Parents don't trust vaccines/Cancer vaccine a hard sell/Vaccines in foods/Califo

[Guest guest]

" Zeus " <info Add to Address BookAdd to

Address Book

" Zeus Subscribers " <info

Parents don't trust vaccines/Cancer vaccine a hard

sell/Vaccines in foods/California's Autism

Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:48:11 +0100

 

 

 

Parents don't know who to trust on vaccinations

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/style/family/familyville/s_322897.html

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, PA

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

 

By Anne Michaud

TRIBUNE-REVIEW

 

So many parents are worried today about the side-effects of

vaccinations,and many more are likely to be anxious soon.

 

A book released at the start of this month, " Evidence of Harm " by

David Kirby, raises questions about the controversial link between

autism and mercury in childhood vaccines.

 

Besides the mercury-autism link, parents question the benefits of the

hepatitis B vaccine, which is administered three times before the age

of 18 months. The risk of an adverse reaction from the vaccine --

hospitalization or death -- is roughly the same as the lifetime risk

of contracting the disease. Does it seem right, on balance, to put

your child's life at risk when he or she could be hit by a car long

before sharing an infected needle?

 

Some 26 vaccinations are recommended for children before age 2, and

while doctors keep telling us they are safe, more parents (and

doctors) are fighting for the right to decline vaccinations and still

enter children in school, day care centers and summer camps.

 

The debate reflects our fears of polio and smallpox receding into

history, even while our confidence in medical professionals and

science plummets. What parent believes it's an acceptable risk that

his or her 2-year-old could be brain damaged by a DPT (diphtheria,

pertussis and tetanus) shot -- as was the son of the founder of the

National Vaccine Information Center, Barbara Loe Fisher? Has anyone

worried about their kid contracting diphtheria for a good three

generations or more?

 

As our fear of these diseases recedes, as vaccines bring the illnesses

under control, what we fear more are the pharmaceuticals themselves.

 

Alison Fujito of McCandless, a member of the parenthood panel, which

contributes to this column, has a mild form of autism known as

Asperger's syndrome. She lives with the torment that a vaccine could

have contributed to his condition. The past 40 years have witnessed a

rise in mass-vaccination policy in the United States, along with a

skyrocketing of autism cases to where 1 in 500 children are afflicted.

 

Alison points out that mercury that was formerly present in nearly all

childhood vaccines -- and can now still be found in flu and chicken pox

shots -- has been proven to harm the nervous systems of young

children, even babies in the womb.

 

" Look up acrodynia, a condition written about in the early 1900s that

sounds exactly like autism and was shown to be caused by teething

powder containing mercury, " Alison writes. " The disease disappeared

when the teething powder was taken off the market. "

 

Medical authorities make mistakes. The rotavirus vaccine, to prevent

severe diarrhea, was introduced in August 1998 and withdrawn less than

a year later, when it appeared to cause bowel obstructions.

Thimerosal, a preservative in many vaccines, has been removed because

it is suspected of causing mercury poisoning in infants. Although a

link between thimerosal and autism has been disproved in many studies,

other studies say the link is real, and Congress has held hearings on

the issue.

 

While medical researchers may find a risk of 1 in 100 acceptable -- or

1 in 1 million -- how can that 1 millionth parent rationalize the

risk? Don't the elimination of the rotavirus vaccine and thimerosal

demonstrate that immunization policy is imperfect?

 

In this environment, I think parents should have a right to refuse

vaccines. Another parenthood panel member, Sue MacDonald of

Cincinnati, a journalist who writes about health issues, says that

some vaccines seem more worth having than others. For example, she

says, chickenpox means a week of sickness without the vaccine. With

it, a child can be sick for five to six days.

 

" Bottom line, " Sue writes, " is it's more income for the drug company

and not much health benefit for society. "

 

Another panel member, Donna Wright of Gibsonia, says that alternative

health professionals are willing to write letters exempting children

from school requirements for vaccines. Presumably, this works for day

care and summer camp as well.

 

It's a lot to ask of parents that we second-guess the medical

community. But we have learned to be suspicious. Scientific

assessments of acceptable risk don't play well when your child's life

is in your hands. It's a lot easier to sign a waiver before surgery

saying you know you might die, as an adult, than to sign over that

same responsibility for your child.

