Why MD's Can't Be Trusted on Gardasil HPV Vaccine

[Guest guest]

Comments?

Misty L. Trepke

http://health.

 

 

Wednesday December 19, 2007

---

-----------

Why Medical Authorities Cannot be Trusted on Gardasil HPV Vaccine

 

By Gwen Landolt

http://story.100.com/?rid=11774906 & cat=656c762851046e9d

 

 

TORONTO, December 19, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Medical health

authorities have repeatedly assured us that Gardasil, the vaccine

injection given to young girls to allegedly prevent cervical cancer,

is perfectly safe. For example, the National Advisory Committee on

Immunization, a group of medical specialists, endorsed the vaccine

last February. The Society of Gynecologic Oncologists of Canada

claims the vaccine is safe, as does Dr. David Butler-Jones, Canada's

Chief Public Health Officer. The Canadian Pediatric Society and

the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada have also

endorsed the vaccine.

 

These medical authorities, however, are puzzled and also indignant

that the use of this vaccine still remains controversial, ever since

it was rolled out in lightening speed after Ottawa announced a $300

million funding package for participant provinces. After all, they

reason, they have approved the drug, so what is the problem? Surely

their expert opinion should be sufficient to allay the public's

fears about the drug?

 

The reason the public has good reason to distrust the judgement of

these medical authorities is because of their experience with them.

It is a fact that the public has heard many similar assurances about

other drugs, and used them to their lasting regret. For example:

 

- In the 1960's, thalidomide was pronounced a safe drug for pregnant

women experiencing morning sickness. It was not safe, as thousands

of adults with flipper arms and legs can attest.

 

- In the 1960's, the birth control pill was developed and women were

assured that its use had no harmful side effects. Studies now

report that the pill can be the cause of a greatly increased risk of

stroke, heart attack and blood clots if taken for eight years or

more. (British Journal of Medicine, 16 or 17 September, 2007).

 

- Between 1938 and 1971, as many as 4 million U.S. women and many

Canadian women took the drug, diethylstilbestrol (DES) to prevent

miscarriage. Daughters of these women who were exposed to DES in

utero have experienced a range of structural reproductive tract

abnormalities in the uterus, cervix and vagina. The incidents of

abnormality occurs in 18% of cases, but it may be as high as 33% in

women exposed to DES in utero. The male offspring of women who took

DES during pregnancy also have an increased incidence of genital

abnormalities and a possibility of increased risk of prostrate and

testicular cancer.

 

- Merck Frosst, the manufacturer of Gardasil, also developed a much-

acclaimed painkiller called Vioxx, that was subsequently used by

thousands of individuals suffering from arthritis. Unfortunately,

the drug had the side effect of causing heart attacks and strokes.

As a result, the medication was taken off the market in 2004 and

Merck Frosst is now facing thousands of class action suits amounting

to billions of dollars in claims.

 

- By 2001, 15 million women in the U.S. alone, as well a millions of

women in Canada and abroad, were taking hormone-replacement therapy

(H.R.T.). It became one of the most popular prescription drug

treatments for menopause, supposedly to allow women to lead a long

and healthier life. However, in July 2002, estrogen therapy was

exposed as a hazard to health, rather than a benefit. It was found

to constitute a potential health risk for post-menopausal women by

increasing risks of heart disease, stroke, blood clots and breast

cancer. The question lingers unanswered, as to how many women may

have died prematurely because their physician prescribed this

medication? A reasonable estimate would be tens of thousands of

women. (New York Times, September 16, 2007)

 

- Europe's largest drug manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline developed and

sold the diabetic drug Avandia, it's second best selling product

last year, which was subsequently linked to a higher risk of heart

attacks according to a study released in May 2007. This caused

sales of the drug to drop 38%.

 

These are just a few examples of the here-today gone-tomorrow nature

of medical wisdom. What we are advised about with confidence one

year is reversed the next. One of the contributing factors to this

reversal is that the kind of experimental trials necessary to

determine the truth about the medication is excessively expensive

and time-consuming and very often does not happen. Hence, the

problem with these new drugs so enthusiastically recommended by the

medical profession.

 

It is alarming that Gardasil's approval was based on the testing of

only a few thousand patients and almost not at all (only 1200) on

young girls, 9-13 years old, who are targeted for injection of the

drug. (See REALity Sept/Oct. 2007, p. 5)

 

As its marketing plan, Merck Frosst used lobbyists with access to

important public officials. In Canada, Ken Boessenkool, now with

the public relations firm of Hill and Knowlton in Calgary, lobbied

the federal government on Merck Frosst's behalf. Mr. Boessenkool

was a former advisor to Prime Minister Stephen Harper when he was

opposition leader. Jason Grier, former executive assistant to

Ontario Health Minister George Smitherman, also lobbied on behalf of

Merck and Ontario has now decided to administer the drug to young

girls.

 

Even though only approximately 2-5% of women have Pap smears with

cell changes due to HPV, the medication was pushed as a preventative

cure for cervical cancer. However, no mention was made of the fact

that the drug does not protect against other sexually transmitted

diseases, such as chlamydia, herpes, hepatitis, trichomoniasis,

gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, AIDS, etc. It's all promotion; facts do

not count.

 

The long-term consequences of Gardasil are not known. The

manufacturer admits this and agrees it does not know its effect on

young girls' cancer risk, on their immunity system, on their

reproductive system, or its genetic effects. In due course, we will

know this, possibly in twenty or thirty years from now when these

young girls, the innocent subjects of the Gardasil experiment have

become grown women and then report the consequences of their having

taken the medication in their childhood on medical advice.

 

This artcicle was originally published in the Nov./Dec. edition of

REAL Women of Canada's Reality magazine. Republished with permission.