Michele Bachmann And The HPV Vaccine Bounty
34 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // September 15th, 2011 // 12:15 pm
Now that Minnesota congresswoman and Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has contended the Merck Gardasil vaccine for combating HPV may have been responsible for mental retardation, she is encountering some pushback (watch her remarks here). This is not surprising, given that such comments feed into the ongoing controversy over vaccine safety, in general.
To date, there is no evidence that the Merck vaccine is connected with mental retardation. There have been a few dozen adverse event reports that mentioned death and are cited by vaccine critics as reason for regulators to rethink approval (read here), but no definitive link was established (here is the prescribing information listing side effects). And the vaccine has largely been embraced by the medical community, since HPV can lead to cervical cancer.
Bachmann raised the issue in hopes of making her rival candidate, Texas Governor Rick Perry, look like a Merck puppet. In early 2007, he bypassed the Texas legislature and signed an order making Texas the first state to require school-age girls to be vaccinated with Gardasil. And his former chief of staff, Mike Toomey, was one of three Merck lobbyists in Texas when he signed the order (see this). But instead of focusing only on money and politics, she ventured into side effects. Consequently, Bachmann has become enmeshed in a heated debate in which she is now being accused of stoking unfounded fears.
The uproar has prompted a pair of bioethicists to separately offer a bounty, of sorts, for proof that an HPV vaccine - GlaxoSmithKline sells a rival product called Cervarix - has caused some form of brain damage. Steven Miles, a professor of medicine, at the University of Minnesota is offering a $1,000 for anyone who can provide a properly authorized release of medical info that would be reviewed by a qualified neurologist. “There’s a right way to handle important info about risks and benefits of vaccines,” he tells us, “and that includes a proper analysis of the data.”
And Art Caplan, who heads the Bioethics Center at the University of Pennsylvania, is willing to donate $10,000 to a charity chosen by Bachmann if she can produce a similar case. Caplan first Tweeted his offer: “so here is the deal Bachmann has one week starting today to produce her ‘victim’. she pays ten thousand to a provaccine group if she cant. I pay 10K to a charity of her choice if she does. we agree on a panel of vaccine experts to verify that ‘retardation’ her words was caused by HPV vaccine” (here is the original Tweet).
But why? “I am outraged that Bachmann has tried to use vaccine safety issues for political gain. At least 4,000 women die in the US and hundreds of thousands worldwide from cervical cancer. The HPV vaccine could prevent many of those deaths and the surgeries necessary to treat thousands of other women. Putting womens lives at risk based on hearsay and ignorance is morally wrong,” Caplan writes us, adding that the money will come from his own pocket, not the university.
“Moreover, the notion that you can gain political advantage by impugning vaccines is not something that I am willing to accept. So my offer to make sure she is held to account AND that all GOP candidates answer the question ‘What will they do to insure that every American child and adult can get ACIP/CDC recommended vaccines including HPV?’ It is time to speak up for vaccines and public health and hold to account those willing to tolerate death and impairment without any evidence that vaccines are the cause,” writes Caplan, who once consulted on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for a Glaxo prescription drug clinical trial.
Whether such offers will sway anyone to alter their views is unclear. Certainly, these are interesting, if not entirely novel, ways to focus further attention on the topic. And Bachmann may find it difficult to ignore this now that vaccine safety has become enmeshed in a presidential campaign. But the issue has proven to be very resilient topic for debate and even if Bachmann - or anyone else - fails to produce a brain-damaged victim, some will likely continue to worry about safety.
Hat tip to the Medicine Show
original industry insider
For someone who once claimed that the Pope was the Antichrist, we’re sure giving this woman a lot of face time.
Kevin
If either one of these “wackos” get the GOP nomination, Obama should win in a landslide.
If this is what constitutes leadership, we should be very afraid.
Retired
Bachmann cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Her thoughtlessness and big mouth will surely harm many innocent people. When will her Party take a stand to silence her?
