iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Boys Should Get HPV Vaccination, Too: Panel

Boys Hpv Vaccine

By MIKE STOBBE   10/25/11 10:11 PM ET   AP

ATLANTA -- A vaccine against cervical cancer hasn't been all that popular for girls. It may be even a harder sell for boys now that it's been recommended for them too.

A government advisory panel on Tuesday decided that the vaccine should also be given to boys, in part to help prevent the cancer-causing virus through sex.

Public health officials have tried since 2006 to get parents to have their daughters vaccinated against the human papillomavirus, or HPV, which causes most of the cervical cancer in women.

They have had limited success, hitting a number of hurdles. Some parents distrust the safety of vaccines, especially newer products. Others don't want to think about their daughters having sex one day, or worry that the vaccine essentially promotes promiscuous behavior.

Tuesday's vote by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' was the first to strongly recommend routine vaccination for boys since the vaccine was first approved for them two years ago. Officials acknowledged the low rate in girls encouraged them to take a new, hard look.

Experts say a key benefit of routinely vaccinating boys could be preventing the spread of the virus to others through sex – making up somewhat for the disappointing vaccination rate in girls. But the recommendation is being framed as an important new measure against cancer in males.

"Today is another milestone in the nation's battle against cancer," said Dr. Anne Schuchat, a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention administrator who oversees the agency's immunization programs.

Federal health officials usually adopt the panel's recommendations and ask doctors and patients to follow them.

The vaccine has been advised for girls since 2006. Just 49 percent of adolescent girls have gotten at least the first of the three HPV shots. Only a third had gotten all three doses by last year.

"Pretty terrible," Schuchat said.

Schuchat attributed the low rates for girls to confusion or misunderstanding by parents that they can wait until their daughter becomes sexually active. It works best if the shots are given before a girl or boy begins having sex.

Some conservatives argue the vaccine could promote promiscuous behavior. It has come up in the GOP presidential campaign. Texas Gov. Rick Perry came under attack for a 2007 executive order requiring adolescent girls to get the vaccine (with an opt-out clause). When conservative lawmakers rebelled, he backed down.

An estimated 75 to 80 percent of men and women are infected with HPV during their life, but most don't develop symptoms or get sick, according to the CDC. Some infections lead to genital warts, cervical cancer and other cancers, including of the head and neck.

The HPV vaccine is approved for use in males and females ages 9 to 26; it is usually given to 11- and 12-year olds when they get other vaccines. The committee also recommended that males 13 to 21 years get vaccinated.

Tuesday's vote follows recent studies that show the vaccine prevents anal cancer in males, and may work against a type of throat cancer. A study that focused on gay men found it to be 75 percent effective against anal cancer.

While anal cancer has been increasing, it's still fairly rare. Only about 7,000 U.S. cases in men each year are tied to the strains targeted in the HPV vaccine. In contrast, about 15,000 vaccine-preventable cervical cancers in women occur annually.

Preventing a cancer that's primarily associated with gay men may not be much of a selling point, said Dr. Ranit Mishori, a family practice doctor in Washington, D.C. and an assistant professor at the Georgetown University School of Medicine.

Some parents may say "`Why are you vaccinating my son against anal cancer? He's not gay! He's not ever going to be gay!' I can see that will come up," said Mishori, who supports the panel's recommendation.

Schuchat indicated the CDC is ready for that kind of argument: "There's no data suggesting that offering a vaccine against HPV will change people's subsequent sexual behavior," she said.

So far, the threat of genital warts hasn't been persuasive: Some data suggest that less than 1.5 percent of adolescent males have gotten the vaccine over the past two years.

Meanwhile, some feel it's unlikely that most parents will agree to get their sons vaccinated primarily to protect girls. A survey of 600 pediatricians last year found that nearly 70 percent of doctors thought families would deem vaccination of their boys as unnecessary.

Experts at the committee meeting noted an earlier analysis that showed vaccinating boys would not be cost-effective if the female vaccination were high.

