Is Gardasil Safe for women and young girls?
Posted on Nov 15th, 2007
by 
Zentertainment Talk Radio
Zentertainment Talk Radio
There is alot of publicity swirling around the vaccine GARDASIL which is being used to prevent cervical cancer.
What do you think about it?
I have seen ads for it in so many magazine from O MAGAZINE to MORE and others.
The research I have done shows that is actually only protects a woman/young girl from a few strains of HPV which can cause cancer. Most of the strains of HPV clear up on their own, and/or are unaffected by this vaccine.
This is a copy of the letter I wrote to MORE MAGAZINE the other day after reading a very pro vaccine article in their new issue, Nov 2007.
Attn: Letter to the Editor at MORE Magazine regarding Nov 2007 issue from Jo Davidson
I don't expect magazines to give us the facts about drug companies, since most magazines these days are in part funded by them through advertising. However, I would hope that you might reconsider your viewpoint or at least share another perspective. I read your article on "Five reasons to get the HPV shot" and could not believe what I was reading.
According to Judicial Watch, in June of 2007, a 17 year old female was found unconscious after receiving her first dose of Gardasil. She subsequently died. In August of 2007, a healthy 13 year old was vaccinated with her first and second doses of Gardasil. She experienced paralysis from the chest down and as of now, has not recovered.
Washington DC-based Judicial watch has reported over 3000 adverse events involving Gardasil, including as many as 11 deaths, seizures, paralysis more. In a news release, Judicial Watch reported that "Of the 42 women who received the vaccine while pregnant, 18 experienced side effects ranging from spontaneous abortion to fetal abnormalities."
Even the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine has questioned its safety. In the February 28th issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Eileen F. Dunne and her colleagues found that 90% of HPV infections clear up on their own. The study also found that of the HPV infections detected, only 3.4% were of the strains that Gardasil provides protection from.
This vaccine has not been tested for long term safety. Are women and now young girls suppose to offer themselves up as guinea pigs for drug companies? Merck is the company who covered up the fact that Vioxx increased the risk of cardiovascular disease. Thousands of deaths were allegedly caused by the painkiller Vioxx. They knew the dangers and hid the facts. Could it be that Merck is now trying to make money to cover their Vioxx losses by promoting this dangerous new vaccine?
Another interesting note is that all of the public studies of the drug were funded by the manufacturer. This alone is enough to make any of us pause.
As if that is not enough, Merck continued to supply the infant hepatitis B vaccine, which was contaminated with thimerosal, a mercury preservative, for two years after announcing that it had eliminated the toxin from the vaccine. Thimerosal is composed of 50% ethyl mercury, which is a neurotoxin. A memo written back in 1991 disclosed the fact that 6 month old children receiving their shots on schedule would be receiving a mercury dose nearly 87 times higher than guidelines for the maximum daity consumption of mercury from fish.
The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program received over 4,200 vaccine-related complaints by parents reporting their children experienced side effects such as autism or other neuro-developmental disorders from the mercury in vaccines.
We hear the buzz phrase "The War on Terror." The real war on terror is corporate greed. I worry that your magazine would promote and endorse a vaccine that is still unproven in the big picture, especially in light of the many reported side effects girls have had after taking this vaccine. If I had a child, I would not let Gardasil anywhere near her. Girls have died from this vaccine. Is this a risk you would take with your daughter?
Women were told that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) was safe, and look how well that turned out.
Getting the gardasil vaccine should be a choice that is made by informed people who have explored both sides of the issue.
If Merck is able to convince us that we all need the Gardasil vaccine to treat an illness that only 3700 people in the entire country will die from, they will make 3 billion dollars a year. The vaccines are not covered by most insurance companies.
It costs $360 or more for all three shots.
Jo Davidson Zentertainment Talk Radio www.Zentertainment.org
-----
More Magazine wrote:
Dear Jo,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with us at MORE. We truly value all of our readers’ thoughts and opinions and will be sure to take your comments into consideration. We are, of course, sorry that you are disappointed with our health article on the HPV vaccine.