MC RPh
It will be interesting to see if this dimmest of bulbs takes up either offer.
basement PharmD
as a pharmacist, i am always angry and don’t really like anyone but even on my best days, she is embarrassing
Betsy
The politics (read that “garbage”) surrounding the vaccine issue may just enhance public awareness of the issue which ain’t half bad. I think.
“When will her Party take a stand to silence her,” Retired? And replace her with - - - who - - - Palin, maybe? Please let this election be finished.
Scott
Perhaps we should all try NOW to get the gas prices down to $2.00 a gallon so she can drive in to the sunset…
wiseguy
Gardasil clearly _is_ associated with “mental retardation.”
And it’s name is Michelle.
Justice in MI
Would be too bad if MB’s buffoonery gave crony capitalism a good name.
On the other hand, would help her own campaign.
Protonius
How Michelle Bachman handled her debate vis-a-vis Rick Perry is off the point. The point is the isse of whether or not, or to what degree, Gardasil (and related such vaccines) deliver safety, protection, or damage, to the vaccination-recipient.
I see that your article above, and the comments above, are either focused on lambasting Bachmann or on claiming that these vaccines are essentially harmless godsends.
Thus I, and perhaps others viewing this website, would be curious to know your views — with specifics addressing the issues — of the numerous and strong critiques that can be seen at:
AgeOfAutism (dot) Com (Look for their articles entitled “Michele Bachmann, Meet Dr. Diane Harper, Lead Researcher for Gardasil Vaccine” and “CNN & Media Jump to Defense of Merck Gardasil After Bachman Interview”),
or in the heavily-footnoted article titled “100 Complied Studies on Vaccine Dangers” at ActivistPost.com,
or in the extensive links to critical articles that come up if you search the term “Vaccine Dangers” at Mercola (dot) com,
or at the website VaccineDangers (dot) com (dot) au,
or in the list of medical-journal references, and associated article, under the heading “Medical Journal Articles on the Dangers of Vaccines” at NewWorldOrderNews (dot) com (slash) page2.php .
And these, as you must know, are “just the tip of the iceberg”, as there are also such notable activist informational resources as NVIC (dot) org (”National Vaccine Information Center”), VacTruth (dot) com (”Vaccine Truth”), and others, which present documentation and perspectives as to what they assert are, in their view and based on their research, the severely dangerous side of vaccines.
Obviously this is a huge issue. That Bachmann & Perry have catapulted the issue — albeit obliquely, cumbersomely, and fleetingly — to widespread public attention, at least provides us all with a springboard from which, potentially, a more responsible airing of the pros & cons of the vaccine-issues might now be discussed.
But will that be the outcome — or will the facts once again quickly become mired in and obfuscated by the murky fog of corporate and electoral politics?
But I would add these “bottom lines”, which I think may be the most critical ones of all:
(1) If vaccines (whether Gardasil or other) are allegedly so “safe”, why did our elected officials in Washington D.C. pass a law that EXEMPTS all vaccine-makers from being sued for any health-damages — even for deaths — caused by their vaccines? Why are we, the American people, barred from suing those vaccine-manufacturers in such cases, if those vaccines are so “safe”? We can sue others for just about anything else in which a damage is claimed — so why not in the case of alleged damages from vaccines?
(2) By what purported “legitimate, legal, authority” do any of our elected officials (or their appointees) — whether at the Federal, state, or local level — have the “right” to MANDATE (or to force others, such as “school officials”, to MANDATE) that we, or our children, MUST be shot with vaccinations EVEN IF WE OPPOSE those vaccinations? What does this say about our most ultimate of rights — the rights to the health and care of our own bodies, our own health, and, ultimately, our own lives?
Ed Silverman
Dear Protonius,
Thanks for your comment. But I’m not sure how you interpreted my item as lambasting Bachmann or claiming vaccines are harmless g-dsends, or not. I simply reported what is going on and noted that the controversy over safety will likely continue.
And if you were to do a search of this site, you will note that Pharmalot has run numerous pieces about various vaccine issues, including Gardasil, autism, conflicts of interest and court rulings concerning product liability. That is because these are issues of concern and debate, and I am attempting to provide coverage. My views are not the issue, though.
