Merck’s well-honed marketing professionals have done it again – they have captured the attention of parents and girl’s around the country with their marketing campaign labeling HPV a disease.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Merck's 2011 Gardasil Advertising CampaignPRLog (Press Release) – Jul 16, 2011 – Ads have appeared throughout the summer in the national newspapers like Sunday’s Parade Magazine, National Geographic – and this ad found on The Huffington Post blog.
“So when my doctor said Gardasil helps protect me from cervical cancer and other HPV diseases, I figured how could I not?”
The SANE Vax team’s question to Merck is: ‘How could you?’
Selling advertising to young, innocent, ‘happy-go-lucky’ adolescent girls who never heard the term ‘HPV disease’ before is a blatant fear tactic that is nothing short of unethical and morally reprehensible, not to mention illegal.
In 2006, Merck’s team of marketing gurus created the well-known ‘One-Less Girl’ to get Cervical Cancer Campaign. The campaign was heralded as a brilliant success as little girls jumped up and down in their living rooms singing ‘I am going to be one less girl to get cervical cancer;’ instead many of them became one more girl adversely affected by the Gardasil vaccine.
Merck won numerous television ad honors at the 2008 10th Annual Pharmaceutical Advertising and Marketing Excellence Awards (PhAME) gala event at the prestigious Guggenheim Museum in uptown New York City for the ‘One Less Girl’ campaign. Merck’s marketing techniques even earned Gardasil a "pharmaceutical brand of the year" award from Pharmaceutical Executive for its ‘savvy disease
education,’ and building ‘a market out of thin air.” 1.
Not bad for a vaccine against a virus not yet directly linked to causing cervical cancer, 2 but now associated with 22,194 adverse injuries and 97 deaths by researchers, scientists, medical doctors, and parents around the world.
While the majority of the nearly 200 known types of HPV cause no symptoms in most people, some types can cause warts (verrucae), while others can – in a minority of cases – lead to cancers of the cervix, vulva, vagina, and anus in women, or cancers of the anus and penis in men.
In fact, most HPV infections in young females are temporary with little long-term significance. Seventy percent of infections are gone in 1 year and ninety percent in 2 years. However, when the infection persists — in 5% to 10% of infected women — there is high risk of developing precancerous lesions of the cervix, which can progress to invasive cervical cancer. This process usually takes 15–20 years, providing many opportunities for detection and treatment of the pre-cancerous lesion. Progression to invasive cancer can be almost always prevented when standard prevention strategies are applied, but the lesions still cause considerable burden necessitating preventive surgeries, which do in many cases involve loss of fertility.3.
Gardasil is a Disease
If Merck’s marketing department can spin the truth in the name of profit – then the SANE Vax team will take the same leeway –in the name of justice – and declare Gardasil a disease.
Compare HPV Disease to Gardasil Disease
HPV Disease: potential for cancer of the cervix, vulva, vagina, anus and penis from an infection that may take over 15 – 20 years to develop.