"If you do reach high coverage of females, will you stop vaccinating males?" asked Dr. David Salisbury, director immunization for the United Kingdom's Department of Health.

There are two vaccines against HPV, but Tuesday's vote applies only to Merck & Co.'s Gardasil, which costs $130 a dose. The other vaccine wasn't tested for males.

The committee's recommendation – and the greater insurance coverage of the vaccine that is expected to follow – will make it easier for more boys to get the shots, said Dr. Mark Feinberg, chief public health and science officer for Merck Vaccines.

Merck officials bristled at the idea that males would see the vaccine as mainly meant for gay men, noting that HPV-caused anal cancers can occur in heterosexual men.

Maura Robbins of Chicago said she's likely to have her 12-year-old son, Cole, vaccinated against HPV – but probably not until he's a little older. "I would just like to see some long-term testing and long-term results," she said.

___

AP Medical Writer Lindsey Tanner in Chicago contributed to this report.

___

Online:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST HEALTHY LIVING

ATLANTA -- A vaccine against cervical cancer hasn't been all that popular for girls. It may be even a harder sell for boys now that it's been recommended for them too. A government advisory panel on ...
ATLANTA -- A vaccine against cervical cancer hasn't been all that popular for girls. It may be even a harder sell for boys now that it's been recommended for them too. A government advisory panel on ...
Filed by Amanda L. Chan  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 223
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dyson
debunking pseudoscience, one fallacy at a time.
02:36 PM on 11/08/2011
Read this commentary about "The greater good"

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-greater-good-pure-unadulterated-anti-vaccine-propagand/
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Taximom5
03:20 PM on 11/09/2011
The "Special Master" presiding over Jordan King's case is an employee of the government, and is in place for the specific purpose of protecting the vaccine industry, NOT to help families of vaccine reaction victims.

Remember, those who WERE compensated for vaccine-induced brain damage where the brain damage included autism were told that they were to keep their mouths shut or risk having the payments for medical costs stopped.

Those of us who are not employed by the pharmaceutical industry are very grateful to these brave souls for coming forward and telling how they were pressured to keep quiet---and for showing their proof that the government did indeed compensate vaccine-induced autism, and other vaccine-induced brain damage that the CDC never mentions.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Taximom5
07:39 PM on 11/09/2011
I read it.

It's completely biased. It's a strongly pro-vaccine site that downplays severe adverse reactions, and even accuses those who suffer those reactions of either faking or being mistaken.

Those of us who have had such reactions are aghast, ESPECIALLY those of us who are not seeking financial restitution, but only wish to inform people of the dangers of vaccines that WE didn't know about--until we were effected.

It's absolutely unthinkable, that people would believe so blindly in vaccines that they would judge EVERYONE who claims an injury from vaccines, and that they would defend vaccines even if it means that they convince someone to vaccinate their child--who then dies from the vaccine.

While they are defending the concept of "herd immunity," they are demonstrating the concept of herd mentality.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Taximom5
01:01 PM on 11/01/2011
Here is a more direct link to watch the documentary "The Greater Good" for free, on-line, until November 5:
http://vimeo.com/31036452

This documentary about vaccines interviews doctors and researchers on both sides of the vaccine safety controversy.

Gardasil is talked about at length. According to this documentary, it was studied in only 1200 healthy girls under the age of 16 before it was fast-tracked--and all safety/efficacy tests were halted--and recommended for universal use.
08:31 PM on 11/01/2011
Well, then the documentary was wrong.
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM111274.pdf

They started their phase II dosing study on 5/26/00 which continued with extensions until 9/16/06 for safety and efficacy. That's six full years of testing.

For their safety testing they had 11,778 volunteers on Gardasil and 9,686 on the Placebo. For girls aged 9-15 they had 591 on gardasil vs. 301 on a saline placebo and adverse affects were comparable in both groups (see p. 140) for the 2 year period after vaccination they were followed.