Hope this helps,
ed
Observer
I was actually finding myself a bit put off that Pharmalot was giving Bachman so much prominence. (as in - any press is good press, as long as they spell your name right.)
From the Protinus reply, I guess I shouldn’t have worried.
John
I’d go along with Observer. On occasion I’ve felt a little put off by Ed’s editorial slant, but then I remind myself that it is impossible to be truly neutral as a journalist; every decision on what is newsworthy is a political/value judgment. Besides, it’s his blog.
Balanced coverage does not require one to give equal coverage to the arguments of those who insist that Obama is a foreign agent, that the earth is flat, or that a kilogram is really just 500 grams. Unless of course the person making these statements is a leading presidential candidate, which is sadly more and more the case.
vince
Weather discussing Bachmans comments on medicine are worth much is doubtful. What is worth discussing is Rick Perry offering up every little girl in Texas … “Texas Governor Rick Perry, look like a Merck puppet. In early 2007, he bypassed the Texas legislature and signed an order making Texas the first state to require school-age girls to be vaccinated with Gardasil. And his former chief of staff, Mike Toomey, was one of three Merck lobbyists in Texas when he signed the order.”
More worthy of discussion is a bill right now that has passed in Ca. to allow this product to be given without parental consent to 12 year olds reported here http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/09/06/merck-funded-anti-parent-bill/ We shall see if Jerry Brown is another Rick Perry.
And despite Art Caplan’s opinion, the effect of this product on cervical cancer death rates is far from sure .Read lead researcher Diane Harper’s comments on Huntington Post: or for that matter read a very interesting analysis published in the very prestigious NEJM HPV Vaccination — More Answers, More Questions
George F. Sawaya, M.D., and Karen Smith-McCune, M.D., Ph.D.
N Engl J Med 2007; 356:1991-1993May 10, 2007
“…….On the other hand, a cautious approach may be warranted in light of important unanswered questions about overall vaccine effectiveness, duration of protection, and adverse effects that may emerge over time…..”
Salient point
vince-Equating mandatory HPV vaccinations with the parental consent law is fairly ridiculous
Pharmaguy
As adverse events become easier for patients to learn about, what are the implications for the pharmaceutical industry? Gardasil & Republicans is just one example. goo.gl/WsWHn
vince
” vince-Equating mandatory HPV vaccinations with the parental consent law is fairly ridiculous ” Really ….according to the Cal watchdog story cited …”The legislation is AB 499 by Assemblywoman Toni Atkins, D-San Diego. In the bill’s language, it “authorizes a minor, who is 12 years of age or older, to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease.” So a 12 year old under the advice of whoever has the ability to asses risk benefit and give meaningful consent and according to the same piece ” …….also evidently the law does not require parental notification. from the same story ….” So, your lovely little girl comes home from school, faints, shakes and becomes stiff. And you have no idea why.” Your right this may in fact be worse.
Salient point
A lot of parents don’t have the knowledge necessary to make an informed decision on this. They don’t know enough about HPV, for starters. And even the smarter, more informed ones don’t know anything about their daughter’s sex life. All of us are former teens & should know that, if an adolescent girl is sexually active, the last people in the neighborhood to find out about it are usually her parents.
This issue involves an alliance of people who feel the “experts”–socially progressive liberal elites on one side, large corporations on the other–have let them down. And given the state of the nation, it’s easy to understand why. It’s just a pity that female health will be sacrificed on the altar of political demagoguery.
original industry insider
Agree with Salient.
JaT
Maybe the people mandating should accept legal and financial responsibility if something goes badly. If you are not willing to take personal responsibility for all damages then you are not confident enough to manadate. It is horribly unfair to expect people to try to recover physically or financially from the imposition of mandated damages.
It bothers me that a mandate can be imposed and laws can be passed limiting if/how someone is able to sue for the damages that might result.