Gardasil Disease: Abortion,/Stillbirth/Miscarriage, Addison's Disease, Adrenal failure, Adrenal issues, Allergies, Anxiety/Panic attacks, Appetite loss, Arthritis, Asthma attacks, Autistic - like symptoms, Autoimmune Disease (Lupus / Mixed Connective Tissue Disease), Back pain, Bacterial Vaginosis, Bladder issues, Bleeding gums, Blindness, Bloated, Blood Sugar Issues, Bloody stools, Brain fog, Brain Inflammation, Brain lesions, Bronchitis, Cervical cancer, Chemical sensitivity, Chest pains, Convulsions, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Constipation, Cytomegalovirus (CMV), Death, Degenerative disk disease, Dehydration, Depression, Diabetes, Diarrhea, Dizziness, Dyslexia, Dysplasia, Early Onset of Menopause, Enlarged fallopian tubes, Enlarged liver, Epstein Barr Virus (EBV), Extreme pain in the tailbone area , Fainting, Fatigue, Fertility problems, Fever, Fever blisters, Fibromyalgia, Food allergies, Gallbladder issues, Genital Warts, Gray film on teeth, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, Hair growth in strange places, Hair loss, Hallucinations, Hand / Leg Weakness, Hasimoto's Disease, Head pressure, Headache, Hearing loss (Permanent), Hearing loss (Temporary), Hearing sensitivity, Heart Palpitations, Heart arrhythmia, High levels of metals in blood: aluminium, mercury Hot / Cold Intolerance, HPV, Infertility, Insomnia, Itching, IUD discomfort, Joint pain, Kidney Failure, Kidney issues, Knee pain, Leaky Gut Syndrome, Light sensitivity, Lip spots, Liver Failure, Loss of bladder control, Lupus, Memory Loss (long-term), Memory Loss (short-term), Menstrual cycle changes, Metallic taste in mouth, Migraines, Miscarriage, Mood Swings, Moles (Increase in number of), Mononucleosis, Multiple Sclerosis (MS), MS-like symptoms, Muscle aches, Muscle spasms, Muscle tension, Nausea, Neurological reactions to fungal metabolites, Neurological symptoms , Night sweats, Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, Numbness, Other types of cancer, Ovarian failure, Paleness, Paralysis, Pancreatitis, PCOS (Poly-Cystic Ovarian Syndrome), Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID), Pelvic pain, Personality changes, Pins / Needles in Extremities, Pleural effusion, Pneumonia, Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (Orthostatic Intolerance), Random twitching of extremities Rash, Raynaud's Phenomenon (loss of blood circulation to hands and/or feet), Regression, Rheumatoid arthritis, Ruptured ovarian cysts, Seizures, Sensitivity to commercially processed citric acid, MSG, sulfur and other additives, Severe nerve pain syndrome, Shortness of breath, Sleep Apnea, Slurred speech, Smell sensitivity, Sore throat, Sound sensitivity w/ Anxiety, Stomach ache, Stomach pain, Sudden drops in blood pressure, Swelling / Edema, Swollen lymph nodes, Thyroid Issues, Thrombosis Toothaches/Teeth Changes, Tremors: hand and/or leg, Uterine spasms, Urinary Tract Infection (UTI), Vision changes - long term, Vision loss (Permanent), Vision loss (Temporary), Vision Problems - abnormal pupillary function / dilation, Vomiting blood, Weight gain or loss (20 – 30 lbs) 4.
The above adverse injuries have been reported after taking a vaccine that has only been on the market for five years. Gardasil disease apparently afflicts adolescent girls and boys right after the injection, within days, weeks, or perhaps even years. Gardasil disease does not go away and there is no known cure. Girls have literally dropped –dead – passing away before hitting the bathroom floor or drowning in the bathtub. Many adversely injured have ended up in rehabilitation – have become frequent flyers to their local emergency rooms, have seen more doctors than their age and have had to drop out of school and out of their normal lives.
Which would you rather get Gardasil Disease or HPV Disease? Ask the 22,000 girls injured by Gardasil and they will tell you they would rather take their chances with HPV Disease.
Source:
1. Neon Tommy, the online publication for the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism http://www.neontommy.com/2010/01/gardasils-broadreaching ...
2. Cervical Cancer Prevention, Health Professional Version, National Cancer Institute (NCI) -http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/prevention/cervic ...
3. Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus
4. Global Concerns about HPV Vaccines - http://sanevax.org/news-blog/2011/07/global-concerns-about-hpv-vaccines/
# # #
SaneVax believes only Safe, Affordable, Necessary & Effective vaccines and vaccination practices should be offered to the public. Our primary goal is to provide scientific information/resources for those concerned about vaccine safety, efficacy and need.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Partnering for HPV Vaccine Introduction, Part I: Questions Unanswered
Despite unanswered questions about HPV vaccine efficacy and duration of protection, nine 'partner' organizations chose to proceed making plans for worldwide distribution of Gardasil and Cervarix prior to FDA approval. What is wrong with this picture?
PRLog (Press Release) – Jul 05, 2011 – On 5 October 2005, eight months prior to FDA approval of the HPV vaccine Gardasil, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO, a regional office of the World Health Organization) sponsored a meeting in Washington D.C. The theme of this meeting was, Partnering for HPV Vaccine Introduction. According to the final report issued after this meeting,1 its purpose was to, “accelerate and strengthen the dialogue between invited partner agencies regarding their interests and plans related to the introduction of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines.”