The fast track mostly means they had a shorter review period due to more FDA employees working on it, and encouraged communication throughout the approval process between the developer and FDA. Also it means they only had to prove that it prevented infection with those strains of HPV and not that it prevented cancer (which would have taken at least 30 years to prove). They get on the fast track early on to speed up the process. No safety/efficacy tests were halted, and they continue to track reported averse effects (which isn't easy when you've got people reporting what they heard on TV or read on the internet).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dyson
debunking pseudoscience, one fallacy at a time.
08:00 PM on 11/06/2011
The documentary interviews lots of people against vaccines, and a couple of people (quoted briefly and what sounds to me like cherrypicked out of context quoting) who are provaccine like Paul Offit.

The documentary profiles many emotive cases who supposedly were made ill or died after vaccines.
It doesn't profile those with devastating injuries or deaths from vaccine-preventable disease.

Why not?

They even raise the ridiculous, unethical notion that there should be a "placebo-controlled" trial comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated kids, in order to try and prove something that science has repeatedly failed to show despite numerous studies - the vaccine/autism "link".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Heather XW
06:14 PM on 10/31/2011
Please watch the move "THE GREATER GOOD" while its free until Nov 5th.

http://www.greatergoodmovie.org/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:24 PM on 10/30/2011
I'm trying to pull together a fairly accurate view of what is known of the risks/benefits of getting this vaccine series.

There are some elements that seem concerning, but not discussed in the MSM:

HPV is not solely an STD, so a sexually naive individual may already be infected:

www.scielo.br/pdf/csp/v21n4/03.pdf
http://www.akademiai.com/content/h32q968j22183585
http://jcm.asm.org/cgi/reprint/43/1/376
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12002819
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.10529/abstract

The FDA has been given evidence that the vaccine may increase cancer risk in those already infected:

http://www.prlog.org/10938109-sane-vax-inc-formed-to-prevent-potential-hpv-vaccine-induced-increased-risk-of-cancer.html

"Pre-testing for HPV is crucial since the May 2008 FDA VRBPAC documents have noted that exposure to HPV prior to vaccination raises the risk of cervical cancer 44.6% for Gardasil and 32.5% for Cervarix. Post-vaccination testing is equally important for those who have suffered adverse reactions to the vaccine."

Sane Vax Inc. has been attempting to facilitate/provide testing for HPV exposure for individuals prior or after getting the vaccine.

http://sanevax.org/pre-vac-hpv-testing-2/

cont.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:48 PM on 10/30/2011
As vaccine immunity is generally more transient than natural immunity will this series make any difference. If the vaccine administered after exposure increases risk then will boosters be unsafe? Is the initial series even justifiable particularly without prior HPV exposure testing?

At least 15 ? (I believe the vaccines try to cover 4 strains.)

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV

"At least 15 high-risk HPV types have been identified, including HPV types 16 and 18. These two types of HPV together cause about 70 percent of all cases of cervical cancer (5, 6). In addition, infection with high-risk HPVs, mainly HPV type 16, causes about 85 percent of anal cancers (7)."

The risk of reactions such as anaphylaxis, autoimmunity appears to exist for any vaccine. My perception is that a multi-shot series increases this risk.

The risks of aluminum adjuvant is poorly researched and may not be equal for all. Aluminum was used in some "placebos" during vaccine trials. All trials for this vaccine contained vaccine components.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/05/a-license-to-kill-part-2-who-guards-gardasils-guardians.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:55 PM on 10/31/2011
Correction: All trial "placebos" for the vaccine contained vaccine components.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Taximom5
01:01 PM on 11/01/2011
It's notable that Dr. Diane Harper, one of the lead researchers who worked on developing Gardasil, and who authored many of the studies on Gardasil, has grave concerns about Gardasil: "She says data available for Gardasil shows that it lasts five years; there is no data showing that it remains effective beyond five years..."If we vaccinate 11 year olds and the protection doesn't last... we've put them at harm from side effects, small but real, for no benefit," says Dr. Harper. "The benefit to public health is nothing, there is no reduction in cervical cancers, they are just postponed, unless the protection lasts for at least 15 years, and over 70% of all sexually active females of all ages are vaccinated." She also says that enough serious side effects have been reported after Gardasil use that the vaccine could prove riskier than the cervical cancer it purports to prevent. Cervical cancer is usually entirely curable when detected early through normal Pap screenings.