Bachman did not do her research - which is problematic. She also did not say Gardasil causes mental retardation, only that she was told it did. She had an important platform and should have done better. Still, good for her for outing the guy that would be king. I don’t want to be ruled over. It has never been my objective when checking a ballot.
John
You can’t have it both ways. If you repeat a story in order to use it as a political weapon, you’re asserting that it is true.
John Q
I always read the I am better than thou here, but I will never understand the childlike bashing. Believe it or not, most people are tire of politicians holding hands with pharma. Bachman’s argument was passion motivated, not political gain. Maybe she should have said death, not mental retardation. How much money would Art put up for those truthful words?
The governor made five thousand from Merck. But how much did his former chief of staff and Merck make from the state of Texas with the governor’s mandate? There are many issues that need to be address with this “cancer saving” drug. I am glad she pointed out to me this political pharma crony.
Concerned parent
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/09/michele-bachman-meet-dr-diane-harper-lead-researcher-for-gardasil-vaccine.html
Read what lead researcher has to say … she worked with both MRK and GSK. I suppose it has to get so bad before it can get better. That’s unfortunate.
John
“Bachman’s argument was passion motivated, not political gain”.
I’m sure she’s discussing strategies for how to improve the world with Santa and the Easter Bunny at this very moment.
vince
“A lot of parents don’t have the knowledge necessary to make an informed decision on this.” But 12 year olds do ? Here is part of an interview between lead researcher on this product Diane Harper MD. and Marcia Yemen http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-g-yerman/an-interview-with-dr-dian_b_405472.html
Doctor Harper comment “”Pap smears have never killed anyone. Pap smears are an effective screening tool to prevent cervical cancer. Pap smears alone prevent more cervical cancers than can the vaccines alone.
Gardasil is associated with serious adverse events, including death. If Gardasil is given to 11 year olds, and the vaccine does not last at least fifteen years, then there is no benefit - and only risk - for the young girl. Vaccinating will not reduce the population incidence of cervical cancer if the woman continues to get Pap screening throughout her life”
Ed Silverman
Hi Vince and others,
Just want to point out that some of the topics you have cited were also covered on Pharmalot. Journalists should never expect readers to ‘keep a clipbook,’ an old-fashioned term in this Internet era, but here are a couple of mentions of Diane Harper and the recent flap over the bill in California…
http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/02/new-york-bill-on-gardasil-vaccination-on-hold/
http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/03/gardasil_researchers_in_their/
http://www.pharmalot.com/2011/09/california-pols-gardasil-and-merck-financing/
http://www.pharmalot.com/2011/07/california-catholics-parental-rights-and-gardasil/
Regardless of one’s point of view, the Pharmalot archives can provide a useful resource for tracking issues from the past.
As to the reason I chose to post about Bachmann yet again - it was because the bioethicists offered a bounty, as I called it, which is newsworthy in the context of the debate over Gardasil and vaccine safety. I’m not sure how that is seen as a slant. There are various reasons people are discussing this, as you all know, and so I believe this topic was worth another bit of space on the site.
Hope this helps,
ed
John
There is a lot of appeal to emotion in the claims of “Gardisil associated deaths” but the numbers just don’t add up.
The Gardisil clinical development program included over 11,000 exposures to Garadisil. SAEs occurred at a similar rate in the Gardisil and placebo groups.
Approximately 100 suspected Gardisil-associated deaths have been reported to VAERS out of 16 million doses administered since 2006. Assuming that Gardasil was actually causative in all these cases, this comes to about 20 deaths per year, or about 1% the number caused by HPV. Historically, detailed investigations of deaths reported to VAERS have found that a causal relationship to the vaccine can only rarely be demonstrated, so even 1% is probably a substantial overestimate of the relative risk.
Pap smears are very effective if performed regularly and universally. If someone has a plan to make this happen, that would be great. Because with current screening rates there are 2000 deaths per year in the US and 250,000 worldwide. Comparing an implementable vaccination program to a theoretically achievable screening result that has never been obtained in practice poses a false choice.
