Re: Bush and HPV

[Guest guest]

Well said, Bob!!!

>

>

> Bush was asked on CNN if she thought the HPV vaccine should be

> mandated. She responded: " It should be up to the States to decide to

mandate the

> vaccine or not "

>

> With all due respect to our first lady, it should not be left to the

> " states " . It should be left to " parents "

>

> Following is a letter I have submitted to Gannett Journal News (New York

> Rockland County)

>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--

> -----------------------------------------------

>

> Sir,

>

> A recent article in the Journal News, May 10, 2007, " New research

> questions efficacy of HPV vaccine " raised some very troubling concerns, not

only

> about this particular vaccine, but, the entire process that determines which

> vaccines will be " recommended " as a requirement for a child to attend a

public

> school.

>

> Reportedly, the HPV vaccine was approved by the FDA last June " amid

> cheers that it could largely prevent cervical cancer among vaccinated women " .

> The CDC quickly recommended that all women ages 11 to 26 receive the vaccine.

> The American Cancer Society seconded that recommendation, even though they

> concluded that " insufficient evidence " of benefit to women aged 19 to 26

> because so many had already been exposed to the virus. At least 24 state

> legislatures have introduced bills calling for mandatory vaccination of girls

in

> their early teens or younger.

>

> Yet, according to the article, Dr. F. Sawaya and Dr.

> - of the University of California, San Francisco, called the

benefits

> of Merck's new vaccine " modest " and said young women and their parents should

> take a " cautious approach to vaccination because of the many unanswered

> questions about its efficacy " . Even worse, according to the article, " the

data

> also hinted that blocking the targeted (HPV) strains may have opened an

> ecological niche that allows the flourishing of HPV strains previously

considered to

> be minor players, partially offsetting the vaccine's protection " .

>

> Additional concerns were raised by Dr. Diane M. Harper, a lead

> researcher in the development of the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine, who

stated

> giving the drug to 11 year old girls " is a great big public health

> experiment " . According to Dr. Harper, it would be " silly " for states to be

mandating

> it for them, because, it has not been tested for effectiveness in younger

> girls, and administering the vaccine to girls as young as nine may not even

> protect them at all. Dr. Harper is concerned a " worst case scenario " may not

> reduce the numbers of cervical cancers within 25 years, and, such a

vaccination

> crusade actually could cause the numbers to go up.

>

> Who are Dr. Sawaya, Dr. - and Dr. Harper? Do they represent a

> " fringe " element of professionals that can be dismissed as " anti-vaccine

> Waco's " ? Why would they risk their professional livelihood by urging parents

to

> exercise caution when considering whether or not to vaccinate their child?

> Especially when they know how quickly the vaccine had been approved by public

> health agencies and prominent politicians? Indeed, what should parents do

when

> faced with the responsibility of deciding if caution rather than compliance

> is in the best interest of their child....and...who should ultimately make

> this decision, parents or their state legislators?

>

> After all, parents are not being asked to consider vaccinating their

> child against easily communicable diseases, such as, measles, mumps and

> whooping cough. They are being asked to vaccinate their child against a

sexually

> transmitted disease, which requires conduct or behavior that is not

encouraged

> within a public school environment. Obviously, this lack of communicability

> violates the basic premise upon which our universal childhood vaccine policy

> is based, which is, to " protect the herd " . Instead of " protecting the herd " ,

> this vaccine seeks to " protect individuals " who engage in reckless behavior,

> such as, sexual promiscuity or share contaminated drug needles. While it is

> true individuals who make unhealthy lifestyle choices will reap the

> " benefits " of this vaccine, those who avoid such high risk conduct will

none-the-less

> be exposed to the vaccine's " risks " .

>

> Unfortunately, this is not the first vaccine where the " benefits " may

> not outweigh the " risks " for those required to take it. Consider the HEP B

> vaccine. Every newborn infant is given the HEP B within hours of birth,

> ostensibly to protect that infant against a disease that is primarily spread

by

> having sex without a condom, sharing needles when " shooting " illegal drugs,

or,

> accidental/careless puncture with a contaminated needle or sharp object.

> According to a 2003 UPI report, the Centers for Disease Control files

contained

> 32, 731 total reports of possible reactions following HEP B vaccinations

> since 1991, including 10,915 emergency room visits, 685 life-threatening

> reactions, 3,700 hospitalizations, 1,200 disabilities and 618 deaths. It

should be

> remembered that adverse reaction reports from vaccines are notorious for

> under-reporting to authorities, so we can assume these figures do not

represent a

> true evaluation of risks associated with the HEP B vaccine.

>

> Parents recognize their civic responsibility to " protect the herd " by

> vaccinating their child against common childhood diseases, but, public health

> officials and our state legislators have no right to abuse that civic

> responsibility by requiring parents vaccinate their child to " protect

individuals "

> who engage in reckless behavior. There is absolutely no reason these two

> vaccines are not offered to high risk individuals under the same

circumstances as

> are the free condoms and needles already available. We don't require nine

> year old girls to accept free condoms or needles, neither should we require

> them to accept the risks associated with these vaccines. The vaccines are

> available, let parents decide if the " benefits " outweigh the " risks " .

>

>

>

> BOB MOFFITT

> SLOATSBURG, NEW YORK

>

>

>

>

> ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

>