Article: Gardasil

Fast Facts and Takeaways of this article:

• Dr. Diane Harper, lead researcher in development of Gardasil and Cervarix does not believe they are efficient
• 70% of cases of HPV will resolve by themselves without treatment within a year.
• 90% of cases of HPV will resolve by themselves without treatment within two years.
• 5% of cases of HPV will become cervical cancer.
• "...conventional treatment and preventative measures are already cutting the cervical cancer rate by four percent a year. At this rate, in 60 years, there will be a 91.4 percent decline just with current treatment."
• Quote from article: When asked why she was speaking out, she said: “I want to be able to sleep with myself when I go to bed at night.”
• Quote from article: The outspoken researcher also weighed in last month on a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that raised questions about the safety of the vaccine, saying bluntly: "The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer."
• Since 2006, 44 girls have died from Gardasil injections. That's more than one mortality per month just from the vaccine.
• 15,037 girls have officially reported adverse side effects.These adverse reactions include Guilliane Barre, lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many others.

--------------------------------------
Article Take From: http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/10/25/top_stories/doc4ae4b76d07e16766677720.txt

Gardasil Researcher Drops A Bombshell

Dr. Diane Harper, lead researcher in the development of two human papilloma virus vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, said the controversial drugs will do little to reduce cervical cancer rates and, even though they’re being recommended for girls as young as nine, there have been no efficacy trials in children under the age of 15.Dr. Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the University of Missouri, made these remarks during an address at the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination which took place in Reston, Virginia on Oct. 2-4. Although her talk was intended to promote the vaccine, participants said they came away convinced the vaccine should not be received.

“I came away from the talk with the perception that the risk of adverse side effects is so much greater than the risk of cervical cancer, I couldn’t help but question why we need the vaccine at all,” said Joan Robinson, Assistant Editor at the Population Research Institute.

Dr. Harper began her remarks by explaining that 70 percent of all HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment within a year. Within two years, the number climbs to 90 percent. Of the remaining 10 percent of HPV infections, only half will develop into cervical cancer, which leaves little need for the vaccine.

She went on to surprise the audience by stating that the incidence of cervical cancer in the U.S. is already so low that “even if we get the vaccine and continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in the US.”

There will be no decrease in cervical cancer until at least 70 percent of the population is vaccinated, and even then, the decrease will be minimal.

Apparently, conventional treatment and preventative measures are already cutting the cervical cancer rate by four percent a year. At this rate, in 60 years, there will be a 91.4 percent decline just with current treatment. Even if 70 percent of women get the shot and required boosters over the same time period, which is highly unlikely, Harper says Gardasil still could not claim to do as much as traditional care is already doing.

Dr. Harper, who also serves as a consultant to the World Health Organization, further undercut the case for mass vaccination by saying that “four out of five women with cervical cancer are in developing countries.”

Ms. Robinson said she could not help but wonder, “If this is the case, then why vaccinate at all? But from the murmurs of the doctors in the audience, it was apparent that the same thought was occurring to them.”

However, at this point, Dr. Harper dropped an even bigger bombshell on the audience when she announced that, “There have been no efficacy trials in girls under 15 years.”

Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, studied only a small group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated, but did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of effective HPV antibodies.

This is not the first time Dr. Harper revealed the fact that Merck never tested Gardasil for safety in young girls. During a 2007 interview with KPC News.com, she said giving the vaccine to girls as young as 11 years-old “is a great big public health experiment.”

At the time, which was at the height of Merck’s controversial drive to have the vaccine mandated in schools, Dr. Harper remained steadfastly opposed to the idea and said she had been trying for months to convince major television and print media about her concerns, “but no one will print it.”

“It is silly to mandate vaccination of 11 to 12 year old girls,” she said at the time. “There also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue.”

When asked why she was speaking out, she said: “I want to be able to sleep with myself when I go to bed at night.”

Since the drug’s introduction in 2006, the public has been learning many of these facts the hard way. To date, 15,037 girls have officially reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). These adverse reactions include Guilliane Barre, lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many others. The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported deaths.