Stories of girls who experienced adverse events attributed by their parents to Gardisil recieve a tremendous amount of press. Women who die of cervical cancer do so without attracting nearly as much notice. But they die nonetheless.
vince
John the VAERS system is a passive monitoring system many experts feel it underestimates events by at least a factor of ten by you own very conservative estimates that would be too many for a product that has not been shown to reduce cancer deaths at all and if as lead researcher Diane Harper noted “…..If Gardasil is given to 11 year olds, and the vaccine does not last at least fifteen years, then there is no benefit - and only risk - for the young girl.”
Thanks Ed for the job you do.
john
Vince, the commonly used estimate of ten percent reporting of SAEs is based on a study done on AERS several years ago. This is a reasonably expected result given the age of the average pharmaceutical product user When a 65 year old has an MI, it won’t necessarily be attributed to drug. Deaths among 11 year olds are a very different story. In fact a study of 100 consecutive suspected vaccine related deaths reported to VAERS failed to produce a single example for which a causative role for the vaccine could be demonstrated.
Furthermore, your estimate that VAERS underestimates Gardisil deaths by a factor of ten is ibcompatible with the randomized clinical trial results. The trials were powered to see an effect of this magnitude.
original industry insider
Don’t know about now, but AERS was worthless back in 1997. When the FDA mandated NDA’s for levothyroxine products in that year, we went to the AERS database as a starting point for a safety review of our product. The paucity of data that we found was pretty much consistent with the 10% rule compared to our own database. Also trying to navigate the labyrinth of the AERS coding system was virtually impossible.
john
I can’t speak to the AERS coding system OII, but there is an online search engine for VAERS, and death at least is broken out as a separate search term.
I made at least one, and possibly two misstatements above for which I apologize. the number of fatalities reported in VAERS for Garasil is in fact so low (about one per 160,000 doses administered) that even if the actual rate were ten fold higher as suggested by Vince,the trial was not powered to see it. also, the wording of the abstract regarding follow up of 100 VAERS deaths is ambiguous, so without seeing the full article I cannot say for sure that I interpreted the authors meaning correctly.
A separate article describing followup of VAERS adverse events is described below. Of 78 cases, 3 were rated as definitely causally related, 12 as probably related, 16 as possibly related, 18 as probably not related, 10 as unrelated, and 17 as lacking sufficient information to make a call. So roughly speaking, less than half.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21801776
We can argue for days about whether VAERS over- or under-estimates Garisil SAEs, but the only way the risk benefit ratio is going to come out unfavorable is if the risk is underestimated by a factor of about 100 or more, which is a much greater factor than one would expect based on AERS data studies.
Justice in MI
Been away for a while, so probably too late to add anything here.
As I noted on a recent, related thread, I think that the safety issue (as we now know it) is less the quesiton than Merck’s marketing.
As noted on that thread, the Rothman’s summed up part of it well in JAMA.
If Rick Perry and others–Dems and Reps–were “bought,” it would certainly not surprise me.
I won’t take the time here, but I happen to know of other ways the vaccine was promoted to college-age women that I suspect would shock many of you not already “marketing insiders.”
tedw
Bravo to Art Kaplan!
Protonius
Before I get underway, a preliminary note: I am not a medical professional, nor am I in politics, nor do I have any affiliation with anyone or any organization involved in this issue. But, as a concerned American, I do have a great interest in this subject and I do strive to be accurate in my research on the matter – and I hope that that comes across. So, with those clarifications in mind, please accept the following as my research-based opinion:
OK, now to the matter at hand:
Just to pick-up for a moment on the Perry claim — a disingenuous, disinformational, off-the-point, and misleading, one, in my opinion — that the alleged $5000 Merck contribution to his coffers would be too minuscule to “buy” him, I offer the following observations:
(a) Well, Governor Perry, how much WOULD “buy” you?
(b) Even if the alleged $5000 couldn’t “buy” you, why did Merck contribute that $5000 to your campaign anyway? What did they have in mind? And, in accepting that alleged $5000, what did YOU have in mind?