Of course, both potential vaccine suppliers, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, were ‘invited.’ In addition to the potential suppliers, representatives from the following ‘partnering agencies’ were in attendance:
• The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)
• The World Health Organization (WHO)
• The International Union Against Cancer (UICC)
• The American Cancer Society (ACS)
• The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
• The United States National Cancer Institute (NCI)
• The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
• Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH)
• The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
After a brief introduction, representatives of PAHO outlined the activities their organization had already conducted in preparation for the introduction of the yet to be approved HPV vaccines. Then, Merck and GSK each made a brief presentation regarding their respective-proposed HPV vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix.
The presentations made by Merck and GlaxoSmithKline raised the following questions from their ‘partnering agencies’:
• Question 1: How would vaccine efficacy be assessed in young children in the absence of CIN lesions?
• Question 2: How will the issue of consent for HPV vaccine trials in adolescents be handled?
• Question 3: What is the duration of protection conferred by these vaccines?
• Question 4: What level of antibody is actually protection?
According to the final report on this meeting, published by PAHO, the answers given to these questions were sketchy at best. That may be understandable, considering HPV vaccines had not yet been approved by the FDA. However, it is not acceptable for these questions to remain unanswered five years post-FDA approval.
SaneVax Inc. has the following concerns regarding the above-stated questions:
Question 1: Although both vaccine suppliers indicated they were ‘conducting immune-bridging studies,’ the question posed has still not been answered. There is no adequate reliable method of testing HPV vaccine efficacy to this day. Using CIN lesions is not reliable, considering they frequently reverse on their own, without medical intervention. Efficacy against vaccine-relevant HPV genotypes could theoretically be tested via DNA sequencing, but that option is not readily available to medical consumers.
Question 2: Both vaccine suppliers indicated they required consent from the parent, or legal guardian, as well as permission from the subject when trials were conducted with participants below the legal age of consent. This clearly was not the case in India, April 2009, when clinical trials were halted because of alleged ethics violations including boarding school administrators being allowed to give consent for all of the girls attending their school, and other consent forms being returned with a thumbprint (clearly indicating the person granting consent could not read the consent form).2
Question 3: The answer provided by both vaccine suppliers then (information on duration of protection is unavailable at this time), is similar to the one they give today. Both vaccines have been approved for nearly five years. One of the suppliers is already talking about the potential need for a booster shot to maintain protection. Duration of protection is still unknown.
Question 4: The answer given at the time by the vaccine suppliers was, “There are currently no established serologic correlates of protection.” What that means is no matter how many antibodies are produced and circulating in a vaccinated person’s bloodstream, no one knows if you are protected. Serologic correlates have still not been established.
Three of the four questions posed at the meeting are basic questions that should have been answered prior to FDA approval of either HPV vaccine. There must be a reliable way to determine efficacy and antibody level required for protection with any vaccine. These should be determined prior to marketing. Every vaccine carries some risk for some people. If efficacy cannot be determined with accuracy you have nothing left but risk.
Duration of protection should also be well established prior to marketing for the same reason efficacy needs to be determined. No one can logically determine if a vaccine is cost effective when they do not know the duration of protection.
One has to wonder why nine prestigious organizations, responsible for the health and well-being of millions of people, would agree to stand behind and promote any vaccine that could not clearly and scientifically demonstrate the answers to very basic questions regarding the product’s efficacy.
There are only a couple of options available to medical consumers to determine HPV vaccines’ efficacy. One, wait 20 or more years to see if HPV vaccines actually make an impact on cervical cancer rates; or two, demand post licensure monitoring that includes HPV DNA sequencing to find out if the vaccines are actually making an impact on vaccine-relevant genotypes of HPV.
The SaneVax Team votes for – No adequate post-licensure monitoring – No marketing!
Sources:
1. Partnering For HPV Vaccine Introduction, Final Report: Visit http://www.paho.org/English/AD/FCH/IM/HPVMtg-FinalReport ... for details.
