New York Bill On Gardasil Vaccination On Hold
47 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // February 19th, 2010 // 9:38 am
A New York State bill that would allow healthcare practitioners to vaccinate children (not just girls) under 18 against HPV without parental consent appears to be on hold for now. The language in a Senate bill is being clarified and no other legislative action is currently under way, according to an email from New York State Senator Eric Schneiderman to Diane Harper, who was a researcher for Merck’s Gardasil vaccine and has called for more complete warnings for parents (some background).
The disclosure concerning the bill comes after some hoopla over the initiative, which would dovetail with an assembly bill requiring vaccinations before children would be allowed to attend school. The overall effort drew some protest in light of the ongoing debate, in some quarters, over the safety and long-term effectiveness of Gardasil, as well as whether HPV vaccines - GlaxoSmithKline sells Cervarix - may constitute a green light to teenage sex.
In a note to Schneiderman, Harper called the legislation “a silly idea,” and argued teenagers don’t have the “developmental maturity to make life-balancing decisions,” such as seeking HPV vaccination. “The decision to vaccinate must come from an informed decision that balances the benefits and risks of vaccination and Pap screening. Most adolescents will involve an adult (usually a parent) in this discussion. For many reasons, medical and ethical, it is not appropriate to have a school nurse give vaccinations without the parents’ explicit approval.”
As an aside, the sponsor of the senate bill, Liz Krueger, is a member of Women in Government, a non-profit whose members include state legislators who were encouraged to introduce bills mandating its HPV vaccine. The group was in the middle of a fracas over Merck donations and a push toward mandatory vaccination (background here and here). In any event, some parents will want to have their say. Some may argue teenagers may be smart enough to seek protection from an STD and should have some privacy. What do you think?
Is the legislation a good idea?
- No (94%, 120 Votes)
- Yes (9%, 11 Votes)
Total Voters: 128
Loading ...And here is the email…
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 2:42 PM
Subject: Thank you for your letter
From: kopach@senate.state.ny.us
On Behalf Of schneide@senate.state.ny.us
To:
February 17, 2010
Dear Sir or Madame,
Thank you for your letter regarding Senate bill S.4779, sponsored by Senator
Liz Krueger, regarding the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases.
This bill was held in the Senate Codes Committee on February 9, 2010 at the
request of the sponsor. During this time, with the input of constituents and
advocacy groups, the sponsor will have the opportunity to improve and
clarify the bill’s language.
Currently, there is no other legislative action on this bill. If you have
any additional questions or concerns, please feel free to contact my office,
or the sponsor of the bill, Senator Krueger, at (518) 455-2297.
Sincerely,
Eric T. Schneiderman
pix thx to alvi2047 flickr creative commons
patrons99
Gardasil should never have been approved in the first place.
http://www.generationrescue.org/binstock/090318-GardasilPlacebo-Binstock.htm
See! This is proof positive that our lawmakers can’t resist the allure of innovative, new “STD vaccines” and “cancer vaccines”. Perhaps we should substitute the word “innoculation” for vaccine. We are already victims of the rise of market-based medicine.
No citizen should have the integrity of their bodies forceably violated by their government. I would even support a Constitutional amendment to that effect.
All government mandated vaccinations should be challenged in court all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. Ditto, for mandated implantation of RFID chips, and mandated injection of nanotechnology devices.
Lisa Van Syckel
Here,..Here,… 99
Well Stated….
Informed in NJ
Perhaps we should go back to a time when our children suffered the crippling effects of polio or even died of measles, etc…there is a risk/benefit ratio for everything we do in healthcare, and the body of scientific evidence around vaccines certainly favors that benefits out-weigh the risks.
From a libertarian point of view, I can see case against mandates, however, in our current governmental structure we entrust our elected officials to represent the will of the electorate…and when these elected officials do not fulfill this obligation, we owe it to ourselves to vote them out of office!
Lisa Van Syckel
Informed in NJ,
You call your post, “a Libertarian point of view”. That is,… A whole lot of Hog Wash!!
Your post is more like, “an Ill Informed, NJ Democrat, and bleeding heart”…
Christopher
It’s good to see that political allegiances are not getting in the way of objective discussion ;-)
JaT
Our elected officials are not placed to intrude on every aspect of our lives and bodies. To trust a few men and women with that is to give up all freedoms. That is not what the electoral system was designed to do.
