Health News Feb. 13th, 2007
Drug Ketek, linked to liver damage, should be used only for pneumonia
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17115795/
WASHINGTON - The government on Monday restricted use of an antibiotic linked to rare reports of severe liver problems, including several deaths, saying the drug now should be used only to treat pneumonia but not less serious bacterial infections like bronchitis and sinusitis.
The Food and Drug Administration said the antibiotic, Ketek, would remain on the market but that its label will bear a new, stern warning. The agency said it and manufacturer Sanofi-Aventis SA also created a guide for patients outlining the drug’s risks and its safe use.
The Real Reasons Why Raw Milk is Becoming More Popular
By Dr. Joseph Mercola with Rachael Droege
I was happy to see a published story that documents how some families have become aware of the health benefits of raw milk and are switching to it, despite the warnings of public health officials who are ignorant about the serious damage that pasteurization does to the quality of the milk.
Less than 1 percent of the milk consumed in America is raw, which is most unfortunate as raw milk is a highly health-promoting food. Public health officials warn that raw milk poses the risk of transmitting bacteria such as listeria, E. coli and salmonella, but pasteurizing the milk kills these bacteria while extending the milk's shelf life, which also happens to be more profitable for the dairy industry.
While it is certainly possible to become sick from drinking contaminated raw milk, it is also possible to become sick from almost any food source. But it seems that raw milk has been unfairly singled out as a risk, when only a very small risk exists. This excerpt from the Weston A. Price Foundation Web site further states my point:
Except for a brief hiatus in 1990, raw milk has always been for sale commercially in California, usually in health food stores, although I can remember a period when it was even sold in grocery stores. Millions of people consumed commercial raw milk during that period and although the health department kept an eagle eye open for any possible evidence of harm, not a single incidence was reported. During the same period, there were many instances of contamination in pasteurized milk, some of which resulted in death.
Fortunately, even though the sale of raw milk is legal only in a limited number of states, more and more people are realizing its benefits and finding their own legal sources. Here are a few of the major reasons why more people are choosing to drink their milk raw.
It Has More Nutrients
Raw milk is an outstanding source of nutrients including beneficial bacteria such as lactobacillus acidolphilus, vitamins and enzmes, and it is, in my estimation, the finest source of calcium available.
The pasteurization process, which entails heating the milk to a temperature of 145 degrees to 150 degrees F and keeping it there for at least half an hour and then reducing the temperature to not more than 55 degrees F, completely changes the structure of the milk proteins (denaturization) into something far less than healthy. While the process certainly destroys germs and bad bacteria, it also destroys the milk's beneficial bacteria along with many of its nutritious components.
Pasteurizing milk destroys enzymes, diminishes vitamin, denatures fragile milk proteins, destroys vitamin B12, and vitamin B6, kills beneficial bacteria and promotes pathogens. You may notice that raw milk left out will sour naturally but pasteurized milk will rot. This is because the beneficial bacteria in the raw milk helps to keep putrefactive bacteria under control. Pasteurized milk, however, does not have any of the beneficial bacteria left to keep it from rotting.
Then, of course there is the issue of the antibiotics, pesticides and growth hormones and the fact that nearly all commercial dairy cows are raised on grains, not grass, like they were designed to. This will change the composition of the fats in the milk, especially the CLA content.
People Feel the Health Benefits
Pasteurized cow's milk is the number one allergic food in this country. It has been associated with a number of symptoms and illnesses including:
Diarrhea
Cramps
Bloating
Gas
Gastrointestinal bleeding
Iron-deficiency anemia
Skin rashes
Allergies
Colic in infants
Osteoporosis
Increased tooth decay
Arthritis
Increased tooth decay
Growth problems in children
Heart disease
Cancer
Atherosclerosis
Acne
Recurrent ear infections in children
Type 1 diabetes
Rheumatoid arthritis
Infertility
Leukemia
Autism
Raw milk, on the other hand, is not associated with any of these problems, and even people who have been allergic to pasteurized milk for many years can typically tolerate and even thrive on raw milk.
