In The News....

DOES YOUR DAUGHTER NEED THE HPV VACCINE?
  
Health Cda Link

  
DOES YOUR DAUGHTER NEED THE HPV VACCINE?
  Dr. Christiane Northrup, M.D.
  
  Earlier this summer (2006), Merck pharmaceutical received FDA approval to
  market the first Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil, a genetically
  engineered vaccine that helps prevents four types of HPV viruses, including
  type 16 infection, one of the most common HPV type viruses implicated in
  cervical cancer. Other HPV vaccines are in the pipeline. With the approval
  of Gardasil, HPV and its link to cervical cancer was suddenly front page
  news around the world with a barrage of media ads marketing the vaccine
  heavily for women. The CDC quickly recommended vaccinating all women age
  9-26 and even beyond. Overnight women with virtually no risk for cervical
  cancer (the vast majority) were suddenly made to feel vulnerable, thus
  creating a huge market for the vaccine.
  
  Let me put the issue into much needed perspective. The risk of getting
  cervical cancer from HPV has been greatly overstated! Fifty to seventy-five
  percent of all people are exposed to HPV in their lifetimes. The virus
  clears spontaneously by the immune system within two years in over ninety
  percent of all women, posing no risk at all.[1-4] Though the vaccine
  undoubtedly has some value for some women, it is unnecessary, and may even
  be dangerous, to administer it to millions of girls and women in the North America.  
  The Numbers Speak for Themselves
  
  There are an average of 9,710 new diagnoses of cervical cancer and 3,700
  deaths from the disease in the North America each year, according to the
  CDC. Of these new cases, 70 percent are related to HPV. That's about 6,797
  cases per year. Over fourteen types of HPV are associated with cervical
  cancer. Gardasil protects against the HPV strains that are implicated in
  about 90 percent of cervical cancers, not 100 percent. That further reduces
  the number of cases of cervical cancer that might potentially be prevented
  with a vaccine to just under 6,200. And the vast majority of these cases
  could be prevented with improved nutrition, safe sex, and the kind of
  screening and early treatment that is already in place!
  
  The HPV vaccine media blitz has overshadowed the fact that the incidence of
  cervical cancer has already decreased dramatically through routine cervical
  screening with pap smears and HPV (DNA) testing. For example, the National
  Health Service of England reports that the incidence of invasive cervical
  cancer fell by 42 percent between 1988 and 1997 in the U.K because of
  cervical cancer screening programs. The NHS reports that in 2000, there were
  2,424 new cases of invasive cervical cancer, most of which are not fatal.
  
  Abnormal Paps Are Common
  
  Surveys suggest that about four percent of all pap smears will show an
  abnormality associated with HPV infection, which is known as atypical
  squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS).[5] In the vast
  majority, further evaluation will fail to show any abnormality, and no
  further action is required. (This occurrence of "false positives" with Pap
  smears led to the development of the ThinPrep® Pap Test, which is more
  reliable but still not 100 percent accurate.) But five to ten percent of
  patients initially diagnosed with ASCUS actually have more worrisome
  cellular changes, known as high-grade, which must be followed closely and
  treated in some women. [6, 7]
  
  The Department of Pathology, at the University of Alabama in Birmingham
  reviewed 39,661 pap and HPV tests from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2003.
  Of these, 12 percent were diagnosed with ASCUS. High risk HPV (DNA) was
  detected in only 732 cases! Out of all of these, only six had persistent
  abnormal pap smears requiring repeat follow-up; five had evidence of
  cellular abnormalities; and four had low-grade cervical dysplasia or
  cellular changes associated with HPV. And only one had high-grade dysplasia
  (a more worrisome type of cellular change that is associated with a higher
  risk of actual cancer down the line if not treated).
  
  The remaining patients all had negative pap smears. In other words, only a
  very small percentage of those with high risk HPV were found to have
  cervical abnormalities-which are not invasive cervical cancer and are
  treatable! [8]
  
  Vaccines Aren't Entirely Safe
  
  According to the National Vaccine Information Centers (www.909shot.com),
  "The FDA allowed Merck to use a potentially reactive aluminum containing
  placebo as a control for most trial participants, rather than a
  non-reactive saline solution placebo."[9]
  
  Using a reactive placebo can artificially increase the appearance of safety
  of an experimental drug or vaccine in a clinical trial. Gardasil contains
  225 mcg of aluminum and, although aluminum adjuvants have been used in
  vaccines for decades, they were never tested for safety in clinical trials.
  Merck and the FDA did not disclose how much aluminum was in the placebo
  6.[10]
  
  Whenever you vaccinate an individual, you're intervening with their
  immunity. And that's exactly what happened with Gardasil in the clinical
  trials. According to the Merck product insert, there was one case of
  juvenile arthritis, two cases of rheumatoid arthritis, five cases of
  arthritis, and one case of reactive arthritis out of 11,813 Gardasil
  recipients. There was also one case of lupus and two cases of arthritis out
  of the 9,701 patients who received the aluminum containing placebo.
  Investigators dismissed the total of 102 Gardasil and placebo-associated
  serious adverse events, including 17 deaths, that occurred during the
  clinical trials, claiming that they were unrelated. (It's also not clear
  how many girls received the Hepatitis B vaccine in addition to Gardasil.
  Giving a couple vaccines at the same time can increase the risk of adverse
  outcomes.)
  