What elected officials (and evidently part of the public) have forgotten is that they are to represent their constituants- not mother them, not babysit them, not preach to them. Not even to protect them if that protection is to protect individuals from themselves.
Lisa Van Syckel
JaT,
Well said, Thank You.
Christopher,
Good thing I didnt show my religious side,.. yes?
JaT
They sure weren’t elected to replace a child’s parents.
Christopher
Lisa
Amen to that
Lisa Van Syckel
LOL, Anyone up for a Tiger discussion?
pharmavet
In certain cases, protecting the public health overrides individual preference. When my grandfather emigrated from a part of the world where TB was endemic at the start of the 20th century, he was quarantined in a TB hospital for two months until customs clearance. That was a sound public health measure in the absence of treatments for TB. In today’s times we vaccinate incoming college freshmen vs. meningitis so as not to spread a potentially fatal disease to other students. Thus, sometimes we have to balance the public health against individual choice where it is appropriate.
Condor
Great topic, Ed! — and, one with important policy implications, to boot. Good to hear the measure has been tabled. Now. . . .
Jim Edwards (of B|Net Pharma) and I had a good-natured argument about this bill, last week. Here is some of it.
I do like Jim — I just think he’s missed the mark, with this, of his last week. I think a little contrast will help make my positions clearer, here — for Jim.
Let me sum up my (contrast) position — “Gardasil is not a condom.” I support condoms, even “secret” free condoms — for people under 18. I even support making them available (again, for free) in the Health Clerk’s office, in the public schools. Why? No one has shown a serious side-effect risk from condom use — other than (agruably, at least) increased sexual activity. The opposite is true of the Gardasil vaccine. I think it is (within obvious limits) a good vaccine — it just should not be mandated, and certainly not given in secret, to teenagers. [BTW, condoms have been shown to prevent the transmission of HPV. Imagine that.]
In any event, Jim writes:
“. . . .I disagree [with Condor]. No one likes the idea of their kids having sex. But the notion that kids will refrain from sex because they won’t want doctors to tell their parents if they get HPV is ridiculous. Requiring parental consent for a child who wants to protect him or herself from an STD is a good way to render such protection ineffective. Kids have privacy rights too. They should be able to talk with their doctors without their parents if they want to. . . .”
I absolutely agree that kids should talk with doctors — with or without parents, but that is not what this bill is after. This bill is about vaccinating kids in secret. That is a bridge too far.
My aim — in highlighting the manifold infirmities of this New York bill — was not to suggest, in any fashion, that kids will stop having sex (even to avoid HPV, or any other STD, for that matter), or to avoid telling their parents they are being “treated” — for any STD.
As Jim well knows, strictly speaking, a vaccine doesn’t treat a disease. That is the crux of my quarrel. For kids who are not having sex — and there are some (perhaps many) — in New York, the Gardasil vaccine presents a real risk of side effects, for absolutely no benefit. If nothing else, that is a decision parents should make with their minor children — not have children making that decision, alone, in secret. It should be an elective vaccine. Casual contact cannot spread HPV. That is scientific fact.
The New York bills treat the Gardasil HPV vaccine as identical to any other post-facto treatment for an already existing STD. The Gardasil vaccine is no such thing. In fact, it only prevents two strains, of a potential 18.
So, Jim misunderstands my objection — I wholly endorse “treatment” — even secret treatment — for minors’ STDs. I do not endorse mandatory Gardasil vaccinations, for girls (or boys). It is no treatment — it is, at best, arguable prevention, of only two types of HPV virus, and taking it does transfer a real, measurable risk.
Parents should be allowed to decide, with their children, in each case, whether anyone under 18 should receive it.
Okay — whew! — here endeth my sermon.
Namaste
Condor
Oh, yeah — I voted “No” in the poll. As if you’d need to be told that.
Namaste
harpy
hear, hear Condor! and yay for condoms!
Lisa Van Syckel
Condor,
Loved your sermon, I agree, dispense free condoms, especially in the schools. Leave medical decisions to parents, and parents need to teach their children, I repeatedly tell my 21 year old son, no glove,.. no love.
I voted “no”. anyone surprised?
Justice in MI
Striking to me that there have been zilch “yes” votes in the poll so far.
Whatever one thinks of the vaccine itself, the issue of mandating obviously raises questions of its own. Personally, I found the Rothman’s article in JAMA
JAMA. 2009;302(7):781-786 (doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1179)
to include the best short summary of the questions that remain outstanding about the vaccine and that every parent, or young adult, ought to have the opportunity to weigh in making a decision.