Indeed, two years ago, she had this to say about Gardasil:

"The rate of serious adverse events are on par with the death rate of cervical cancer. Gardasil has been associated with at least as many serious adverse events as there are deaths from cervical cancer developing each year. Indeed, the risks of vaccination are underreported."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dyson
debunking pseudoscience, one fallacy at a time.
07:08 PM on 11/06/2011
So the rate of serious events like temporary collapse, fainting etc (the commonest serious events noted in the trials, and not all of which were in any way related to the vaccines) were comparable to the DEATH rate from cervical cancer and 3 times less than the rate of cervical cancer.

Well boy am I so glad that I gave my daughter the HPV vax and only exposed her to the minimal risk of problems such as a fainting collapse, rather than let her remain exposed to the 3 times higher risk of getting cancer.

PS, Harper did not suggest the vaccine could be riskier than the cancer it prevents, she was misquoted, and even complained to the UK Press Complaints Commission about this.
http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/jabs-as-bad-as-the-cancer/
02:14 AM on 10/30/2011
For the prevention of Cervical Cancer and cancer in general; principals to live by -and to teach your children (both girls and boys)….

1. Live a healthy lifestyle.
2. Enjoy a healthy diet with copious amounts of fresh fruits and vegetables. Eat a high-fiber diet.
3a. I’m all for sex (believe me); but learn about, practice, and teach safe sexual behavior.
3b. “Your risk of getting cervical cancer may be higher if you have: unprotected sex; sex with many partners; sex with someone who has had many sexual partners.” -American Cancer Society.
4. Drink alcohol in moderation. This is defined as less than 7 drinks/week for women and less than 13 drinks/week for men.
5. Inform yourself about HPV vaccines (Gardasil/Cervarix). Receive informed consent. Then you decide.
6. Do not smoke. This seriously increases the risk for cervical cancer (and many other cancers).

"Women who smoke are about twice as likely as non-smokers to get cervical cancer. Smoking exposes the body to many cancer-causing chemicals that affect organs other than the lungs. These harmful substances are absorbed through the lungs and carried in the bloodstream throughout the body. Tobacco by-products have been found in the cervical mucus of women who smoke. Researchers believe that these substances damage the DNA of cervix cells and may contribute to the development of cervical cancer."

-American Cancer Society.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dyson
debunking pseudoscience, one fallacy at a time.
05:35 PM on 10/30/2011
I agree completely, but would add these 2 extra points:

7. Get routine cervical smear screening, either histology or the newer HPV screening.
8. Get vaccinated against HPV.

And I'd add a comment - Avoiding the cause (HPV) is more important and much easier than avoiding the cofactors that contribute to higher expression of the cancer (eg smoking, alcohol).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Heather XW
11:20 AM on 10/28/2011
The MDs I know look at this policy and just shake their heads. The greed of the industry will be its downfall.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dyson
debunking pseudoscience, one fallacy at a time.
04:31 PM on 10/29/2011
Heather,
If there were a vaccine that could prevent autism, would you consider $300 money well spent?