 

A newswire story about the Kirby book recommended that anyone with

questions visit the Web site www.immunizationinfo.org. So, I did. It

is reassuring, but in such a naïve way that I just had to laugh. The

site, sponsored by the National Network for Immunization Information,

says it is backed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the

Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society and a host of other mainstream

medical organizations. The naivete of the site is that many of us

don't take mainstream medical advice at face value any more.

 

Too bad. The organization's Web site is quite comforting. All that's

required is that we trust the authors.

 

Anne Michaud writes on family and parenting issues every Tuesday. If

you'd like to participate in the Familyville Parenthood Panel or have

a comment or suggestion, send it to Ammich.

_________

 

Sheri Nakken

Sunday, April 03, 2005 8:59 PM

 

Cancer vaccine will be a hard sell

Parents balk at idea of STD drug for kids

 

Sunday, April 03, 2005

BY ED SILVERMAN

Star-Ledger Staff

 

http://www.nj.com/business/ledger/index.ssf?/base/business-0/11125108854780.

 

 

At first blush, a vaccine that prevents a deadly form of cancer would seem

like a no-brainer for parents.

 

But as two major drug makers prepare to introduce such a product,

sides are already being drawn in what promises to be an all-out

culture clash.

 

Within two years, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline hope to market a pair of

groundbreaking vaccines to prevent a sexually transmitted disease.

Known as the human papillomavirus, or HPV, the disease is a leading

cause of

cervical cancer.

 

About 5,000 women in the United States die each year from cervical

cancer, and the drug makers expect to use this as a rallying cry to

make their

vaccines widely available and generate billions of dollars in sales.

 

One drug maker, Merck, says it will try to convince states to require

vaccination before children as young as 12 can enter school.

 

" The best way to prevent infection is to vaccinate the population just

before they become sexually active, which is when they're young, " Eliav

Barr, Merck's senior director of biologics clinical research, said. " This

way, it can be folded into routine medical care. "

 

But the rollout of the vaccines promises be anything but routine.

Vaccinating children for a disease caused by sexual activity will be a

tough sell, especially for parents who fear children will take it as a

green light to have sex.

 

The HPV vaccine is likely to become a flashpoint for the pharmaceutical

industry, public health officials and parents, who are gearing up for a

heated debate about the finer points of cancer prevention, health-care

costs and teenage sex.

 

The vaccines are still in the final stages of testing, but some groups are

already concerned.

 

" The best way to prevent HPV is through abstinence, " said Bridget

Maher, an analyst at the Family Research Council, a conservative group

that expects

to campaign against making the vaccines mandatory for entering school. " I

see potential harm in giving this vaccine to young women. "

 

She isn't alone.

 

A Merck study of 2,053 parents released last year found 11 percent of

parents with 13-year-old girls probably or definitely wouldn't want them

vaccinated before their 18th birthday. Another 27 percent were undecided.

 

A separate study last year in the Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease

found 24 percent of 575 parents opposed a vaccine and believed it would

lead children to engage in sexual activity sooner than they would

otherwise.

 

At the same time, though, these studies suggest most parents do support

vaccinating their children. The results also indicate some parents become

supportive after learning about the health benefits or hearing doctors

recommend vaccination.

 

Some doctors believe parents may become more supportive when they

learn HPV can be transmitted through sexual contact, and not

necessarily intercourse, according to a study in the American Journal

of Epidemiology.

 

" This will be an arduous educational mission, " said Daron Ferris, a

professor of family medicine and obstetrics/gynecology at the Medical

College of Georgia, who also ran trials for the Merck vaccine. " But once

they realize we have a vaccine to prevent cancer, I'd expect parents will

want to protect their loved ones. "

 

Convincing parents may be harder for Merck than Glaxo, a British drug

maker.

 

Unlike Glaxo, Merck will also target genital warts with its vaccine.

Doctors caution this may fuel more controversy if teenagers see a vaccine

as an easy way to combat yet another increasingly common sexually

transmitted disease.