From a purely scientific/public health point of view, I see no grounds that that are even close to what mandating traditionally requires.
In the meantime, one of the least fortunate legacies of Merck’s heavy-handed (in my view) marketing history with this product, is the legacy of distrust even when it is _not_ warranted. That is a lesson the company does not appear to have learned.
Condor
Thanks Harpy and Lisa –
JiM the vote skew seems pretty sensible, given that this piece of legislation might just be one of the most Orwellian ever introduced, in the State of New York.
As Ed points out, at the time it was introduced, the Margie McGlynn-ified version of Merck was funding “Women in Government” — and Women in Government was supporting the bills’ sponsors. Cozy.
And — with hindisght — exceedingly poor public-policy thinking (even from Merck’s own longer term enlightened self-interest).
Okay — a Friday Afternoon Trivia game, then — let’s ALL resolve to keep the poll at XX to 0, shall we? It’s a contest!
[Or at least, let's try to keep it 99 to 1 -- on a percentage basis. Everyone, use your additional devices (but I refuse to tell you how I know this!), if need be -- the poll will accept (1) your phone as a new vote, and (2), (3) & (4) each of your laptops, and (5) desktops and (6) work computers, AND (7) XBox 360 -- as distinct and new voters. Ahem.] Where was I? Oh, never mind.
Namaste
Fenbeast
“Perhaps we should go back to a time when our children suffered the crippling effects of polio or even died of measles, etc…there is a risk/benefit ratio for everything we do in healthcare, and the body of scientific evidence around vaccines certainly favors that benefits out-weigh the risks.”
You are comparing apples to oranges! HPV is not communicated through casual contact, as are polio and measles, but through sexual contact, yet they are offering (and in some states MANDATING) vaccination in girls as young as 9 years old. If we have that many 9-year-olds contracting HPV, we have bigger problems than cervical cancer to worry about.
You also fail to understand is that this vaccine offers very little protection against a disease for which we ALREADY have more than adequate preventive measures - Pap smears & pelvic exams. It also works in only 5 of 20 forms of HPV that cause cancer, and its long-term effectiveness in even those strains is questionable. And there have been numerous instances of severe adverse reactions in young women who were vaccinated with it. It was rushed to market for reasons of profit, not for reasons of public health.
vince
No one really knows haw effective this vaccine will be in preventing cancer. To introduce legislation turning kids into one big health experiment ……
pharmavet
For those who don’t think that finding a vaccine to prevent papilloma-induced cancer is a worthwhile venture, check out the attached photo of film critic Roger Ebert in this month’s Esquire magazine. See for yourself the devastating effects that salivary gland carcinoma and its complications have on his appearance and the resulting disfigurement from having his lower jaw removed. I used to work in Chicago and ran into Roger a couple of times in the Loop many years ago. I never would have believed that this photo was the same person.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/19/george.karl.throat.cancer/index.html?hpt=Sbin
Condor
Hello pharmavet — I could tell you so many wonderful stories, about Roger — my wife worked with him, on his show, for years. He is — and was — truly a prince, among (mostly) lesser men.
That said — I don’t see anyone saying that SEEKING the vaccine is NOT a worthwhile venture. I think the issue is whether kids can be forced to submit to it (that is one part of one of the bills we HAVEN’T discussed yet — one of the NY bills ALSO “mandates” vaccination) — and, whether kids should be allowed to undertake the real risk of being vaccinated, without any parental involvement.
Let me be clear: the vaccine has a place. But that place is NOT in secret, or mandated, innoculations of minors.
Namaste
Justice in MI
Right. The issue is whether this vaccine has met the various thresholds for mandating it. Not whether it should exist.
Rosemary Mathis
My daughter was disabled by Gardasil. If she had been given it without my consent, she could have died. I would not have known what caused her illness. Gardasil has cost my family thousands of dollars in medical bills. Who would pay those if the parent didn’t make the decision to get the vaccine? What about the children who receive the vaccine and have adverse effects and do not have insurance. A lot of families have lost their jobs and homes because of this vaccine. It makes you wonder what kind of elected officials we have in office today to try to pass something so irresponsible. To find out more about the girls who have been injured and maimed by this vaccine, go to http://truthaboutgardasil.org/. Investigate before you vaccinate. The life you save may be your Childs. Don’t let your child be ONE LESS!
http://WWW.TRUTHABOUTGARDASIL.ORG
Informed in NJ
Fenbeast - as you may know polio, measles and HPV are all vaccine preventable diseases. My point is that vaccines have an important place in healthcare when one weighs the risk-benfit ratio…and the overall safety of IPV and MMR and comparable to HPV4 (Gardasil). Admittedly, I am exceedingly frustrated with the ignorance of the anti-vaccine segment of society.