(c) Why, in your “Republican Debate” response to Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, on that $5000 issue, did you somehow NOT mention any of the alleged facts that, as chronicled the next day in The Texas Tribune (see http://www.texastribune.org and locate their article “On the Records: Perry Understated Merck Money”), you reportedly took in – if the paper’s account is correct – SUBSTANTIALLY MORE MONEY from Merck than a “mere” $5000; that in fact — or so says the Texas Tribune — the truth of the matter was more accurately as follows:
“According to a Tribune analysis of campaign finance data received from the Texas Ethics Commission, Perry underestimated. In the past 10 years, he has received $29,500 from Merck PAC, the political action committee for Merck employees, nearly six times more than Perry acknowledged on stage.
“During the 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Merck PAC contributed $6,000 to Texans for Rick Perry. During the 2006 campaign — just before Perry issued his Gardasil order — Perry received another $16,000. And in the most recent campaign, Perry’s PAC got $7,500.”
And then, to “add icing to the cake”, there’s this tidbit from the NationalReview.com as reported in a September 14, 2011, article titled “Perry’s Ties to Merck”:
“According to a new report by Texans for Public Justice, the pharmaceutical giant [Merck] also has kicked in $377,000 to the Republican Governor’s Association since 2006, the year Perry became involved as a driving force behind the organization’s fundraising. The RGA has given Perry $4 million, more than any other source of funds during his decade in office, according to TPJ.”
Maybe Michelle Bachmann failed to catch you on these specifics – but, if those Tribune numbers are correct, and if the NationalReview.com report is correct, WE won’t.
But, again, while these allegations – of which at least the $5000 component has now been publicly corroborated by Perry in that “Republican Debate” – justifiably (in my view) suggest a questionable relationship between a major vaccine-manufacturer (Merck) and the decision by a State Governor (Perry) to UNILATERALLY MANDATE the vaccination of young girls, the two overridingly important issues that emerge from this situation, in my view, are as follows:
(1) Should this Governor, or ANY elected or appointed official, EVER have the authority to MANDATE that We, the People – and that includes all of use, including our children as well as our loved ones, our friends, and ourselves – be injected with ANY vaccine (or be forced to take ANY form of medication)? And should that official EVER have the authority to make such a mandate PARTICULARLY IF that vaccine or medication has ANY record of being UNSAFE or even DANGEROUS to our health?
(2) How “safe” (and how “effective” in protecting or improving a person’s health) is Gardasil (or any other such vaccine)? What does the research – and the actual, real-world-experience of its use – REALLY tell us? And shouldn’t it be UP TO US, as free individuals, to have the right to be in charge of our OWN health-fate, and to make our OWN choices as to whether or not we wish to be vaccinated with any of these vaccines?
Gardasil and similar such vaccines, at least as per various news accounts (viewable to all via the net) that I have seen, are alleged to have caused significant numbers of deaths or debilitations in many vaccination-recipients, both here in the US and abroad. The manufacturers of those vaccines tend to dispute such allegations, of course. Where does the truth lie? Even within the context that says that maybe the vaccine is a danger and that maybe it is no danger at all, why not opt for the safest route until an indisputably clear and reliable answer can be found?
Many critics also claim that these vaccines have NOT, in fact, been adequately tested for safety, and that by the vaccines’ very nature – being comprised, in part, of a brew of allegedly brain-and-health-toxic components – these vaccines inherently pose a significant danger to the recipient, either in the near-term or over an extended period of time.
For example, according to news reports in just the past week, it was reportedly discovered, by a laboratory that was testing several samples of Gardasil for SANE Vax Inc., that these batches of Gardasil, from a number of countries, contain – and would deliver into a recipient – certain genetically-modified strains of Recombinant DNA of LIVE HPV – strains which, reportedly, SHOULD NOT BE IN THE VACCINE and which could remain viable – and a health-threat – in the recipient for years.