Raw milk is truly one of the most profoundly healthy foods you can consume, and you'll feel the difference once you start to drink it.
It Tastes Better
As with any food, fresher is always better and this applies to milk as well. Fresh raw milk is creamier and better tasting than pasteurized milk that has a shelf-life of several weeks. Ultra-high-temperature milk can be stored without refrigeration for about six months.
Even people who have never liked the taste of milk find that raw milk has a soothing, pleasant taste that they can't resist.
Obtaining raw milk can be a challenge but it is well worth the effort to seek out. You can go to www.realmilk.com for some help, but if you are unable to find any through that site I would suggest contacting a dairy farmer and asking him or her to buy the raw milk directly.
It is technically illegal to sell in many states but many people tell them they are using the milk for their pets. Alternatively, another strategy that has stood nearly every legal test is the cow-share program. One merely purchases a small ownership of a cow for $10 or $20 and then the farmer is able to sell you the milk from the cow as you are part owner and it is perfectly legal to drink raw milk from your own cow.
If any of the information in this article surprises you, I encourage you to look through the links below for further information.
Related Articles:
Why You Don't Want to Drink Pasteurized Milk
More Reasons Why You Don't Want to Drink Pasteurized Milk
New Technology Expands Shelf Life of Certain Dairy Products
Does Milk Really Look Good On You? Don't Drink It!
Don't Drink Your Milk!
More Reasons To Avoid Milk
Proposed HPV Vaccine Mandates Draws Fire
From the National Vaccine Information Center
"Even ignoring the limited incidence of cervical cancer, we are troubled by the newness of the vaccine, the small sample of preteen girls studied and the disturbingly short guarantee of immunity. The vaccine has been on the market for only eight months, not nearly enough time to discover the range of adverse effects before administering it to tens of thousands of girls in a statewide mandate. More than 25,000 patients were part of a clinical trial of Gardasil, but only 1,184 of them were preteen girls. “That’s a thin base of testing upon which to make a vaccine mandatory,” Barbara Loe Fisher, co- founder of the National Vaccine Information Center, said in a Feb. 7 Wall Street Journal article. The center lobbies for safer vaccines." - Editorial, Rockford Register Star, Illinois"We're really not lining one company's pockets with this," said Dr. Colleen Kraft, president of the Virginia chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which supports the mandate....."We should proceed down this road very carefully," said Del. Robert Marshall, R-Prince William. "The company that is producing this is the same company that produced Vioxx." - Kimball Payne, Hampton Roads Daily Press "Even some watchdog groups like the Center for Public Policy Priorities believe Perry's move is unconstitutional. "What can't happen is for the governor to just wake up one morning and say, 'we're going to have a new law in the state of Texas. I just wrote it. You have to have a whole rule-making proceeding where the public gets notice, the public gets an opportunity to come and comment, the executive commissioner has to consider their comments, and then develop a rule based on those comments," CPPP Executive Director Scott McCown said. Twenty-six senators from both parties even signed a letter asking Perry to withdraw the order. Now it's up to the governor to decide if the controversy will continue." - News 8, Austin, Texas
It’s premature to mandate cancer vaccine Editorial Rockford Register Star, IL Published: February 12, 2007http://www.rrstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070212/OPINION03/102120005 One argument against mandating a cervical cancer vaccine for preteen girls revolves around morality: Will the vaccine encourage girls to have sex?That isn’t our concern. We don’t believe the vaccine should be mandatory for a host of reasons having nothing to do with whether the vaccine would condone early sex and spawn a generation of promiscuous 11- and 12-year-olds. That’s a bogus issue.Set aside cervical cancer and there are still plenty of frightening things for girls about having sex — getting AIDS, getting pregnant, getting a sexually transmitted disease.Illinois Senate President Emil Jones has introduced a bill that would mandate all 11- and 12- year-old girls to receive a vaccination against the human papillomavirus (HPV) that causes cervical cancer. Beginning Aug. 1, 2009, girls would not be allowed to enter any grade of a public, private, or parochial school unless they present to the school proof of having received the vaccine. There is an opt- out clause if parents object.Jones is not a pioneer in the mandate effort; already, some 20 states are considering or have passed similar measures. We believe they are being hasty, and they may be feeling the pressure of intense lobbying by Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, the only vaccine available on the market.We encourage them to slow down and look at the facts. Courage to face down misguided moralists to protect women’s health is one thing; ignoring troubling medical questions is another.Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who signed an executive order Feb. 2 mandating the vaccine, wrote on the editorial page of USA TODAY: “Some are focused on the cause of this cancer, but I remain focused on the cure. And if I err, I will always err on the side of protecting life ...“If we could stop lung cancer, would some shy away claiming it might encourage tobacco use? This is a rare opportunity to act, and as a pro-life governor, I will always take the side of protecting life.”But how many lives? How much protection? And at what cost?According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 12,085 women in the United States were diagnosed with cervical cancer in 2002. The same year, 3,952 women died of the disease. The incidence of cervical cancer has gone down dramatically in the last four decades because of widespread use of the Pap test to detect problems.In contrast, one of the most common cancers to attack women — breast cancer — claims 41,619 women’s lives a year and is responsible for 181,646 annual diagnoses.Even ignoring the limited incidence of cervical cancer, we are troubled by the newness of the vaccine, the small sample of preteen girls studied and the disturbingly short guarantee of immunity.The vaccine has been on the market for only eight months, not nearly enough time to discover the range of adverse effects before administering it to tens of thousands of girls in a statewide mandate.More than 25,000 patients were part of a clinical trial of Gardasil, but only 1,184 of them were preteen girls. “That’s a thin base of testing upon which to make a vaccine mandatory,” Barbara Loe Fisher, co- founder of the National Vaccine Information Center, said in a Feb. 7 Wall Street Journal article. The center lobbies for safer vaccines.The vaccine guarantees immunity, but only for five years and only against HPV strains that cause 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. Worst-case scenario, a child vaccinated at 12 might lose her immunity at just the time she needs it: at 17, when the chances of her having sex increase.All of these questions should be considered against the backdrop of Merck’s financial position. The Wall Street Journal says mandatory vaccination would be an “automatic blockbuster” for the pharmaceutical company, at a time when its patents on other bestselling drugs are expiring.The vaccine might very well be the right choice for many girls, an appropriate balance of risk and benefit. That only can be determined after consultation with your doctor and in the context of your family.
Vaccine maker fills war chests Campaign coffers get a boost from Merck, whose anti- cancer shot is being weighed by legislators as a requirement for girls Hampton Roads Daily PressFebruary 11, 2007BY KIMBALL PAYNEhttp://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-52313sy0feb11,0,4664322.story?coll=dp-news-local-final RICHMOND -- Virginia is poised to require schoolgirls be given a controversial new cancer-blocking vaccination produced solely by a drug company generous with campaign cash for key state lawmakers.Merck & Co. has given nearly $197,000 in contributions to dozens of Virginia politicians and campaign committees since 1997 and is touting the vaccine in a national push.Among those who've received Merck money over the past decade are two of the General Assembly's biggest proponents of the vaccines this session.The pharmaceutical giant has given $10,000 to Del. Phil Hamilton, R-Newport News, and $4,100 to Sen. Janet Howell, D-Fairfax, according to the Virginia Public Access Project, a nonprofit campaign finance watchdog.Hamilton and Howell pushed vaccination mandates through the state Senate and House of Delegates. Final approval on the legislation is expected in the next few weeks. The bills would require shots for all girls entering sixth grade in the 2009 school year. Hamilton said that what's at issue is fighting cancer, not political fundraising."It's not about the manufacturer," said Hamilton, who chairs the House Health, Welfare and Institutions Committee. "It's about one thing and one thing only - anti-cancer. When you're leading the pack, people are going to criticize you."Howell could not be reached for comment.In June, the Food and Drug Administration signed off on the vaccine called Gardasil that blocks strains of the human papillomavirus, a sexually transmitted disease which infects 80 percent of women by the time they turn 50 years old, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Several strains of the virus can lead to cervical cancer, which kills about 3,700 women a year in the United States.Texas became the first state to require schoolgirls get the vaccine. Republican Gov. Rick Perry bypassed the legislature and signed an executive order Feb. 2 requiring shots for sixth-grade girls in September 2008.More than a dozen states are considering adding the vaccine to the list of required immunizations already given to schoolgirls.A