The price may seem high compared to other vaccines (but perhaps that just shows what great value the others are) and no doubt the makers are milking this for all they can get, but that issue is a different one to the core science of whether this vaccine does what it says on the tin.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Heather XW
08:04 PM on 10/29/2011
Dyson,

I really hate hypotheticals and would rather let my mind ponder on reality, but what the hay! If there was a quick fix to healing my son's/or preventing my son's autism I would pay $1000s of dollars. I've already paid $10,000s for his rehabilitation and will pay more I'm sure but money to me is meaningless when talking about my son health/wellbeing. I would of course research every ingredient and treat my son as an individual, assessing his history and health prior to any added environmental exposure. I would read all the safety data critically and if they don't measure up then I would have to pass on the drug. I would want to see the drug tested outside the control of the company that stands to make the profits and I would want the pharmaceutical industry to be liable in case there was an adverse event.

I have to say I'm quite jaded on the pharmaceutical industry and hate the cosy ties to our government regulatory agencies. I know there is some good that takes place but as a whole I find the industry to be quite disgusting.
12:29 AM on 10/28/2011
Merck's Gardasil vaccine has only been licensed since June 8, 2006 (under 6 years). And GS­K's Cervarix vaccine is even newer. I would like to see more long-term safety data. IMO, prudent for any pharmaceutical product. Whether or not the concerns about the safety profile of the Gardasil vaccine are valid, time and medical science (research) will tell.

I am fortunate, my daughter (and son) are still young enough that I have a few more years to see the safety data come in. I will be watching carefully. I don't take cervical cancer, or any cancer, lightly.
12:34 AM on 10/28/2011
"Gardasil Researcher Speaks Out"
CBS News
Washington, August 19, 2009
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/19/cbsnews_investigates/main5253431.shtml

“Amid questions about the safety of the HPV vaccine Gardasil one of the lead researchers for the Merck drug is speaking out about its risks, benefits and aggressive marketing.”

“Dr. Diane Harper says young girls and their parents should receive more complete warnings before receiving the vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. Dr. Harper helped design and carry out the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies to get Gardasil approved, and authored many of the published, scholarly papers about it. She has been a paid speaker and consultant to Merck. It’s highly unusual for a researcher to publicly criticize a medicine or vaccine she helped get approved.”

“Dr. Harper joins a number of consumer watchdogs, vaccine safety advocates, and parents who question the vaccine’s risk-versus-benefit profile. She says data available for Gardasil shows that it lasts five years; there is no data showing that it remains effective beyond five years.”
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dyson
debunking pseudoscience, one fallacy at a time.
04:15 PM on 10/29/2011
I think you will find that since Dr Harper said that over 2 years ago, there has been a lot of newer data, particularly from the Australian programs, which shows it is longer-lasting.

And anyway, even if it is limited to say 10 years protection? Isn't that a real benefit? People can always get a booster if they are concerned about fading immunity.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dyson
debunking pseudoscience, one fallacy at a time.
04:28 PM on 10/29/2011
Also, I think you will find that Dr Harper did not criticize the vaccine as quoted, but criticized the marketing strategy of the producers, which is a different (but valid) point altogether.
12:42 AM on 10/28/2011
So, while Dr. Harper is not anti-vaccine or anti-HPV vaccine, she HAS raised the issue that all is not known about the safety profile and the duration of efficacy of the Gardasil and Cervarix vaccine. With regard to both, more data is needed. Dr. Harper has discussed these issues within the last two years, for example, in the 8/19/09 CBS news interview above...

And here...

"An Interview with Dr. Diane M. Harper, HPV expert."
The Huffington Post
December 28, 2009
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-g-yerman/an-interview-with-dr-dian_b_405472.html
02:58 PM on 10/30/2011
Dr. Diane Harper is the physician-scientist who served as Principal Investigator on the clinical trials for both Merck's Gardasil and GSK's Cervarix vaccines.

*Diane M. Harper, MD, MPH.
Professor, Departments of Community and Family Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Missouri at Kansas City. Former Professor, Community and Family Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dartmouth Medical School. Director, Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group, Dartmouth Medical School.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ddanimal
12:33 AM on 10/27/2011
All corporate-shill scientists in favor of Merck making more money say AYE!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
William Jamison
My micro-bio is MT
02:34 PM on 10/27/2011
All thinking adults in favor of people having less cancer say AYE!
03:58 PM on 10/27/2011
There is a certain level of stupidity inherent in the inability to distinguish between the amoral capitalist system that allows pharmaceutical companies to make money, and the amoral medical scientific system that creates vaccines which prevent disease.