According to these reports, the lab pathologist, Dr. Sin Hang Lee, who lead this research for SANE Vax, stated the following:
““Natural HPV DNA does not remain in the bloodstream for very long. However, the HPV DNA in Gardasil is not ‘natural’ DNA. It is a recombinant HPV DNA (rDNA) — genetically engineered — to be inserted into yeast cells for VLP (virus-like-particle) protein production. rDNA is known to behave differently from natural DNA. It may enter a human cell, especially in an inflammatory lesion caused by the effects of the aluminum adjuvant, via poorly understood mechanisms. Once a segment of recombinant DNA is inserted into a human cell, the consequences are hard to predict. It may be in the cell temporarily or stay there forever, with or without causing a mutation. Now the host cell contains human DNA as well as genetically engineered viral DNA.”
If these findings are accurate, then this, to me, is frightening stuff.
(Some sources of this information: http://vigilantcitizen.com/vcboards/viewtopic.php?p=97489&sid=b9b4b5fd9f4441012d21d8c6b9af2f7a ; InfiniteUnknown.Net article “GMO Gardasil DNA Contamination: EMA Steps Up To The Plate, FDA Drops The Ball” at http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2011/09/20/gmo-gardasil-dna-contamination-ema-steps-up-to-the-plate-fda-drops-the-ball/ ; Sane VAX article “SANE Vax, Inc. Reports Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA Contamination in Gardasil To FDA: Requests Public Safety Investigation” at http://sanevax.org/sane-vax-inc-reports-human-papillomavirus-hpv-dna-contamination-in-gardasil-to-fda-requests-public-safety-investigation/ ).
But at the very least, shouldn’t this SANE Vax finding be sufficient reason to indicate a serious need for prompt and close scrutiny of this vaccine – and perhaps for a “mandate” that this, and other similarly made vaccines, be taken off the market, pending further analysis, INSTEAD of a political call – as happened in Texas under Perry and as is now happening in California – for MANDATING that this (or similar) vaccine be legislatively “persuaded” on – or forced on – the people (children included) of that (or any other) state?
There is currently a bill in the California state legislature that would permit ,encourage, and promote – and, if memory serves, perhaps require – that schools in the state vaccinate girls as young as 12 years old WITHOUT EVEN ASKING FOR parental permission; the bill, if passed, WOULD AUTHORIZE THE 12-YEAR-OLDS to give permission – no parent involvement required!
To which I also ask: what kind of a COUNTRY are we becoming, that such a bill would even be CONSIDERED?
But, back to the medical side of the matter:
Turning to the issue of VAERS:
As some critics also allege, the VAERS (vaccine adverse events reporting system) is, they say, seriously and deeply flawed. Consequently, they say, relying on VAERS for accurate data would be a serious informational error – one that itself might make it APPEAR that a vaccine is almost completely, or highly, safe, even though the ACTUAL numbers would paint quite a different – and unsettling – picture.
Now, please note that I am only conveying what I, as a non-medical person, have gleaned from my research; I am not an expert on VAERS. But I can suggest that a simple Google-search on the terms “VAERS flaws”, upon which I relied for this VAERS research, will turn up some very useful sources on this issue – such as, for example, the Examiner.Com article “Why Gardasil is still on the market: Part 1 VAERS reporting limitations“ (at http://www.examiner.com/vaccines-in-national/why-gardasil-is-still-on-the-market-part-1-vaers-reporting-limitations), or the extensive ThinkTwice.com page titled “http://www.thinktwice.com/hepb.htm “ (at http://www.thinktwice.com/hepb.htm).
If these sources, or if I, have mis-stated the VAERS case – or the other vaccine-issues – I am open to learning the other side of the story.
But for the moment, my research-based bottom-line tells me this: there are serious questions, about vaccines, and about the idea of a government official or government agency MANDATING that We, The People, be vaccinated with these substances, that cry out for the bright spotlight of intense public scrutiny – and that our individual rights in ALL these instances must be protected as PARAMOUNT. If we give away, or lose, those rights, then, in my opinion, we may well find ourselves in a terrible struggle for our political – and our very personal – survival.