As for your perspective that “this vaccine offers very little protection against a disease for which we ALREADY have more than adequate preventive measures - Pap smears & pelvic exams”, you seem to confuse prevention with early detection. Pap Smears & pelvic exams will remain the gold standard for early detection, and should never be replaced by vaccination, however, incorporating vaccination as a method to reduce the VERY REAL burden of abnormal paps and subsequent procedures (have your ever had your cervix sliced up to remove abnormal growths?) makes sense for many.
Just to be clear, I do not support mandatory immunization requirements for HPV…but I do support broad education for patients/parents and providers to make an informed decision. For people who choose not to get vaccinated after understanding the benefits and risks, so be it. As for me, I got my daughters vaccinated, and will also vaccinate my son when he is age appropriate.
patrons99
There may be a larger public health issue here: such legislation would set a deplorable preventive health precedent. Where do you draw the line next?
Why not mandate innoculation of everyone against ALL STD’s as a public health measure?
Why not mandate innoculation of everyone against the possibility of high risk behaviors as a preventive health measure? e.g. cocaine, alcoholism, nicotine addiction.
How much cancer and autoimmune disease might actually be induced as a consequence of a mandated mass vaccination programs?
In light of the recent mumps outbreak in New York and New Jersey, how certain are we that the multi-vaccinated public are not acting as a potential reservoir for future outbreaks, possibly due to weakened natural immunity?
Vince is right on the mark, earlier in this thread, when he said “No one really knows how effective this vaccine will be in preventing cancer. To introduce legislation turning kids into one big health experiment ……”
Condor
Okay — sort of a tangent here — but (and to infuse just a little more spice to the discussion) last year, Merck spent about $600 million on ads to sell us on stuff — like Gardasil — for kids.
That’s about $1.64 million per day, every day of the year. That’s also about $1,100 a minute, for every minute of every hour, of each of those 365 days, last year. Wow.
AdWeek has a story out indicating that the $600 million per year New Merck ad budget is the subject of a multi-agency “bake-off” — to determine which firm(s) will win the ad work, post the Schering-Plough bust-up transaction’s closing.
Wow. That’s a lot — more than half a billion dollars, to be spent on pitching products doctors are supposed to want to prescribe independently, as live-saving medicines, on their own merit — without need of patients asking after them, and driving pull-through.
I do understand that some of this is for institutional ad spending — but really, $600 million? Wouldn’t R&D be a more fruitful vineyard for such expenditures (except maybe $10 million of it, allocated to institutional advertising)?
Namaste
Mark Richards
Corrupt idiots.
The collusion between the medication/medical establishment and government is so horrifically blatant here, it’s a wonder an Attorney General has yet to take an interest. If they don’t it may suggest they are on the take, too.
Here’s a thought. Since when are our bodies owned by a government? Well, if the all-knowing state wishes to force medication on us, they must assume ALL risk and FULL liability. So make those administering medication sign a statement that puts all the responsibility for outcome on them.
If the state wishes to force medication on our children, they can pitch in with all the other basics of parenting as they are stepping in to assume the role. Why put just a foot in the door when you might as well bring in the rest of the ass attached to it.
It may be politically sobering to realize that parenting is a costly affair that will require offsetting compensation. And there are the occasional sleepless nights tending to them. I’d suggest $20K per year for each child plus a live-in nanny.
Perhaps these ideas will shut them up but I doubt it. The cash flow is way too good and the (very) general public are way too easy.
patrons99
If Merck spent $600MM in advertising Gardasil, I wonder how they spent lobbying Congress to pass mandatory Gardasil legislation?
In many states, your kids can’t go to public school without certain vaccinations.