competing pharmaceutical company - GlaxoSmithKline Inc. - is pushing for federal approval for a nearly identical vaccine.Either set of shots would fulfill the proposed requirement in Virginia."We're really not lining one company's pockets with this," said Dr. Colleen Kraft, president of the Virginia chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which supports the mandate.During a recent debate, one staunch House conservative openly questioned Merck's track record."We should proceed down this road very carefully," said Del. Robert Marshall, R-Prince William. "The company that is producing this is the same company that produced Vioxx."Merck had to pull Vioxx - a profitable painkiller and anti-inflammatory - from the market in 2004, after further research found it increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes.That's why vaccine side effects are tracked in a national database, Kraft said, noting that in 1999 the side effects directory identified problems with a vaccine against rotavirus that was immediately pulled from the market.Hamilton's bill would give schools 30 months to prepare for the program and allow health care professionals to further track research about the injections.The series of shots would cost roughly $360."It's not like were rushing into something that's going to be mandated tomorrow," Hamilton said.Parents can seek medical or religious exemptions from the vaccinations.The House version allows parents who review information about the virus to decline injections. The Senate passed the vaccine mandate without the additional exemption, so the two chambers will have to negotiate a compromise.Expanding the list of required injections and broadening exemptions could erode parents' confidence in all vaccines, said Dr. Louis Cooper of the National Network of Immunization Information, which does not weigh in on policy debates."Mandating a vaccine is a big step," Cooper said. "It runs the risk of pouring gasoline on the whole mandate issue."Reduced confidence in vaccinations, he said, could undermine the required vaccines that stamp out contagious diseases such as measles and mumps that "could spread through a school like wildfire."
Controversy heats up over HPV executive order News 8 Austin, TXFebruary 8, 2007 By Bob Robuckhttp://www.news8austin.com/content/headlines/?ArID=178886&SecID=2 The heat is almost to the boiling point over Gov. Rick Perry's executive order regarding the HPV vaccine. Perry bypassed the legislative process and ordered a law that mandates mandatory vaccination against HPV for girls entering the sixth grade. "Although I support the governor in the action he's trying to propose, it has created such a firestorm because the legislators think they're being cut out of the process," bill author Sen. Leticia Van de Putte said.Sen. Jane Nelson, chair of the Health and Human Services Commission, is the one carrying most of the burden since she will have to carry out the governor's order. Nelson has asked for help from the state attorney general's office. It won't offer an opinion for 180 days. Even some watchdog groups like the Center for Public Policy Priorities believe Perry's move is unconstitutional. "What can't happen is for the governor to just wake up one morning and say, 'we're going to have a new law in the state of Texas. I just wrote it. You have to have a whole rule-making proceeding where the public gets notice, the public gets an opportunity to come and comment, the executive commissioner has to consider their comments, and then develop a rule based on those comments," CPPP Executive Director Scott McCown said. Twenty-six senators from both parties even signed a letter asking Perry to withdraw the order. Now it's up to the governor to decide if the controversy will continue. "I would prefer, for the good of the safety of the process and also so that we can get this really good public policy, that the legislature should decide this and not by executive order," Van de Putte said. Perry is also being criticized because the vaccine's manufacturer contributed to his re-election campaign. Even if the governor doesn't withdraw the order on his own, some watchdog groups believe he'll have to do it at some point. They feel the attorney general's office will side with pulling the measure. Either that, or it could wind up in the courts.
From the National Vaccine Information Center email: news@nvic.org voice: 703-938-dpt3 web: http://www.nvic.org NVIC E-News is a free service of the National Vaccine Information Center and is supported through membership donations.NVIC is funded through the financial support of its members and does not receive any government subsidies. Barbara Loe Fisher, President and Co- founder.Learn more about vaccines, diseases and how to protect your informed consent rights at www.nvic.org
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17115795/
WASHINGTON - The government on Monday restricted use of an antibiotic linked to rare reports of severe liver problems, including several deaths, saying the drug now should be used only to treat pneumonia but not less serious bacterial infections like bronchitis and sinusitis.