Thank you for demonstrating this!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
sabelmouse
i love to tumble , ask me why .
05:52 AM on 10/28/2011
it is hard to distinguish as it's all so interwoven.
07:44 PM on 10/26/2011
I think there will be more teenagers experiencing vaccine side-effects (including mental/brain challenges) with the foisting of yet more vaccines on them. In case anybody is thinking the new Texas hpv/heart disease study is incentive to give this shot, a doctor Franco foe McGill (oncological epidemiologist) stated that he felt the theory was not plausible, that the high phi rates in the study were questionable (contamination?) and that maybe most importantly, the researchers didn't look at another important variable to help explain results-married Vs unmarried.
08:01 PM on 10/26/2011
That is "high hpv rates"
05:02 PM on 10/27/2011
I would hope that 1) people get the vaccine because it can prevent cervical cancer, and that 2) they are *smart enough* to know that a) no scientific study is without flaw, and b) that the *opinion* of some doctor does not in any way negate the scientific data that the study found.

And yes there will probably "more teenagers experiencing vaccine side-effects", since all vaccines have side effects. However, the variety and incidence of side effects from the HPV vaccine are demonstrably no different from other vaccines. More importantly, the number of lives (both mortality and morbidity) saved by these vaccines will far outweigh the side-effects experienced.
06:03 PM on 10/27/2011
I would love to see your cited reference for your statement "More importantl­y, the number of lives (both mortality and morbidity) saved by these vaccines will far outweigh the side-effec­ts experience­d." I didn't know there were any long term studies on this vaccine.
06:47 PM on 10/26/2011
I heard one of the doctors on John Gambling's radio program (NYC) this morning (John's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but this was a good segment today). The doctor made a great case for getting boys vaccinated...he mentioned that this would decrease the incidents of anal, vaginal, throat and head cancers by vaccinating boys (also because they pass on to girls). He said these cancers are particularly dangerous (as are all cancers - his quote though). I know there are always two sides to a story, I'll check out other peoples' comments.
10:53 AM on 10/26/2011
This won't just protect women and gay men. HPV is known to cause péni|e cancer in men of all orientations.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:46 AM on 10/26/2011
Medical advice is the full responsibility of your doctor(s), NOT corporate-owned media.

This attempt by Big Pharma to creep in on the responsibilities of your own personal medical professionals is very sad to see.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
William Jamison
My micro-bio is MT
01:42 PM on 10/27/2011
This is not an attempt by Big Pharma to circumvent your own doctor's advice.

The advisory committee on immunization practices is composed of dedicated healthcare professionals who know what they're talking about, and they've recommended this vaccine because it can prevent multiple forms of cancer.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Taximom5
03:32 PM on 11/02/2011
THere is a very good explanation here http://www.vaccinationnews.com/rally/openstmntconint.htm
of all the conflicts of interest amongst the advisory committee on immunization practices.

How confident in the safety and need for specific vaccines would doctors and parents be if they learned the following:

1. That members, including the Chair, of the FDA and CDC advisory committees who make these decisions own stock in drug companies that make vaccines.

2. That individuals on both advisory committees own patents for vaccines under consideration or affected by the decisions of the committee.

3. That three out of five of the members of the FDA’s advisory committee who voted for the rotavirus vaccine had conflicts of interest that were waived.

4. That seven individuals of the 15 member FDA advisory committee were not present at the meeting, two others were excluded from the vote, and the remaining five were joined by five temporary voting members who all voted to license the product.

5. That the CDC grants conflict-of-interest waivers to every member of their advisory committee a year at a time, and allows full participation in the discussions leading up to a vote by every member, whether they have a financial stake in the decision or not.