 

This is why some experts see trouble ahead. They point to the heated

battle

concerning an over-the-counter, morning-after pill a federal panel in 2003

recommended for girls as young as 16. Anti-abortion groups opposed the

contraceptive pill, and the Food and Drug Administration has still not

approved it.

 

" Sex is a scary thing in this culture, and the age of the girls to be

vaccinated will really be an issue, " said Janice Irvine, a University of

Massachusetts sociology professor and author of " Talk About Sex, " a

book on

sex education. " You can expect opposition to this vaccine. "

 

These predictions worry the drug makers. As some best-selling drugs face

competition from cheap generic rivals, vaccines will become a source of

much-needed revenue. This is especially true for Merck. The Whitehouse

Station-based drug maker next year loses patent protection on its cash

cow,

the Zocor cholesterol pill.

 

As Wall Street sees it, an HPV vaccine holds tremendous promise.

 

The global market could hit $4.3 billion in revenue by 2010, according

to a

recent report by Richard Evans, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein. His

projection anticipates adolescent girls and boys, as well as women in

their

20s and 30s, will be vaccinated.

 

The heady forecasts stem from data showing cervical cancer is widespread:

About 500,000 women worldwide are diagnosed each year, leading to

230,000 deaths, according to the World Health Organization. In the

United States, about 15,000 women are diagnosed annually.

 

For the companies to realize the billions of dollars in annual revenue,

they are expected to advertise widely and charge a lot. Merck will likely

charge $100 for each of three needed doses, Evans said, while Glaxo may

place an $80 price tag on each dose.

 

At those prices, an HPV vaccine would cost more than other childhood

vaccines, according to an article in Clinical Infectious Diseases, which

was written by officials at the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention.

An average dose of vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella cost $34.73 in

2003, while a dose of chickenpox vaccine was $58.11.

 

The HPV vaccines would be " fairly expensive for this country, " said Lauri

Markowitz, chief of epidemiology research in prevention of sexually

transmitted diseases at the CDC, which believes a vaccine would help

prevent cervical cancer.

 

An official CDC endorsement would not only influence doctors to recommend

vaccination, but health plans would also be spurred to cover the cost.

 

The drug makers are unwilling to discuss prices, but note diagnosing and

treating HPV is expensive. Related health costs were estimated to be at

least $1.6 billion annually, according to a 1999 CDC study. The costs

include doctor visits, Pap tests to detect cervical cancer and follow-up

procedures.

 

" A vaccine would be a more efficient use of health-care dollars, " said

Evan

Myers, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke

University and a consultant to Merck, who has studied the economic impact

of an HPV vaccine.

 

The best way to maximize savings, the companies maintained, is to

vaccinate

children as young as possible. Glaxo plans to push for vaccinating

girls as

young as 10, according to David Pernock, senior vice president for

pharmaceuticals and vaccines.

 

" Anyone who thinks a lot of teenagers aren't sexually active has their

head

in the sand, " said Cody Meissner, a pediatrics professor at Tufts New

England Medical Center and vice chair of the American Academy of

Pediatrics' infectious disease committee.

 

" No one's pleased about that, but it's a fact of life. And if the results

of the final-stage clinical trials for these vaccines are consistent with

what's known so far, they will be a wonderful contribution to public

health. "

 

But convincing doctors may prove much easier than swaying state officials

to require vaccination before youngsters can attend school, as Merck

intends to do. The potential for controversy is so great that one New

Jersey health official said he does not want to get involved.

 

" I don't think we'd require the schools to mandate something like this, "

said Eddy Bresnitz, deputy commissioner of the state Department of Health

and Senior Services. " I'm sure the battle will be huge, and I'm not sure

it's a battle we should be fighting. "

Ed Silverman can be reached at (973) 392-1542 or

esilverman.

_________

From the Scotsman newspaper.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=343702005

 

 

New vaccines in food 'will save public from diseases'

 

IAN JOHNSTON

SCIENCE CORRESPONDENT

 

VACCINES against a whole range of diseases could be put into soft drinks

and ordinary foodstuffs such as confectionery, fruit and yoghurt,

according

to a Scots scientist.