The Food and Drug Administration said the antibiotic, Ketek, would remain on the market but that its label will bear a new, stern warning. The agency said it and manufacturer Sanofi-Aventis SA also created a guide for patients outlining the drug’s risks and its safe use.
The Real Reasons Why Raw Milk is Becoming More Popular
By Dr. Joseph Mercola with Rachael Droege
I was happy to see a published story that documents how some families have become aware of the health benefits of raw milk and are switching to it, despite the warnings of public health officials who are ignorant about the serious damage that pasteurization does to the quality of the milk.
Less than 1 percent of the milk consumed in America is raw, which is most unfortunate as raw milk is a highly health-promoting food. Public health officials warn that raw milk poses the risk of transmitting bacteria such as listeria, E. coli and salmonella, but pasteurizing the milk kills these bacteria while extending the milk's shelf life, which also happens to be more profitable for the dairy industry.
While it is certainly possible to become sick from drinking contaminated raw milk, it is also possible to become sick from almost any food source. But it seems that raw milk has been unfairly singled out as a risk, when only a very small risk exists. This excerpt from the Weston A. Price Foundation Web site further states my point:
Except for a brief hiatus in 1990, raw milk has always been for sale commercially in California, usually in health food stores, although I can remember a period when it was even sold in grocery stores. Millions of people consumed commercial raw milk during that period and although the health department kept an eagle eye open for any possible evidence of harm, not a single incidence was reported. During the same period, there were many instances of contamination in pasteurized milk, some of which resulted in death.
Fortunately, even though the sale of raw milk is legal only in a limited number of states, more and more people are realizing its benefits and finding their own legal sources. Here are a few of the major reasons why more people are choosing to drink their milk raw.
It Has More Nutrients
Raw milk is an outstanding source of nutrients including beneficial bacteria such as lactobacillus acidolphilus, vitamins and enzmes, and it is, in my estimation, the finest source of calcium available.
The pasteurization process, which entails heating the milk to a temperature of 145 degrees to 150 degrees F and keeping it there for at least half an hour and then reducing the temperature to not more than 55 degrees F, completely changes the structure of the milk proteins (denaturization) into something far less than healthy. While the process certainly destroys germs and bad bacteria, it also destroys the milk's beneficial bacteria along with many of its nutritious components.
Pasteurizing milk destroys enzymes, diminishes vitamin, denatures fragile milk proteins, destroys vitamin B12, and vitamin B6, kills beneficial bacteria and promotes pathogens. You may notice that raw milk left out will sour naturally but pasteurized milk will rot. This is because the beneficial bacteria in the raw milk helps to keep putrefactive bacteria under control. Pasteurized milk, however, does not have any of the beneficial bacteria left to keep it from rotting.
Then, of course there is the issue of the antibiotics, pesticides and growth hormones and the fact that nearly all commercial dairy cows are raised on grains, not grass, like they were designed to. This will change the composition of the fats in the milk, especially the CLA content.
People Feel the Health Benefits
Pasteurized cow's milk is the number one allergic food in this country. It has been associated with a number of symptoms and illnesses including:
Diarrhea
Cramps
Bloating
Gas
Gastrointestinal bleeding
Iron-deficiency anemia
Skin rashes
Allergies
Colic in infants
Osteoporosis
Increased tooth decay
Arthritis
Increased tooth decay
Growth problems in children
Heart disease
Cancer
Atherosclerosis
Acne
Recurrent ear infections in children
Type 1 diabetes
Rheumatoid arthritis
Infertility
Leukemia
Autism
Raw milk, on the other hand, is not associated with any of these problems, and even people who have been allergic to pasteurized milk for many years can typically tolerate and even thrive on raw milk.
Raw milk is truly one of the most profoundly healthy foods you can consume, and you'll feel the difference once you start to drink it.