Best,
The Editors
MORE magazine
What do you think about it?
I have seen ads for it in so many magazine from O MAGAZINE to MORE and others.
The research I have done shows that is actually only protects a woman/young girl from a few strains of HPV which can cause cancer. Most of the strains of HPV clear up on their own, and/or are unaffected by this vaccine.
This is a copy of the letter I wrote to MORE MAGAZINE the other day after reading a very pro vaccine article in their new issue, Nov 2007.
Attn: Letter to the Editor at MORE Magazine regarding Nov 2007 issue from Jo Davidson
I don't expect magazines to give us the facts about drug companies, since most magazines these days are in part funded by them through advertising. However, I would hope that you might reconsider your viewpoint or at least share another perspective. I read your article on "Five reasons to get the HPV shot" and could not believe what I was reading.
According to Judicial Watch, in June of 2007, a 17 year old female was found unconscious after receiving her first dose of Gardasil. She subsequently died. In August of 2007, a healthy 13 year old was vaccinated with her first and second doses of Gardasil. She experienced paralysis from the chest down and as of now, has not recovered.
Washington DC-based Judicial watch has reported over 3000 adverse events involving Gardasil, including as many as 11 deaths, seizures, paralysis more. In a news release, Judicial Watch reported that "Of the 42 women who received the vaccine while pregnant, 18 experienced side effects ranging from spontaneous abortion to fetal abnormalities."
Even the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine has questioned its safety. In the February 28th issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Eileen F. Dunne and her colleagues found that 90% of HPV infections clear up on their own. The study also found that of the HPV infections detected, only 3.4% were of the strains that Gardasil provides protection from.
This vaccine has not been tested for long term safety. Are women and now young girls suppose to offer themselves up as guinea pigs for drug companies? Merck is the company who covered up the fact that Vioxx increased the risk of cardiovascular disease. Thousands of deaths were allegedly caused by the painkiller Vioxx. They knew the dangers and hid the facts. Could it be that Merck is now trying to make money to cover their Vioxx losses by promoting this dangerous new vaccine?
Another interesting note is that all of the public studies of the drug were funded by the manufacturer. This alone is enough to make any of us pause.
As if that is not enough, Merck continued to supply the infant hepatitis B vaccine, which was contaminated with thimerosal, a mercury preservative, for two years after announcing that it had eliminated the toxin from the vaccine. Thimerosal is composed of 50% ethyl mercury, which is a neurotoxin. A memo written back in 1991 disclosed the fact that 6 month old children receiving their shots on schedule would be receiving a mercury dose nearly 87 times higher than guidelines for the maximum daity consumption of mercury from fish.
The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program received over 4,200 vaccine-related complaints by parents reporting their children experienced side effects such as autism or other neuro-developmental disorders from the mercury in vaccines.
We hear the buzz phrase "The War on Terror." The real war on terror is corporate greed. I worry that your magazine would promote and endorse a vaccine that is still unproven in the big picture, especially in light of the many reported side effects girls have had after taking this vaccine. If I had a child, I would not let Gardasil anywhere near her. Girls have died from this vaccine. Is this a risk you would take with your daughter?
Women were told that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) was safe, and look how well that turned out.
Getting the gardasil vaccine should be a choice that is made by informed people who have explored both sides of the issue.
If Merck is able to convince us that we all need the Gardasil vaccine to treat an illness that only 3700 people in the entire country will die from, they will make 3 billion dollars a year. The vaccines are not covered by most insurance companies.
It costs $360 or more for all three shots.
Jo Davidson Zentertainment Talk Radio www.Zentertainment.org
-----
More Magazine wrote:
Dear Jo,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with us at MORE. We truly value all of our readers’ thoughts and opinions and will be sure to take your comments into consideration. We are, of course, sorry that you are disappointed with our health article on the HPV vaccine.