  Regardless, there were 102 adverse events in 21,514 women and children who
  received the vaccine or the aluminum containing placebo. This translates to
  474 adverse events per 1 million people getting vaccinated. Conservatively
  speaking, that's 14,220 (474 x 30 million) adverse events expected if you
  were to give the vaccine as recommended to about 30 million women and
  girls-the approximate number of people in the target market for Gardasil.
  Is it worth it to make 14,220 girls and women sick in order to possibly
  prevent 6,200 cases of HPV-related cervical cancer?
  
  The Bottom Line About HPV Vaccines
  
  Remember, it is not HPV per se that causes the cancer. It's the immune
  system's inability to fight the virus that is the issue. The rapid,
  widespread, and unquestioning acceptance of the HPV vaccine as "the answer"
  to cervical cancer prevention speaks volumes about our cultural
  misunderstanding of the root causes of health and disease. On his deathbed,
  Louis Pasteur, the famous pioneer in the discovery of the role of germs in
  disease, said that Antoine Beauchamp, his rival, was correct. It was not
  the germ itself that caused disease, it was the environment, which
  Beauchamp had claimed all along.
  
  While it is certainly laudable to want to decrease the incidence of
  invasive cervical cancer even further, and while this vaccine may be useful
  for some high-risk women and girls, it is far too early to subject millions
  to yet another vaccine. Especially when there's so much we can do to shore
  up an individual's immunity safely and effectively.
  Gardasil definitely isn't cost free-it's a staggering $360 per person. It's
  administered in three shots, which must be given over six months. At this
  time, it doesn't even guarantee immunity for longer than five years.
  
  Gardasil will not eliminate the need for routine pap smears. And whether or
  not a woman opts for the vaccine, she should still protect herself from
  getting a sexually transmitted disease by using condoms, abstaining from
  intercourse, being discerning about her sexual partners, and also making
  sure her diet is rich in antioxidant nutrients that help her resist
  infections of all kinds.
  
  Rather than relying solely on mass immunization programs that treat
  everyone as though they are at equal risk (which clearly isn't the case),
  and which also promote the myth of universal vulnerability, it is far more
  prudent to optimize a woman's nutrition and lifestyle so that her immune
  system is functioning optimally in the first place. This is especially true
  if she is one of the few who don't clear HPV rapidly and spontaneously.
  
  Moreover, if a woman has a persistent HPV infection, she has a problem with
  her immune system. The bottom line is: The depression of her immune system
  is what's putting her at increased risk for cervical cancer. So while a
  vaccine might prevent cancer in one location, disease will manifest in
  another area if the root cause isn't addressed. This is done by looking at
  her entire life-body, mind, and spirit.
  
  Money Talks
  
  So who really benefits by vaccinating approximately 30 million girls and
  women with a vaccine that costs about $360? Industry analysts point out
  that mandating the HPV vaccine for virtually all girls and women will make
  Gardasil the blockbuster that Merck needs to boost profits since it was
  forced to withdraw its arthritis drug Vioxx. I certainly agree. It is no
  secret that medical schools, researchers, the CDC, and even the FDA itself
  are increasingly controlled by drug company profits. So is the mainstream
  media. To learn the facts about this, I recommend the documentary film
  Money Talks: Profits before Patient Safety.
  
  REFERENCES
  
  1. Ho, G.Y., Bierman R., Beardsley, L., et. al., 1998. Natural history of
  cervicovaginal papillomavirus infection in young women, N Engl J Med,
  338:423-428.
  2. Woodman, C.B., Collins, S., Winter, H., et. al., 2001. Natural history
  of cervical human papillomavirus infection in young women: a longitudinal
  cohort study, Lancet, 357:1831-1836.
  3. Nasiell, K., Nasiell, M., Vaclavinkova, V., 1983. Behavior of moderate
  cervical dysplasia during long-term follow-up, Obstet Gynecol, 61:609-614.
  4. Richart, R.M., Barron, B.A., 1969. A follow-up study of patients with
  cervical dysplasia, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 105:386-393.
  5. Davey, D.D., et. al., 2004. Implementation and reporting rates: 2003
  practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists
  Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol
  Lab Med., 128:1224-1229.
  6. Manos, M.M., et. al., 1999. Identifying women with cervical neoplasia:
  using human papillomavirus DNA testing for equivocal Papanicolaou results,
  JAMA, 281:1605-1610.
  7. ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS) Group. 2003. Results of a randomized
  trial on the management of cytology interpretations of atypical squamous
  cells of undetermined significance. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 188:1383-1392.
  8. Adams, A., et. al., 2006. Negative colposcopic biopsy after positive
  Human Papillomavirus DNA testing: false positive HPV results or
  false-negative histologic findings, Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;125(3):413-418.
  9. Merck & Co., Inc. 2006. Gardasil [Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Types
  6,11,16,18 Recombinant Vaccine] product insert. Table 6.
  10. Food and Drug Administration. May 18, 2006. FDA Background Document for
  Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee: Gardasil HPV
  Quadrivalent Vaccine