2. "Human Smears" by Madhavi Tata, visit http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?277351 for details
# # #
SaneVax believes only Safe, Affordable, Necessary & Effective vaccines and vaccination practices should be offered to the public. Our primary goal is to provide scientific information/resources for those concerned about vaccine safety, efficacy and need.
PRLog (Press Release) – Jul 05, 2011 – On 5 October 2005, eight months prior to FDA approval of the HPV vaccine Gardasil, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO, a regional office of the World Health Organization) sponsored a meeting in Washington D.C. The theme of this meeting was, Partnering for HPV Vaccine Introduction. According to the final report issued after this meeting,1 its purpose was to, “accelerate and strengthen the dialogue between invited partner agencies regarding their interests and plans related to the introduction of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines.”
Of course, both potential vaccine suppliers, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, were ‘invited.’ In addition to the potential suppliers, representatives from the following ‘partnering agencies’ were in attendance:
• The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)
• The World Health Organization (WHO)
• The International Union Against Cancer (UICC)
• The American Cancer Society (ACS)
• The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
• The United States National Cancer Institute (NCI)
• The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
• Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH)
• The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
After a brief introduction, representatives of PAHO outlined the activities their organization had already conducted in preparation for the introduction of the yet to be approved HPV vaccines. Then, Merck and GSK each made a brief presentation regarding their respective-proposed HPV vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix.
The presentations made by Merck and GlaxoSmithKline raised the following questions from their ‘partnering agencies’:
• Question 1: How would vaccine efficacy be assessed in young children in the absence of CIN lesions?
• Question 2: How will the issue of consent for HPV vaccine trials in adolescents be handled?
• Question 3: What is the duration of protection conferred by these vaccines?
• Question 4: What level of antibody is actually protection?
According to the final report on this meeting, published by PAHO, the answers given to these questions were sketchy at best. That may be understandable, considering HPV vaccines had not yet been approved by the FDA. However, it is not acceptable for these questions to remain unanswered five years post-FDA approval.
SaneVax Inc. has the following concerns regarding the above-stated questions:
Question 1: Although both vaccine suppliers indicated they were ‘conducting immune-bridging studies,’ the question posed has still not been answered. There is no adequate reliable method of testing HPV vaccine efficacy to this day. Using CIN lesions is not reliable, considering they frequently reverse on their own, without medical intervention. Efficacy against vaccine-relevant HPV genotypes could theoretically be tested via DNA sequencing, but that option is not readily available to medical consumers.
Question 2: Both vaccine suppliers indicated they required consent from the parent, or legal guardian, as well as permission from the subject when trials were conducted with participants below the legal age of consent. This clearly was not the case in India, April 2009, when clinical trials were halted because of alleged ethics violations including boarding school administrators being allowed to give consent for all of the girls attending their school, and other consent forms being returned with a thumbprint (clearly indicating the person granting consent could not read the consent form).2
Question 3: The answer provided by both vaccine suppliers then (information on duration of protection is unavailable at this time), is similar to the one they give today. Both vaccines have been approved for nearly five years. One of the suppliers is already talking about the potential need for a booster shot to maintain protection. Duration of protection is still unknown.
Question 4: The answer given at the time by the vaccine suppliers was, “There are currently no established serologic correlates of protection.” What that means is no matter how many antibodies are produced and circulating in a vaccinated person’s bloodstream, no one knows if you are protected. Serologic correlates have still not been established.
Three of the four questions posed at the meeting are basic questions that should have been answered prior to FDA approval of either HPV vaccine. There must be a reliable way to determine efficacy and antibody level required for protection with any vaccine. These should be determined prior to marketing. Every vaccine carries some risk for some people. If efficacy cannot be determined with accuracy you have nothing left but risk.
Duration of protection should also be well established prior to marketing for the same reason efficacy needs to be determined. No one can logically determine if a vaccine is cost effective when they do not know the duration of protection.
One has to wonder why nine prestigious organizations, responsible for the health and well-being of millions of people, would agree to stand behind and promote any vaccine that could not clearly and scientifically demonstrate the answers to very basic questions regarding the product’s efficacy.