Best,
The Editors
MORE magazine
Access: Public
QaR
August 2008 
Wow Jo, what a great letter, very informative. I hope they print it. I’ve wondered about this vaccine myself because not too long ago I heard that people were debating whether or not to make this mandatory for girls around age 11. Can you imagine? Needless to say, this bothered me because of the fact that I’m aware of the mercury/autism issue and Gardasil has not had any long term studies. But I wasn’t aware of how adversely this has affected young women.
Thanks for the letter, Jo.
Jo,
My opinion is undoubtedly infuenced by the half dozen or so younger women (20 to 40-yo) that I am currently treating for advanced cervical cancer (and the many I have cared for and will see in the future). Most in this group will die of their disease. It's really a very brutal disease when it cannot be controlled. Learn a bit about the disease:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/cervical/patient/allpages
Estimated new cases and deaths from cervical (uterine cervix) cancer in the United States in 2007:
New cases: 11,150
Deaths: 3,670
This is the information from the NCI, generally not biased to make money for a big Pharma company, but certainly focussed on treating and preventing cancer. Their info on the vaccine is below. I am encouraging my 23-yo daughter to get the vaccine (not available when she was a 15 yo).
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/hpv-vaccines
tom
Hey, Jo:
How are you? In response…
As a pharmacist (we administer vaccines too unfortunately) I had to learn to live with these concerns, being that I had to give voice to what the experts and the literature indicate as medically sound when giving advice. Since I made a switch into holistic journalism, I can say a lot more more about healthy, holistic, wholistic approaches to enhance overall health and vitality, so that statistics don't scare the general public through the media into immediately adopting a new first line of therapy strongly encouraged by the researchers - whoever they are.
I believe there is an alarming concern for the incidence of cervical cancer and the strong correlation between both the virus and cancer. It's old news that viruses cause cancer. Because they don't have DNA of their own to clone more viruses, they invade (host) cervical cells to hijack their DNA to make more viruses. The host's cellular DNA gets disturbed and often mutated - affecting the way its offspring grow and develop.
I strongly believe that herbs even for the common cold, which have been connected with anti-viral activity work well. Because they are not specific to viral strains, they are more affective across the board in the way herbs enhance the individual cells' general and specific ability to manifest a therapeutic response to the presence of a virus and then alert surrounding cells by sharing chemicals that offer immediate protection, if the virus should invade elsewhere.
Yes, I am talking about echinacea and goldenseal to begin with and including a host of other supplements which help the immune system be more effective both generally and specifically - down to the white blood cells called macrophages.
All vaccines come with a host of potential adverse local and generalized hypersensitivity and/or auto immune reactions, and it does not help that we have a crisis oriented health care system that takes an approach perceived as the quickest route with least resistance, certainly not the holistic perspective! I intend to address this issue through the Healing Facilitators United Conference that I am planning to co-create with a group of other alternative healers.
In fact, I am interviewing someone next week out of California who beat Hepatitis C, a liver cancer causing virus, using herbals after traditional med's failed. He sent me three books to read “Triumph Over Hepatitis C,” one of which is filled with countless testimonials from those who are living witnesses to the efficacy of herbs and nutritional support….so these conditions can be resolved with general health and well-being support, when incoporated as a life style - that part is important (life style)- instead of the classic hit or miss approach traditional health care uses.
May be this might be an interesting resource for you too, Jo, a blog by another Doc I just found today that I approached for an interview…
The Truth About Vaccine Ingredients ( 4 videos) Posted on Jul 27th, 2007 by Dr. Matthew
Since I've had hundreds of messages from concerned parents about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, I wanted to post 4 videos that will provoke serious thought about this controversial issue. It has been my experience that most individuals are clueless as to the other ingredients that go into the manufacturing process. I strongly recommend you do your homework on vaccinations, as this will allow you to make better educated decisions.