6. That the CDC’s advisory committee has no public members – no parents have a vote in whether or not a vaccine belongs on the childhood immunization schedule. The FDA’s committee only has one public member.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Taximom5
03:35 PM on 11/02/2011
(2/3)
"Dr. John Modlin—He served for four years on the CDC advisory committee and became the Chair in February 1998. He participated in the FDA’s committee as well owned stock in Merck, one of the largest manufacturers of vaccines, valued at $26,000. He also serves on Merck’s Immunization Advisory Board. Dr. Modlin was the Chairman of the Rotavirus working group. He voted yes on eight different matters pertaining to the ACIP’s rotavirus statement, including recommending for routine use and for inclusion in the Vaccines for Children program. It was not until this past year, that Dr. Modlin decided to divest himself of his vaccine manufacturer stock.

At our April 6 autism hearing, Dr. Paul Offit disclosed that he holds a patent on a rotavirus vaccine and receives grant money from Merck to develop this vaccine. He also disclosed that he is paid by the pharmaceutical industry to travel around the country and teach doctors that vaccines are safe. Dr. Offit is a member of the CDC’s advisory committee and voted on three rotavirus issues – including making the recommendation of adding the rotavirus vaccine to the Vaccines for Children’s program.

Dr. Patricia Ferrieri, during her tenure as Chair of the FDA’s advisory committee, owned stock in Merck valued at $20,000 and was granted a full waiver.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Al in Madison
My micro-bio does not describe me.
09:28 AM on 10/26/2011
I'm still not clear on why they are pushing for this vaccine so hard. If the population of USA is about 312 million and only 7000 men and 15000 women end up with cancers that would have been preventable with the vaccine; why are we immunizing an entire generation of children when there's a .00007% chance per year that they will ever end up with it?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Al in Madison
My micro-bio does not describe me.
09:30 AM on 10/26/2011
My math may be a bit off... but it's still highly unlikely.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dyson
debunking pseudoscience, one fallacy at a time.
03:57 PM on 10/26/2011
One person in 1485 will get HPV-induced cancer (in a 10 year "generation")
Worth preventing, I'd say, compared to the efforts we spend averting even rarer events.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
William Jamison
My micro-bio is MT
01:48 PM on 10/27/2011
Another thing to consider is the high morbidity associated with infection.

Women get pap exams and sometimes the results are abnormal. When that happens they must be followed to see if the infection persists and/or progresses to more severe disease.

When the infection progresses, they must then undergo invasive surgery to remove the infection.

We have more than 300,000 such surgeries each and every year in this country, and the current HPV vaccines can prevent 70% of those surgeries.

In addition to preventing death from cervical cancer, reducing the need for so many surgical procedures is another wonderful benefit of the vaccine.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dyson
debunking pseudoscience, one fallacy at a time.
05:45 PM on 10/27/2011
Wow!
I would have thought the pharmaco-medical-industrial complex would be falling over itself in a rush to ban this vaccine and ensure that its OBGYNs can get a new beamer each year.

Yet they support a vaccine which would reduce disease and lessen their potential income. Very strange.
photo
farmilyman
everything is illusion
04:05 AM on 10/26/2011
How incredibly irresponsible.
05:04 PM on 10/27/2011
How incredibly inane and ignorant...
photo
farmilyman
everything is illusion
01:21 AM on 10/28/2011
Yes they are and so is anyone who agrees with them.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:34 AM on 10/26/2011
The first of a seven part presentation on safety and efficacy concerns with HPV vax:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mjka5DSRgY

The following is the first of a three part series looking at HPV development and testing and COI:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/05/a-license-to-kill-part-1-how-a-publicprivate-partnership-made-the-government-mercks-gardasil-partner.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
William Jamison
My micro-bio is MT
02:39 PM on 10/27/2011
The ageofautism website obsessively spreads misinformation about vaccines because it is CONVINCED that vaccines cause autism.

That's incorrect. There is no assocation between vaccine usage and incidence of autism.