It Tastes Better
As with any food, fresher is always better and this applies to milk as well. Fresh raw milk is creamier and better tasting than pasteurized milk that has a shelf-life of several weeks. Ultra-high-temperature milk can be stored without refrigeration for about six months.
Even people who have never liked the taste of milk find that raw milk has a soothing, pleasant taste that they can't resist.
Obtaining raw milk can be a challenge but it is well worth the effort to seek out. You can go to www.realmilk.com for some help, but if you are unable to find any through that site I would suggest contacting a dairy farmer and asking him or her to buy the raw milk directly.
It is technically illegal to sell in many states but many people tell them they are using the milk for their pets. Alternatively, another strategy that has stood nearly every legal test is the cow-share program. One merely purchases a small ownership of a cow for $10 or $20 and then the farmer is able to sell you the milk from the cow as you are part owner and it is perfectly legal to drink raw milk from your own cow.
If any of the information in this article surprises you, I encourage you to look through the links below for further information.
Related Articles:
Why You Don't Want to Drink Pasteurized Milk
More Reasons Why You Don't Want to Drink Pasteurized Milk
New Technology Expands Shelf Life of Certain Dairy Products
Does Milk Really Look Good On You? Don't Drink It!
Don't Drink Your Milk!
More Reasons To Avoid Milk
Proposed HPV Vaccine Mandates Draws Fire
From the National Vaccine Information Center
"Even ignoring the limited incidence of cervical cancer, we are troubled by the newness of the vaccine, the small sample of preteen girls studied and the disturbingly short guarantee of immunity. The vaccine has been on the market for only eight months, not nearly enough time to discover the range of adverse effects before administering it to tens of thousands of girls in a statewide mandate. More than 25,000 patients were part of a clinical trial of Gardasil, but only 1,184 of them were preteen girls. “That’s a thin base of testing upon which to make a vaccine mandatory,” Barbara Loe Fisher, co- founder of the National Vaccine Information Center, said in a Feb. 7 Wall Street Journal article. The center lobbies for safer vaccines." - Editorial, Rockford Register Star, Illinois"We're really not lining one company's pockets with this," said Dr. Colleen Kraft, president of the Virginia chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which supports the mandate....."We should proceed down this road very carefully," said Del. Robert Marshall, R-Prince William. "The company that is producing this is the same company that produced Vioxx." - Kimball Payne, Hampton Roads Daily Press "Even some watchdog groups like the Center for Public Policy Priorities believe Perry's move is unconstitutional. "What can't happen is for the governor to just wake up one morning and say, 'we're going to have a new law in the state of Texas. I just wrote it. You have to have a whole rule-making proceeding where the public gets notice, the public gets an opportunity to come and comment, the executive commissioner has to consider their comments, and then develop a rule based on those comments," CPPP Executive Director Scott McCown said. Twenty-six senators from both parties even signed a letter asking Perry to withdraw the order. Now it's up to the governor to decide if the controversy will continue." - News 8, Austin, Texas
It’s premature to mandate cancer vaccine Editorial Rockford Register Star, IL Published: February 12, 2007http://www.rrstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070212/OPINION03/102120005 One argument against mandating a cervical cancer vaccine for preteen girls revolves around morality: Will the vaccine encourage girls to have sex?That isn’t our concern. We don’t believe the vaccine should be mandatory for a host of reasons having nothing to do with whether the vaccine would condone early sex and spawn a generation of promiscuous 11- and 12-year-olds. That’s a bogus issue.Set aside cervical cancer and there are still plenty of frightening things for girls about having sex — getting AIDS, getting pregnant, getting a sexually transmitted disease.Illinois Senate President Emil Jones has introduced a bill that would mandate all 11- and 12- year-old girls to receive a vaccination against the human papillomavirus (HPV) that causes cervical cancer. Beginning Aug. 1, 2009, girls would not be allowed to enter any grade of a public, private, or parochial school unless they present to the school proof of having received the vaccine. There is an opt- out clause if parents object.Jones is not a pioneer in the mandate effort; already, some 20 states are considering or have passed similar measures. We believe they are being hasty, and they may be feeling the pressure of intense lobbying by Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, the only vaccine available on the market.We encourage them to slow down and look at the facts. Courage to face down misguided moralists to protect women’s health is one thing; ignoring troubling medical questions is another.Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who signed an executive order Feb. 2 mandating the vaccine, wrote on the editorial page of USA TODAY: “Some are focused on the cause of this cancer, but I remain focused on the cure. And if I err, I will always err on the side of protecting life ...“If we could stop lung cancer, would some shy away claiming it might encourage tobacco use? This is a rare opportunity to act, and as a pro-life governor, I will always take the side of protecting life.”But how many lives? How much protection? And at what cost?According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 12,085 women in the United States were diagnosed with cervical cancer in 2002. The same year, 3,952 women died of the disease. The incidence of cervical cancer has gone down dramatically in the last four decades because of widespread use of the Pap test to detect problems.In contrast, one of the most common cancers to attack women — breast cancer — claims 41,619 women’s lives a year and is responsible for 181,646 annual diagnoses.Even ignoring the limited incidence of cervical cancer, we are troubled by the newness of the vaccine, the small sample of preteen girls studied and the disturbingly short guarantee of immunity.The vaccine has been on the market for only eight months, not nearly enough time to discover the range of adverse effects before administering it to tens of thousands of girls in a statewide mandate.More than 25,000 patients were part of a clinical trial of Gardasil, but only 1,184 of them were preteen girls. “That’s a thin base of testing upon which to make a vaccine mandatory,” Barbara Loe Fisher, co- founder of the National Vaccine Information Center, said in a Feb. 7 Wall Street Journal article. The center lobbies for safer vaccines.The vaccine guarantees immunity, but only for five years and only against HPV strains that cause 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. Worst-case scenario, a child vaccinated at 12 might lose her immunity at just the time she needs it: at 17, when the chances of her having sex increase.All of these questions should be considered against the backdrop of Merck’s financial position. The Wall Street Journal says mandatory vaccination would be an “automatic blockbuster” for the pharmaceutical company, at a time when its patents on other bestselling drugs are expiring.The vaccine might very well be the right choice for many girls, an appropriate balance of risk and benefit. That only can be determined after consultation with your doctor and in the context of your family.
Vaccine maker fills war chests Campaign coffers get a boost from Merck, whose anti- cancer shot is being weighed by legislators as a requirement for girls Hampton Roads Daily PressFebruary 11, 2007BY KIMBALL PAYNEhttp://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-52313sy0feb11,0,4664322.story?coll=dp-news-local-final RICHMOND -- Virginia is poised to require schoolgirls be given a controversial new cancer-blocking vaccination produced solely by a drug company generous with campaign cash for key state lawmakers.Merck & Co. has given nearly $197,000 in contributions to dozens of Virginia politicians and campaign committees since 1997 and is touting the vaccine in a national push.Among those who've received Merck money over the past decade are two of the General Assembly's biggest proponents of the vaccines this session.The pharmaceutical giant has given $10,000 to Del. Phil Hamilton, R-Newport News, and $4,100 to Sen. Janet Howell, D-Fairfax, according to the Virginia Public Access Project, a nonprofit campaign finance watchdog.Hamilton and Howell pushed vaccination mandates through the state Senate and House of Delegates. Final approval on the legislation is expected in the next few weeks. The bills would require shots for all girls entering sixth grade in the 2009 school year. Hamilton said that what's at issue is fighting cancer, not political fundraising."It's not about the manufacturer," said Hamilton, who chairs the House Health, Welfare and Institutions Committee. "It's about one thing and one thing only - anti-cancer. When you're leading the pack, people are going to criticize you."Howell could not be reached for comment.In June, the Food and Drug Administration signed off on the vaccine called Gardasil that blocks strains of the human papillomavirus, a sexually transmitted disease which infects 80 percent of women by the time they turn 50 years old, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Several strains of the virus can lead to cervical cancer, which kills about 3,700 women a year in the United States.Texas became the first state to require schoolgirls get the vaccine. Republican Gov. Rick Perry bypassed the legislature and signed an executive order Feb. 2 requiring shots for sixth-grade girls in September 2008.More