- Dr. Matthew Loop
##
I will be interviewing a Zaadz community member (Jock ) on a similar issue including natural child birth: regarding this bit of content in our recent email exchanging:
Bryan, If you interview me on either natural childbirth
http://spontaneouscreation.org/SC/index.htm
or vaccination
http://spontaneouscreation.org/SC/IntotheLabyrinth.htm
http://spontaneouscreation.org/SC/$75,000VaccineOffer.htm
##
I will also be interviewing this gentle man about is Hepatis C fight and the issues he has had with vaccines:
About eight years ago Lloyd Wright was diagnosed with Chronic Hepatitis C. If experience is the best teacher then Lloyd Wright is truely an expert. As a Hepatitis C researcher and author, Lloyd has developed more… More »
##
Jo, I will let you know how the interactions turned out informative-wise specifically regarding your concerns as this is an issue growing public concern…
Keep asking questions. We all need to do that!
Here's a more lengthy version. I personally know of two girls adversal affected by this and now they want boys to get the shot also.
Buyer beware. Thanks for asking the question.
WARNING ! 10 THINGS YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW ABOUT GARDASIL ! March 14, 2007 3:47 PM
1. The vaccine only decreases your chances of getting cervical cancer, it doesn't eliminate the risk.
Straight from gardasil.com:
“HPV Types 16 and 18 cause 70% of cervical cancer cases.
GARDASIL may not fully protect everyone and does not prevent all types of cervical cancer, so it is important to continue regular cervical cancer screenings.”[1]
Merck is upfront with this information; they don't try to hide it or spin it. But with all of the media coverage and information floating around about the “100% effective cancer vaccine”, it's helpful to remember that Gardasil is only 100% effective at doing what it is supposed to do, which is preventing certain specific types of HPV, not preventing all cervical cancer.
2. Even without the vaccine, the number of cervical cancer cases is trending downward and has been for years. (This is only true in the U.S.; worldwide it is one of the top cancer killers of women because women in many other countries have limited access to Pap tests and other health services.)
The Gardasil commercials refer to “thousands of women” being diagnosed with cervical cancer in the U.S. each year, which is true, but they don't put that number into context.
“Cervical cancer has gone from being one of the top killers of American women to not even being on the top 10 list. This year cervical cancer will represent just 1 percent of the 679,510 new cancer cases and 1 percent of the 273,560 anticipated cancer deaths among American women. By contrast, some 40,970 women will die of breast cancer and 72,130 will die of lung cancer.
According to the American Cancer Society, “'Between 1955 and 1992, the number of cervical cancer deaths in the United States dropped by 74 percent.' Think about it: 74 percent.”
So Merck wants parents to have their pre-teen and teenage daughters vaccinated. But if current trends continue, by the time these girls are old enough to be at risk, how big will the risk really be? Check out the government's statistics on cervical cancer for yourself at the National Cancer Institute website.
3. Gardasil is one of the most expensive vaccines ever, at about $360 for the series of three shots, plus the cost of doctor visits. Call me cynical, but I can't help but think about how much money Merck stands to make from this if they can manage to convince all young women and all parents of young girls that this vaccine is a necessity. And while we're at it, call me a conspiracy theorist too for wondering if maybe Merck just might be exaggerating the cervical cancer risk by a lot in order to scare young women and mothers into buying their product.
March 14, 2007 3:50 PM
“'We're seeing a fairly remarkable uptake of Gardasil,' said Rick Haupt of Merck & Co., which reported sales of the vaccine had reached $70 million, exceeding analysts' projections.”[3]
Gardasil is a cash cow. The revenue stream is big now, with the potential to get much bigger. This is especially important for Merck, which is still dealing with the scandal surrounding their pain medication Vioxx, which they had to withdraw from the market in 2004 after it was found to increase the long-term risk of heart attack and stroke in patients who took it regularly. Thousands of lawsuits have been filed by former Vioxx patients. Vaccines like Gardasil are needed to provide the constant stream of cash that will help Merck to recover from Vioxx.