Dr. Harper also participated in the research on Glaxo-Smith-Kline’s version of the drug, Cervarix, currently in use in the UK but not yet approved here. Since the government began administering the vaccine to school-aged girls last year, more than 2,000 patients reported some kind of adverse reaction including nausea, dizziness, blurred vision, convulsions, seizures and hyperventilation. Several reported multiple reactions, with 4,602 suspected side-effects recorded in total. The most tragic case involved a 14 year-old girl who dropped dead in the corridor of her school an hour after receiving the vaccination.

The outspoken researcher also weighed in last month on a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that raised questions about the safety of the vaccine, saying bluntly: "The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer."

Ms. Robinson said she respects Dr. Harper’s candor. “I think she’s a scientist, a researcher, and she’s genuine enough a scientist to be open about the risks. I respect that in her.”

However, she failed to make the case for Gardasil. “For me, it was hard to resist the conclusion that Gardasil does almost nothing for the health of American women.”

Soy

Soy...the incredibly debatable and curious food topic swarming the vegan media.


Soy milk, soy protein, soy cheese, soy...sauce. mmm...soy sauce.


Oh......sorry. The goal of this article is to take the two debating sides and present them here. You are the judge and jury.


In the one corner, we have the soy proponents. Mostly vegans, crunchies, and lactose-intolerant people. In this circle of people, soy is healthy and a wonderful alternative to meat and a great source of nutrition.


In the other corner are mostly the carnivorous predators of our day...rawr. Mostly people who believe that God meant for us to eat meat and mostly non-vegetarians, but you will find one or two.. (Don't get me wrong, I do eat meat...so I'm lumping myself in as a carnivorous predator). They are anti-soy because of the rumors that it can cause health problems and may even be toxic.


So the question stands. Is soy healthy?


I will take each side and present the debate. I do have an opinion but I'm going to make this as unbiased as possible and then tell you what I think at the end. The easiest way to do this is to start with why people think soy is unhealthy and then discuss why people think this is not true.


Soy is Bad. Bad soy. Bad.
Many people are anti-soy because of all the potential health issues it can cause. Here is a brief list of health concerns in conjunction with consumption of soy:

Soy contains trypsin inhibitors which are known to prevent healthy digestion.

Soy contains goitrogen, which affects thyroid function and iodine uptake, potentially inducing hypothyroidism.

Soy contains phytic acid, which impairs your body's ability to absorb minerals such as iron, causing conditions such as anemia.

Soy contains phytoestrogens, which is thought to raise estrogen levels. This has a variety of affects include the possibility of increasing breast cancer rates in women, premature development in girls, and underdevelopment in boys (if you think that's craziness, wait till you hear about a similar situation with yam containing progesterone).

The use of soy-based formulas in infants has been related to autoimmune thyroid diseases later in life.


Many people also argue that Asians have been eating soy for quite some time, and in large amounts, but it doesn't seem to have the adverse health affects on them. Well what if we told you that Asians don't eat as much soy as you think.

That definitely sounds like soy has a bad rap...but let's see what the other side has to say in defense....


Soy is My Bestest Friend
Addressing each individual issue with the resources I've found:

Organic soy, along with an organic diet should be ok because estrogen only causes cancer when there is also a presence of free radicals (toxins) in the system. Organic soy phytoestrogens can also actually help prevent certain types of cancer.


Many common vegetables contain goitrogens. The best thing to do is to balance your diet by eating foods high in iodine to counter the goitrogens.

Phytic acid has been shown to possibly help prevent different types of cancer, osteoporosis, and Parkinson's.


Now that doesn't sound too bad, does it?

Conclusions
Ultimately, you will need to come to your own conclusions about soy and how it fits into your family's diet.

I personally learned a lot about soy by writing this article and doing the in-depth research I never made the time to do before. My family used to drink soy milk on a regular basis. Then I found out about the adverse health effects and we switched to almond milk and a lactose-free cow's milk. Writing this article made me rely on more than a rumor to substantiate the health issues involved with soy.

So where do I stand now? I think organic soy in moderation is probably the best way to go. Research renders it an undeniable fact (in my mind, at least), that larger amounts of soy in a non-organic diet does increase the risk of various cancers. I personally would not base my diet on tofu, soy milk, soy proteins, etc. But I think my family will return to drinking soy milk (which I happen to find incredibly delicious...especially chocolate soy milk...mmm) so long as it is organic.