than a dozen states are considering adding the vaccine to the list of required immunizations already given to schoolgirls.A competing pharmaceutical company - GlaxoSmithKline Inc. - is pushing for federal approval for a nearly identical vaccine.Either set of shots would fulfill the proposed requirement in Virginia."We're really not lining one company's pockets with this," said Dr. Colleen Kraft, president of the Virginia chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which supports the mandate.During a recent debate, one staunch House conservative openly questioned Merck's track record."We should proceed down this road very carefully," said Del. Robert Marshall, R-Prince William. "The company that is producing this is the same company that produced Vioxx."Merck had to pull Vioxx - a profitable painkiller and anti-inflammatory - from the market in 2004, after further research found it increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes.That's why vaccine side effects are tracked in a national database, Kraft said, noting that in 1999 the side effects directory identified problems with a vaccine against rotavirus that was immediately pulled from the market.Hamilton's bill would give schools 30 months to prepare for the program and allow health care professionals to further track research about the injections.The series of shots would cost roughly $360."It's not like were rushing into something that's going to be mandated tomorrow," Hamilton said.Parents can seek medical or religious exemptions from the vaccinations.The House version allows parents who review information about the virus to decline injections. The Senate passed the vaccine mandate without the additional exemption, so the two chambers will have to negotiate a compromise.Expanding the list of required injections and broadening exemptions could erode parents' confidence in all vaccines, said Dr. Louis Cooper of the National Network of Immunization Information, which does not weigh in on policy debates."Mandating a vaccine is a big step," Cooper said. "It runs the risk of pouring gasoline on the whole mandate issue."Reduced confidence in vaccinations, he said, could undermine the required vaccines that stamp out contagious diseases such as measles and mumps that "could spread through a school like wildfire."
Controversy heats up over HPV executive order News 8 Austin, TXFebruary 8, 2007 By Bob Robuckhttp://www.news8austin.com/content/headlines/?ArID=178886&SecID=2 The heat is almost to the boiling point over Gov. Rick Perry's executive order regarding the HPV vaccine. Perry bypassed the legislative process and ordered a law that mandates mandatory vaccination against HPV for girls entering the sixth grade. "Although I support the governor in the action he's trying to propose, it has created such a firestorm because the legislators think they're being cut out of the process," bill author Sen. Leticia Van de Putte said.Sen. Jane Nelson, chair of the Health and Human Services Commission, is the one carrying most of the burden since she will have to carry out the governor's order. Nelson has asked for help from the state attorney general's office. It won't offer an opinion for 180 days. Even some watchdog groups like the Center for Public Policy Priorities believe Perry's move is unconstitutional. "What can't happen is for the governor to just wake up one morning and say, 'we're going to have a new law in the state of Texas. I just wrote it. You have to have a whole rule-making proceeding where the public gets notice, the public gets an opportunity to come and comment, the executive commissioner has to consider their comments, and then develop a rule based on those comments," CPPP Executive Director Scott McCown said. Twenty-six senators from both parties even signed a letter asking Perry to withdraw the order. Now it's up to the governor to decide if the controversy will continue. "I would prefer, for the good of the safety of the process and also so that we can get this really good public policy, that the legislature should decide this and not by executive order," Van de Putte said. Perry is also being criticized because the vaccine's manufacturer contributed to his re-election campaign. Even if the governor doesn't withdraw the order on his own, some watchdog groups believe he'll have to do it at some point. They feel the attorney general's office will side with pulling the measure. Either that, or it could wind up in the courts.
From the National Vaccine Information Center email: news@nvic.org voice: 703-938-dpt3 web: http://www.nvic.org NVIC E-News is a free service of the National Vaccine Information Center and is supported through membership donations.NVIC is funded through the financial support of its members and does not receive any government subsidies. Barbara Loe Fisher, President and Co- founder.Learn more about vaccines, diseases and how to protect your informed consent rights at www.nvic.org
posted by Dani @ 1:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home