There are only a couple of options available to medical consumers to determine HPV vaccines’ efficacy. One, wait 20 or more years to see if HPV vaccines actually make an impact on cervical cancer rates; or two, demand post licensure monitoring that includes HPV DNA sequencing to find out if the vaccines are actually making an impact on vaccine-relevant genotypes of HPV.
The SaneVax Team votes for – No adequate post-licensure monitoring – No marketing!
Sources:
1. Partnering For HPV Vaccine Introduction, Final Report: Visit http://www.paho.org/English/AD/FCH/IM/HPVMtg-FinalReport ... for details.
2. "Human Smears" by Madhavi Tata, visit http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?277351 for details
# # #
SaneVax believes only Safe, Affordable, Necessary & Effective vaccines and vaccination practices should be offered to the public. Our primary goal is to provide scientific information/resources for those concerned about vaccine safety, efficacy and need.
Spinning the Spin Part II: Marketing Scientific Research & Studies
Fewer girls develop cervical abnormalities after HPV vaccine.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRLog (Press Release) – Jun 28, 2011 – My father, once a pharmaceutical packaging salesman and now an Alzheimer’s nursing home patient whose mental clarity declined rapidly post- flu vaccination – once told me ‘never believe in everything that is advertised.’ Truer advice was never given. Perhaps that is when I started questioning the marketing on products about women’s health, always reading between the lines and doing my own research.
Over the last 30 years – marketing and advertising has taken hold of the world. Consumers are continually bombarded with sales pitches for everything from the latest and greatest technological toys to medications and vaccines. Marketing campaigns for women’s health products are orchestrated with as much flare and fanfare as a formal event. 1. Gardasil was no exception.
In 2006, the HPV vaccine Gardasil was introduced to a public generally unaware of Human Papillomavirus or its supposed threat to adolescent girls and women. However, the public was quickly informed of the ‘dangers’ of the virus when Merck Pharmaceutical Company launched an aggressive One Less Girl to get Cervical Cancer advertising campaign – with an awarding-winning jingle that had adolescent girls dancing in their living rooms – determined to become one less victim of cervical cancer.
According to Neon Tommy, the campaign was successful. Merck’s marketing techniques earned Gardasil a “pharmaceutical brand of the year” award from Pharmaceutical Executive for its ‘savvy disease education,’ and creating ‘a market out of thin air.” 2.
OK – so as medical consumers we get the promotion of products….but when did scientific research sell out to marketing companies and the media?
How Women are Viewed by the Pharma/Medical Complex
In order to understand why this latest HPV vaccine uncontrolled medical experiment has been conducted on adolescent girls and now boy’s ages 9 to 26, it is important to recognize the social/political context of how women are perceived by the medical industry.
In their recently updated book, For Her Own Good: Two Centuries of the Experts Advice to Women by Barbara Ehrenreich and Deidre English expose the reasons for medical experiments on women.
“Since the nineteenth century, “experts” have been telling women how to take care of themselves. Generations of highly respected mainstream physicians have proclaimed most aspects of women’s lives an indication of weakness, from menstruation (illness requiring seclusion) to pregnancy (a disabling disease), to reading or intense conversation (a hazard to women’s health). Even domesticity, the prescription for a safe environment for women, became a domain for legions of “scientific” experts…. Yet experts continue to use pseudo-science to tell women how to live."
Ehrenreich and English write in the book’s introduction:
No matter how many degrees the experts dangle in front of you, no matter how many studies they cite, dig deeper, value your own real-life experiences, and think for yourself.3.
So when Reuters and CNBC.com and other world press picked up the story out of Australia (Ian Frazer country) this past week: Fewer girls develop cervical abnormalities after HPV vaccine 4. The SANE Vax team immediately started investigating.
According to Julia Brotherton, an epidemiologist with the Victorian Cytology Service Registries and lead author of the paper; "This data ... shows a reduction in the number of very young woman with high grade cervical lesions diagnosed since the vaccine program started."