We should all be asking whether our state has a “philosophical exemption for vaccinations”. Attending public schools is very much a “check point” regarding vaccinations. A cogent medicolegal perspective is provided by Mayer Eisenstein, M.D., J.D., M.P.H. in a video presentation titled “Don’t Vaccinate before You Educate”.
http://homefirst.com/info-1/vaccine-choice.html/?___store=default
http://www.vaccineinfo.net/releases/parent_groups_support_texas_law.shtml
patrons99
Oops! Let me try that one again. If Merck spent $600MM in advertising Gardasil, I wonder how much they spent lobbying Congress to pass mandatory Gardasil legislation?
vince
Just some simple points. Current practice is preventative . Regular screening prevents cancer in the same way that colon exams prevent cancer lesions that are not cancer are removed before they may or may not become cancer this is not early detection of cancer but preventation. It is not certain that this vaccine will reduce cancer incidents. A fairly recent editorial in the NEJM notes http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/8/861 “…That is the good news. The bad news is that the overall effect of the vaccines on cervical cancer remains unknown. ..
And as noted here http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/gardasil-hpv-vaccine-faces-safety-questions/story?id=8356717
“…..”Although the number of serious adverse events is small and rare, they are real and cannot be overlooked or dismissed without disclosing the possibility to all other possible vaccine recipients,” said Dr. Diane Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at University of Missouri. “The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer.”
Risk benefit.
Justice in MI
Whoa, folks! I followed the links. It is certainly not the case that Merck spent $600 M per year selling Gardasil. Condor wrote, “stuff like Gardasil.” There is some ambiguity there as well. As I read the links, it was their advertising budget more generally.
Annelies
Cervarix-cancer is the the one and only cancer preventable.
My advise is: focus on the ingredients of these vaccine’s and decide as a parent: will you allow that poison in you’re girl’s or boy’s body?
Gardasil and Cervarix are NOT anti-cancer-vaccine’s.
There are 127 strains of the HPV-virus: both vaccine’s may protect against only against 16 and 18. That’s 127 minus 2=125 strains left. A lot of them are harmless, not even noticed, but around 26 strains are proven dangerous and may eventualy cause cancer.
It will take at least 15 years before we know whether or not these vaccine’s are working or not.
What are the changes? Infertillity (again see the ingredients),GBS,(already happened after vaccination), death (already happened after vaccination)many other illnesses and complaints(already happenned after vaccination)
Let’s be clear !!!
Both Gardasil and Cervarix are non-proven vaccine’s. I’ll say it again, cervarix-cancer is the one and only preventable cancer in the world.
Will you let you’re child be a guinee-pig for the farmaceutical-industry?
http://www.EU2009.Come2me.nl
MinorityView
Vaccines need to be discussed one at a time. The idea that “vaccines” are always good, always safe, always effective, always needed is simply nonsense.
Gardasil is a good example of this need. The long-term effects of the vaccine are unknown. The long-term efficacy of the vaccine are unknown. Most of the people in the pre-licensing study received either the vaccine or a “placebo” with the same amount of aluminum as the vaccine. Since aluminum is not a neutral substance, this was bad science and skewed the results.
The behind the scenes attempts by Merck to push through mandates in a number of states were blatant profit-seeking. Nothing to do with possible benefit to the public…that I can see.
Condor
Right, JiM –
The New Merck presently spends $600 million a year on media buys — for all drugs, and institutional promotions — but that total does not include digital media (any internet based ad-buys, or cell-phone spots, or digital “away from home” direct spots — like in the line at the grocery or drug store [or gas pumps], on those annoying flat-panel displays).
So — overall, $600 million is likely at least $50 million too low.
I am sorry if anyone misunderstood me to mean that amount was spent on Gardasil alone. It was not. I should have been clearer.
G’night all — Namaste
Paul
Here we go again. What a fascinating discussion!
I am observing that if you hate pharma and sound really really mad, then you can safely cherry-pick and even make up data to suit your preconceived opinions and you’ll be safe.
We would all be better served if we stayed critical of the industry, of government, of doctors, of everything that is organized, but kept a little bit of an open mind that allowed us to see the other side of the argument from time to time.
As they say, there are three sides to the story. All this anger is designed to shut off two of the three sides and that’s never going to productive.
By the way, members of my family have died of cervical cancer. The data that I have read (not Merck’s) is very convincing in linking HPV and cervical cancer. If only one life out there can be spared, then I am all for it.
Condor
Hello Paul — Please answer these two questions directly:
(1) “Would you MANDATE (on pain of non-admission to public schools) vaccination of children with Gardasil?”
(2) “Do you favor allowing minors to choose Gardasil vaccinations, without parental involvement, as a matter of legal right?”
That is what this is really all about. Let’s not stray too far afield here, okay? No one is angry at the vaccine, itself.
