vaccines. First, drug companies funded studies to “prove” that cervical cancer was caused by a virus (it actually isn’t). From there, they pushed their vaccine, claiming it “saves lives” by preventing cervical cancer. Of course, we now know the cervical cancer vaccine is a pharmaceutical hoax. Even one of its own top researchers recently declared that HPV vaccines are “ineffective.”
So why is the XMRV virus found in more CFS sufferers than the general population? It’s simple: People with CFS have compromised immune systems, and in this state of weakened immunity, they are unable to rid their bodies of not just XMRV, but many other viruses as well. The presence of this virus is a symptom of the disease, not the cause.
Every viral announcement is a covert push for a future vaccine
For their own protection, it’s important that health consumers learn to recognize these hidden vaccine agendas when they see them. Every announcement about a virus causing some particular disease is actually a covert push for a future vaccine. That’s why drug companies are busily funding all kinds of research that hopes to find (or fabricate) a viral cause for almost every major disease.
You’ll see, on a regular basis, increasingly frequent news stories claiming researchers have “discovered” the virus that causes cancer, or diabetes, or Alzheimer’s disease or even strokes. And then, months or years later you’ll see the FDA approving some new vaccine designed to “prevent” that disease or disorder. Before long, that vaccine will be added to an ever-growing list of other vaccines already being forced onto the population, and the whole thing will be framed in the language of “public health.”
CDC Report Stirs Controversy For Merck’s Gardasil Vaccine
August 19, 2009
ABC News
By Radha Chitale
A government report released Tuesday raises new questions about the safety of the cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil. The vaccine has been linked to 32 unconfirmed deaths and shows higher incidences of fainting and blood clots than other vaccines.
But while some physicians expressed concern over the findings, other doctors viewed the report as reassuring, showing that the vaccine was not associated with any more unusual and serious side effects as other vaccines.
The results of the report appeared along with an accompanying editorial discussing whether the potential benefit of the HPV vaccine is worth its potential risks in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The editorial, in particular, could give pause to many parents faced with the decision of whether or not to have their 11- and 12-year-old daughters vaccinated against the certain strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV.
On Wednesday morning, ABC News Chief Medical Editor Dr. Timothy Johnson said that he, too, would encourage parents to learn more about the shot before getting their daughters vaccinated.
“I am very much in favor of childhood vaccines,” Johnson told Chris Cuomo on Wednesday’s “Good Morning America,” adding that there is little doubt that the vaccine does have its benefits.
“We know it does what it says it prevents HPV infections,” he said.
But he added that when it comes to comparing the benefits of the HPV vaccine against its potential risks, he believes there simply is not enough evidence to recommend to all parents that they have their daughters vaccinated.
“I don’t think we yet know the long term benefits or risks,” Johnson said. “I’m taking a pass on this one and saying to parents, ‘Study the issue, read the editorial… talk to your doctor.’”
Those who search for more information on the vaccine may also find stories from other parents who say the vaccine had ill effects on their daughters. One of these parents, Emily Tarsell, started her daughter Christina on Gardasil — a vaccine that protects against four of the most common cancer-causing strains of the human papilloma virus (HPV) — after her first visit to a gynecologist and at the doctor’s recommendation.
Eighteen days after Christina received her final vaccine shot, she died.
“I know it was the Gardasil,” Tarsell said, although the official cause of death was undetermined. “They were really recommending it, saying that there weren’t any side effects, that it was safe. So I kind of went against my better instinct [and let her] get the shot.”
Deaths like Christina’s are one of several types of complications reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following Gardasil distribution in 2006. Some of these adverse events were serious, including blood clots and neurological disorders, and some were non-life threatening side effects from the vaccine, including fainting, nausea and fever.
Although experts agree that the accuracy of data from VAERS reports — which can be made by anyone and are not verified or controlled for quality — is questionable, they remain divided as to whether extreme adverse events, which are serious but rare, are cause enough to stop recommending and administering the Gardasil vaccine without further investigation.
Report Shows Rare But Serious Side Effects May Result From Gardasil Vaccine
“Although the number of serious adverse events is small and rare, they are real and cannot be overlooked or dismissed without disclosing the possibility to all other possible vaccine recipients,” said Dr. Diane Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at University of Missouri. “The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer.”