However, mid-way through the article, Associate Professor Karen Canfell, an epidemiologist with the Cancer Council of New South Wales commented that "The study looked at overall trends, and we cannot be absolutely certain that the drop in cervical abnormalities in the youngest age group was due to HPV vaccination."
Norma Erickson, president of SANE Vax, Inc. immediately found the flaw in the data used in the study and commented, “Both groups showed less than 1% cervical abnormalities – which is statistically accurate across the board.
How can anyone state a reduction from 0.8% to 0.42% is a significant reduction? Technically, I will admit it is almost a 50% reduction but in 1,000 girls – that would be a reduction from 8 with abnormal cells to 4 with abnormal cells….which pap smears would catch a whole lot cheaper than paying $300,000 to vaccinate the same thousand girls – not to mention they still need pap screening regardless of vaccination status.”
Diane Harper as well as many other researchers in the field – have stated that it will be at least 20 years before it is known whether or not the HPV vaccines will have impacted the worldwide cervical cancer rates.
Professor Ian Frazer, Director of the Diamantina Institute for Cancer, Immunology and Metabolic Medicine in Australia and creator of the HPV vaccine – stated in an Australian newspaper article titled God’s Gift to Women, “HPV vaccines should eventually eliminate a number of epithelial cancers and reduce the annual burden of cancer deaths globally by 5%–10%.” 5.
It is truly unfortunate, that instead of utilizing an already proven, safe and effective means of reducing cervical cancer risk; the medical marketing ‘experts’ at Merck, the FDA, CDC, and NCI decided to ‘re-educate’ medical consumers and push a vaccine that has not been scientifically proven safe, affordable, necessary, or effective. Perhaps, it is not medical consumers that need to be ‘re-educated’ - Perhaps it is time for the medical ‘experts’ to learn - if medications/vaccinations are not Safe, Affordable, Necessary and Effective, medical consumers do not want them.
Sources:
1. Susan Rako MD - http://www.susanrako.com/article5.htm
2. Neon Tommy: http://www.neontommy.com/2010/01/gardasils-broadreaching ...
3. For Her Own Good: Two Centuries of the Experts Advice to Women: http://www.isbnlib.com/preview/1400078008/For-Her-Own-Go ...
4. Fewer girls develop cervical abnormalities after HPV vaccine: http://www.cnbc.com/id/43433951
5. God’s Gift to Women: The Human Papillomavirus http://holyhormones.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2010/07/HPV-Fraser-Imm-20061.pdf
# # #
SaneVax believes only Safe, Affordable, Necessary & Effective vaccines and vaccination practices should be offered to the public. Our primary goal is to provide scientific information/resources for those concerned about vaccine safety, efficacy and need.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRLog (Press Release) – Jun 28, 2011 – My father, once a pharmaceutical packaging salesman and now an Alzheimer’s nursing home patient whose mental clarity declined rapidly post- flu vaccination – once told me ‘never believe in everything that is advertised.’ Truer advice was never given. Perhaps that is when I started questioning the marketing on products about women’s health, always reading between the lines and doing my own research.
Over the last 30 years – marketing and advertising has taken hold of the world. Consumers are continually bombarded with sales pitches for everything from the latest and greatest technological toys to medications and vaccines. Marketing campaigns for women’s health products are orchestrated with as much flare and fanfare as a formal event. 1. Gardasil was no exception.
In 2006, the HPV vaccine Gardasil was introduced to a public generally unaware of Human Papillomavirus or its supposed threat to adolescent girls and women. However, the public was quickly informed of the ‘dangers’ of the virus when Merck Pharmaceutical Company launched an aggressive One Less Girl to get Cervical Cancer advertising campaign – with an awarding-winning jingle that had adolescent girls dancing in their living rooms – determined to become one less victim of cervical cancer.
According to Neon Tommy, the campaign was successful. Merck’s marketing techniques earned Gardasil a “pharmaceutical brand of the year” award from Pharmaceutical Executive for its ‘savvy disease education,’ and creating ‘a market out of thin air.” 2.
OK – so as medical consumers we get the promotion of products….but when did scientific research sell out to marketing companies and the media?