We may be angry that a couple of New York legislators think it wise to (1) let kids be vaccinated “in secret,” or (2) potentially denied an education, for failing to get the Gardasil shot. Moreover, we may be angry that Merck was allegedly buying access and influence (even indirectly) to get these two bills introduced in New York (and succeeded, with very similar efforts — in Florida and Texas, for a time — 2004 to late 2007).
So — what are your direct answers to posers (1) and (2)?
Namaste
vince
According to Judicial Watch deaths and serious life threatening reactions have been linked to HPV vaccine
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/jun/new-fda-records-obtained-judicial-watch-indicate-28-deaths-related-gardasil-2008
and still no one can say with assurance if this vaccine will prevent cancer deaths
patrons99
A recent article titled “Doctors Vaccinate for Profit” by Christina England on January 25, 2010, is a VERY interesting read:
http://vactruth.com/2010/01/25/doctors-vaccinate-for-profit/
Dr Paul For Profit Offit might do well to read this article.
http://www.whale.to/v/offit1.html
When medical historians look back at the times in which we live, who will be remembered? Dr Paul Offit, M.D.? Dr Andrew Moulden, M.D., Ph.D.? From where I stand, there is no doubt who will be remembered and why.
Paul
Condor,
You are 100% correct, those are the questions and that’s where the discussion should be.
My answer to both of your questions is “no”, don’t mandate and don’t allow minors without parental consent.
What troubles me is that the debate here has not been about substantive pros and cons but all about slamming and attacking.
I don’t believe the evidence is compelling enough to mandate, but feel its compelling enough for this product to be in the market and for plenty of education to happen. And I am not cynic enough to believe that pharma companies don’t have any role. I am my family have benefited from their products and am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt…but not a blank check either.
A balanced view
patrons99
We may have a consensus here. Mandates “NO” by about 9 to 1, last time I checked the vote count.
Prediction: this will not be the last time that such a draconian piece of legislation is up for enactment.
Instead of each individual state “calling the shots” (as it were) as to vaccination policy, why not push for a federal law which would ban such mandates? No citizen should have their personal health decisions dictated to them at the point of a needle.
Condor
Thanks Paul — those are fair answers.
Namaste
AFritz
The government should not mandate vaccinations but especially not without parental consent! The healthcare of the children should be decided by the parents, not the government. Parents need to be aware of any medications that their children are taking as they know their childs health history better than the government. Also, their beliefs may not agree with certain vaccines or medications and that would be encroaching on those freedoms as well.
On another note, my daughter did recieve 2 of the Gardasil vaccines as I was told it was “mandatory”. The first shot hurt, but instantly upon recieving the second shot her health deteriorated rapidly! The doctors acknowledge it was from the shot, but can not offer any cure or solutions to her symptoms. We have spent thousands of dollars on many different doctors in hopes of finding any kind of cure. After the second shot, that night and every night for the next 2 months she cried in agony. Would the state be there for these children then? Would the government pay the residual medical bills from these shots?
Madating shots is encroaching on our freedoms as Americans. Mandating shots on children without parental consent would be criminal! I hope and pray this does not pass.
patrons99
An article titled “Are mandatory vaccinations acts of violence against children?” by Mike Adams on February 20, 2010, is on point, so for those interested, here is the link:
http://www.naturalnews.com/z028215_vaccines_Merck.html
Informed in NJ
I’d bet Mike Adams has some interesting ideas about UFOs too….
patrons99
Hmmmm. Informed in NJ, do you have any disclosures that you might wish to make?
I don’t agree with everything that Mr Adams has to say, but he is quite often one of the first to meaningfully report on a story, in a way that does not just regurgitate mainstream medical and mainstream media thought. He provides a counterpoint argument.
Let the public decide. Just as an aside: I am not yet 100% anti-vaxer, though I have significant safety concerns. That is where I draw the line, public safety. I am 100% against government mandates for innoculation of any vaccine, any RFID chip implants, any nanotech implants. I voted “NO”. Let me guess, you voted “YES”. Too much cool aid, I guess.
Lisa Van Syckel
I will assume, that those who voted yes, dont have children.
patrons99
The Vaccine Information and Choice Network provides numerous links at its website which might of interest.
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/hpv.htm
Another microcosm on this topic, is provided by Prevnar Vaccine. These links (provided below) are Parts I and II of a Critique of Prevnar Vaccine from the Vaccine Information and Choice which is very well referenced.
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/prevnar.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/prevnar2.htm