As of June 1, 2009, the CDC reported that over 25 million doses of Gardasil, which is recommended for women between ages 9-26, have been distributed in the U.S. and there was an average of 53.9 VAERS reports per 100,000 vaccine doses. Of these, 40 percent occurred on the day of vaccination, and 6.2 percent were serious, including 32 reports of death.
In a statement yesterday from Merck, the pharmaceutical company that manufactures Gardasil, the company backed the vaccine’s efficacy and said they encourage further research on its safety.
“We are pleased that the study published by JAMA [yesterday] further reinforces the safety profile of Gardasil,” said Dr. Richard M. Haupt, head of the clinical program for Gardasil at Merck. “We welcome continued study and discussion about the safety of this important vaccine.”
But some clinicians are not ready to accept wide use of the drug based on the available safety data.
Dr. Jaques Moritz, director of gynecology at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital, said he would not offer the Gardasil vaccine to patients when good cervical cancer screening techniques and treatments exist. He has also chosen not to have his 11-year-old daughter get the HPV shot because of his concerns.
“I’m pro preventing cervical cancer and HPV,” Moritz said. “I’m not pro that the physicians don’t know the risks and side effects.”
Click here to continue reading the full report from ABC News
Drink Blamed for Oral Cancer Rise
August 10, 2009
BBC News
Alcohol is largely to blame for an “alarming” rise in the rate of oral cancers among men and women in their forties, say experts.
Numbers of cancers of the lip, mouth, tongue and throat in this age group have risen by 26% in the past decade.
Alcohol consumption has doubled since the 1950s and is the most likely culprit alongside smoking, says Cancer Research UK.
Each year in the UK around 1,800 people die from the disease.
There are 5,000 newly diagnosed cases per year.
Other risk factors that may be involved include a diet low in fruit and vegetables, and the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV), which also causes cervical cancer.
Figures produced by Cancer Research UK show that since the mid-1990s, rates of oral cancers have gone up by 28% for men in their forties and 24% for women.
The charity’s health information manager Hazel Nunn said: “These latest figures are really alarming.
“Around three-quarters of oral cancers are thought to be caused by smoking and drinking alcohol.
“Tobacco is, by far, the main risk factor for oral cancer, so it’s important that we keep encouraging people to give up and think about new ways to stop people taking it up in the first place.
“The trend we are now seeing is likely to be linked to Britain’s continually rising drinking levels ” Hazel Nunn Cancer Research UK
“But for people in their 40s, it seems that other factors are also contributing to this jump in oral cancer rates.
“Alcohol consumption has doubled since the 1950s and the trend we are now seeing is likely to be linked to Britain’s continually rising drinking levels.”
Oral cancer can be treated successfully if diagnosed early enough.
The most common signs of the disease are ulcers, sores, or red or white patches in the mouth that last longer than three weeks, together with unexplained pain in the mouth or ear.
Alcohol Concern chief executive Don Shenker said: “Many people are not aware of the connection between alcohol and cancer, yet as this research shows, it can be a major contributor or cause of the disease.
“While alcoholic liver disease remains the number one killer linked to alcohol, more and more people are suffering from oral cancers – and record drinking levels have undeniably played a part.”
He said it was time to introduce tobacco-style health warnings on alcohol.
“It’s a consumer issue – people have a right to know the full range of health risks associated with drinking alcohol above recommended guidelines.
“This research will hopefully help people realise the full extent of the damage that alcohol can do, then they’re better placed to make informed decisions about how much they drink.”
Professor Ian Gilmore, president of the Royal College of Physicians and chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance, said: “These latest figures demonstrate once again that people are being struck down at ever younger ages with alcohol-related illnesses that they might never have previously associated with heavy drinking.
“There is an urgent need to rethink how we communicate the risks of misuse. The first step is to challenge the widespread notion that the only chronic health damage is suffered by a minority of older drinkers.”
Professor Alan Maryon-Davis, president of the UK Faculty of Public Health, said: “The really lethal cocktail is drinking strong spirits and smoking – a carcinogenic double whammy for the delicate lining of the mouth and throat. My advice is if you drink, don’t smoke – and if you must smoke, avoid spirits.”
Click here to continue reading the full story from the BBC News