 

Dr John March, of the Moredun Research Institute near Edinburgh, is

investigating a new method that allows vaccines to be administered orally

rather than by injection.

 

This raises the prospect of immunising the general population with

specially modified food - something which could be particularly useful in

Third World countries with few health service facilities.

 

Currently, putting vaccines in food is not particularly effective because

they are often destroyed in the stomach.

 

Dr March's method, which uses DNA vaccine in a harmless bacterial virus

" container " , has been shown to be more effective in early tests. He is

hoping to trial a cancer vaccine within two years, as revealed in The

Scotsman yesterday.

 

" Once all the development and testing work has been completed, what we

hope to achieve are vaccines in a pill, capable of cheap, local

manufacture anywhere in the world, administered without the need for cold

chains [networks of cold storage facilities], needles and dedicated

medical

staff , " he said.

 

" In effect, they would be stored and bought off the shelf from the local

store. Who knows? If they can be added to food and drink we may be

able to vaccinate a child against malaria by giving them a drink of

Coca-Cola. "

 

Dr March said the developing world would benefit particularly because mass

immunisation of the population would be far easier and cheaper.

 

He has been in touch with scientists in the US who have been developing a

genetically altered banana containing a vaccine against papilloma virus,

the main cause of the most common form of cervical cancer.

 

" The idea is, when you eat the banana you get vaccinated against it

[papilloma virus]. But it doesnâ?Tt work very well - it gets deactivated

when it goes through the stomach, " he said.

 

Dr March even suggested a particularly radical move - putting vaccines

into

cigarettes.

 

" This is all theoretical at this point, but you could use all the vices

people have to deliver vaccines - in a beer, in a can of Coke or even in a

cigarette, " he said.

 

Jack Winkler, director of the independent Food and Health Research

organisation, who has examined " functional foods " which are produced

ready-fortified with vitamins, minerals and increasingly medicines,

said there

was an on-going debate between " the principled " and " the pragmatists " .

 

The latter argue that some people will always eat what is bad for them so

vitamins, other beneficial products or medicines should be put into

unhealthy food to help them.

 

The " principled " argue that anything which encourages or reassures people

about eating unhealthy food is a bad idea.

 

Mr Winkler, who said he was an " unashamed pragmatist " , said: " This is a

public health issue. It's no good fortifying aubergines because not many

people eat them. When you start thinking about functional food, you

have to

do it with something people eat.

 

" The answer the Japanese came up with was to put them in soft drinks and

then confectionery. This drives Western nutritionists mad - to them

this is

dressing up unhealthy food, trying to make it healthy. "

 

He said people's fear of medicating food was a 20th-century attitude. The

technique was simply an extension of adding vitamins to breakfast cereals.

 

Pro-Activ and Benecol drinks use a plant derivative that was a licensed

drug in the US in the 1950s, to reduce cholesterol.

 

" Far from finding it creepy, children today would find it preferable to an

injection. They haven't been raised in the tradition where getting a

vaccination meant going to see a doctor in a white coat who says, 'This

won't hurt very much, but ... "

 

 

E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER Vienna, Virginia

http://www.nvic.org

 

" Protecting the health and informed consent rights of children since

1982. "

 

============================================================================

California's autism epidemic now accounts for 57% of all the new intakes,

and is the fastest growing disability in California's system.

 

At the beginning of 1988, some 17 short years ago, there were 2,778

cases of autism in California's developmental services system. Today

there are

27,312.

 

Today, California is adding on average eight new children a day, seven

days

a week, with professionally diagnosed DSM IV full syndrome autism to it's

system. 80%, or 8 out of 10, of all persons with autism in California's

system are between the ages of 3 and 17 years old. The staggering

tidal wave of young children is unique to the autism population and is

not evident in any other eligible disability except autism.

 

http://www.dds.cahwnet.gov/FactsStats/pdf/March05_Quarterly.pdf

 

forwarded by

Zeus Information Service

Alternative Views on Health

www.zeusinfoservice.com

 

All information, data and material contained, presented or provided

herein is for general information purposes only and is not to be

construed as reflecting the knowledge or opinion of Zeus Information

Service.

Subscribe Free/Un: info

Feel free to forward far and wide....