“Merck, struggling since the 2004 recall of its blockbuster pain pill Vioxx, has staked its turnaround in part on vaccines. They accounted for $1.1 billion of its $22 billion in revenue last year, or 5 percent, the highest share since at least 1995.” [4]
4. While we're on the subject of liability, lawsuits, and profits, there's another angle to consider. If Merck can get state governments to put Gardasil on their lists of vaccines that are required for schoolchildren, it can become a part of a federal vaccine liability program. Meaning that Merck will not be liable if Gardasil turns out to be harmful some time in the future. [5] [6] [7]
If I felt like being cynical again, I might think that this is one of the reasons why a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease is being marketed not just to young women who are having sex or are going to become sexually active soon, but also to girls as young as nine. There's a hell of a lot more stability and profitability in a required childhood vaccine than there would be in an optional vaccine meant only for young women.
It's important to remember that no matter how many feel-good, we're all in this fight together and we're just doing this out of the goodness of our hearts ad campaigns they run, drug companies are not non-profit organizations. They are in this to make money and a lot of it, and while that doesn't mean that all prescription drugs are harmful and horrible or that all doctors are evil, it does mean that when it comes to our health, we probably shouldn't take anything at face value.
5. There have been no long-term studies done on the effect of the vaccine after 5-10 or more years, and testing on young girls has been extremely limited.
“Merck has tested the cervical cancer vaccine in clinical trials of more than 20,000 women (about half of them got the shot). The health of the subjects was followed for about three and a half years on average. But fewer than 1,200 girls under 16 got the shots, among them only about 100 9-year-olds, Merck officials said, and the younger girls have been followed for only 18 months.” [8]
If parents are expected to take their daughters to get a series of expensive immunizations, wouldn't it be nice if they had any idea at all about what effects these girls might have to deal with 5 or 10 years down the line? [ send green star] [ accepted]
March 14, 2007 3:54 PM
If you're wondering what the rush was, part of the answer could be patents. When a company's patent on a particular drug expires, that's when generic versions of the drug can be developed and released into the market, which obviously drives the price and the profits of the original drug way down. Merck's patent on the extremely profitable cholesterol drug Zocor expired in June of this year, and Gardasil is one of the new drugs being counted on to bridge Merck's financial gap. According to the FDA, Merck filed an application for a patent extension for Gardasil on December 6th.
This CNN Money article has more info on Merck's financial past, present, and future.
6. It is unknown how long the immunity provided by Gardasil actually lasts.
“Public health officials want to vaccinate girls early, before they become sexually active, even though it is not known how long the immunity will last.” [9]
“Tests show that the vaccine lasts at least four years. Long-term results aren't known yet.” [10]
And straight from the FDA:
“The duration of immunity following a complete schedule of immunization with GARDASIL has not been established.”[11]
So if I do decide that it's worth the risks to my hypothetical nine year old and that I should go ahead and give her the vaccine, in the end I don't even know if it will do her any good at all by the time she
“GARDASIL has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity.”[12]
car·cin·o·gen
n. Any substance or agent that tends to produce a cancer.
ge·no·tox·in
n. A chemical or other agent that damages cellular DNA, resulting in mutations or cancer.
8. Gardasil is one of many vaccines containing aluminum, and there is increasing evidence suggesting that aluminum-based vaccines can have harmful effects. Aluminum is a neurotoxin and the aluminum in vaccines can potentially reach the brain. Since the list of required childhood vaccines is only getting longer over time, children are being exposed to doses of aluminum that may exceed what their bodies are capable of managing. Aluminum in vaccines has been linked to a variety of neurological disorders, including Alzheimer's, although a lot more research is needed. [13] [14]
[ send green star] [ accepted]
March 14, 2007 3:55 PM
It's also interesting to note that according to the FDA, Merck tested Gardasil along with the Hepatitis B vaccine (currently on the required list), to make sure that there were no negative effects to administering both vaccines during the same doctor's visit. The tests showed no apparent problems. [15] However, the hepatitis vaccine was the only one that was tested, so it is unknown whether any of the other required childhood vaccines could be potentially harmful when combined with Gardasil. There was also no information in any of the studies about what adding Gardasil to the required list would do to the cumulative aluminum levels in children's bodies.