How Women are Viewed by the Pharma/Medical Complex
In order to understand why this latest HPV vaccine uncontrolled medical experiment has been conducted on adolescent girls and now boy’s ages 9 to 26, it is important to recognize the social/political context of how women are perceived by the medical industry.
In their recently updated book, For Her Own Good: Two Centuries of the Experts Advice to Women by Barbara Ehrenreich and Deidre English expose the reasons for medical experiments on women.
“Since the nineteenth century, “experts” have been telling women how to take care of themselves. Generations of highly respected mainstream physicians have proclaimed most aspects of women’s lives an indication of weakness, from menstruation (illness requiring seclusion) to pregnancy (a disabling disease), to reading or intense conversation (a hazard to women’s health). Even domesticity, the prescription for a safe environment for women, became a domain for legions of “scientific” experts…. Yet experts continue to use pseudo-science to tell women how to live."
Ehrenreich and English write in the book’s introduction:
No matter how many degrees the experts dangle in front of you, no matter how many studies they cite, dig deeper, value your own real-life experiences, and think for yourself.3.
So when Reuters and CNBC.com and other world press picked up the story out of Australia (Ian Frazer country) this past week: Fewer girls develop cervical abnormalities after HPV vaccine 4. The SANE Vax team immediately started investigating.
According to Julia Brotherton, an epidemiologist with the Victorian Cytology Service Registries and lead author of the paper; "This data ... shows a reduction in the number of very young woman with high grade cervical lesions diagnosed since the vaccine program started."
However, mid-way through the article, Associate Professor Karen Canfell, an epidemiologist with the Cancer Council of New South Wales commented that "The study looked at overall trends, and we cannot be absolutely certain that the drop in cervical abnormalities in the youngest age group was due to HPV vaccination."
Norma Erickson, president of SANE Vax, Inc. immediately found the flaw in the data used in the study and commented, “Both groups showed less than 1% cervical abnormalities – which is statistically accurate across the board.
How can anyone state a reduction from 0.8% to 0.42% is a significant reduction? Technically, I will admit it is almost a 50% reduction but in 1,000 girls – that would be a reduction from 8 with abnormal cells to 4 with abnormal cells….which pap smears would catch a whole lot cheaper than paying $300,000 to vaccinate the same thousand girls – not to mention they still need pap screening regardless of vaccination status.”
Diane Harper as well as many other researchers in the field – have stated that it will be at least 20 years before it is known whether or not the HPV vaccines will have impacted the worldwide cervical cancer rates.
Professor Ian Frazer, Director of the Diamantina Institute for Cancer, Immunology and Metabolic Medicine in Australia and creator of the HPV vaccine – stated in an Australian newspaper article titled God’s Gift to Women, “HPV vaccines should eventually eliminate a number of epithelial cancers and reduce the annual burden of cancer deaths globally by 5%–10%.” 5.
It is truly unfortunate, that instead of utilizing an already proven, safe and effective means of reducing cervical cancer risk; the medical marketing ‘experts’ at Merck, the FDA, CDC, and NCI decided to ‘re-educate’ medical consumers and push a vaccine that has not been scientifically proven safe, affordable, necessary, or effective. Perhaps, it is not medical consumers that need to be ‘re-educated’ - Perhaps it is time for the medical ‘experts’ to learn - if medications/vaccinations are not Safe, Affordable, Necessary and Effective, medical consumers do not want them.
Sources:
1. Susan Rako MD - http://www.susanrako.com/article5.htm
2. Neon Tommy: http://www.neontommy.com/2010/01/gardasils-broadreaching ...
3. For Her Own Good: Two Centuries of the Experts Advice to Women: http://www.isbnlib.com/preview/1400078008/For-Her-Own-Go ...
4. Fewer girls develop cervical abnormalities after HPV vaccine: http://www.cnbc.com/id/43433951
5. God’s Gift to Women: The Human Papillomavirus http://holyhormones.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2010/07/HPV-Fraser-Imm-20061.pdf
# # #
SaneVax believes only Safe, Affordable, Necessary & Effective vaccines and vaccination practices should be offered to the public. Our primary goal is to provide scientific information/resources for those concerned about vaccine safety, efficacy and need.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)