9. Gardasil is only for women.
”Boys would not have to be vaccinated, although they can get HPV. There are no HPV tests for men. The vaccine has not yet been tried on men.” [16]
Men can get HPV. Men can give HPV to their partners. Men can get genital warts from HPV. Men can get cancer from HPV. (80% of HPV-related cancers affect women, but the other 20% include penile and anal cancers affecting men). [17]
So why wasn't Gardasil tested on men, and why isn't Merck funding PR campaigns to educate men about their HPV risk? Is it because they feel that there's more of a stigma surrounding men's sexual health, and that it would be more difficult to convince men and parents of boys of the risks? And as a result they wouldn't be able to make nearly as much money off of men as they will off of women. (Sorry, there's that cynical thing again.)
I think both men and women can take issue with this. Men, because their sexual health is really not being addressed here. They don't even have a test that can tell them whether they have HPV or not, so even if they want to be responsible about it there is only so much they can do. And women, because they are being asked to take full responsibility for HPV prevention. Women and girls are expected to take on all of the costs and the risks of this vaccine, and even if they do get vaccinated they could still be infected with HPV by a male partner who has been told that HPV isn't something that he needs to worry about.
From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website:
“There is no clear health benefit to knowing you have this virus-since HPV is unlikely to affect your health and cannot be treated. For most men, there would be no need to treat HPV, even if treatment were available- since it usually goes away on its own.” [18]
Isn't it a little irresponsible (and sexist) to say there is no benefit to a male HPV test? Regardless of the possible health issues such as penile or anal cancer, isn't not infecting your unsuspecting partner also considered a benefit? Men are reassured that tests and treatment are unnecessary because their HPV infections will likely go away on their own, while the fact is that most women's HPV infections will go away on their own as well. [19]
Apparently, when Gardasil went before an FDA panel for approval, Merck asked the panel to approve the vaccine for boys also, even though they have not done the same amount of testing on boys as they have on girls.
[ send green star] [ accepted]
March 14, 2007 3:57 PM
Merck asked the committee to endorse vaccination of boys age 9 to 15, too. Urging them not to wait for ongoing studies to end, it said evidence shows Gardasil can prevent some male cancers and may slow the spread of sexually transmitted HPV.
'By delaying three-plus years, we could have an additional 100,000 [cancer] cases that could have otherwise been avoided,' Barr told the committee. But panel members didn't vote on the request, calling the idea compelling but unproven.”[20]
It seems to me that we need to spend more time researching HPV in men and boys, not less time. And it would be nice to feel like Merck was taking this issue seriously and not just tacking it on as a “me too” measure in order to get approval more quickly. On the flip side, it's a positive step that more research on HPV in men is now being done. Maybe they'll even change their minds and decide that it is worthwhile to develop a male HPV test after all. They could probably share a lab with the researchers who are hard at work on that male birth control pill we've been hearing about for years.
10. The bottom line: Don't get this vaccine just because your doctor/mom/sister/friend/a perky TV commercial told you to. But don't not get it just because some chicks with a blog say that they aren't going to. It's your health, your decision. Do your own research and accept no guilt trips. My own mom wanted me to consider getting the vaccine (it is also being recommended for sexually active young women, even though it will probably do us-well, do evil slutty me anyway-no good), but she encouraged me to research it first, so I did. When I told her what I had found out, she agreed with my decision not to get it.
The Gardasil ad campaign is screaming at us to be “One Less”, meaning one less woman affected by cervical cancer. I'm all for that. I'm just going to try to reach that goal in my own way…as one less woman making an uninformed decision.
Right! And sometimes these vaccines may lead to a false sense of security. Raising public awareness is more important than implementing the vaccine itself. We should encourage women to visit their licensed professional for early detection and raise awareness in making changes in life-style and diet, which strengthen the physical body's resolve to any cancer-causing virus for that matter. I invite you all to check out the upcoming interviews I have in place from people who'd like to play an active role in those areas – educating the public as survivors and folks with principles. Just visit my blog sometime….it's all in the name of sharing knowledge ability for making better informed choices: check out who I'm interviewing (by clicking here)