Military Poised to Help FEMA Battle Swine Flu Outbreak...what happens if we refuse to take it? Martial law?
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to set vaccination priorities for certain groups Wednesday during a meeting in Atlanta as the Pentagon prepares to help the Federal Emergency Management Agency tackle a potential outbreak of the H1N1 virus this fall.
The Pentagon is preparing to make troops available if necessary to help the Federal Emergency Management Agency tackle a potential outbreak of the H1N1 virus this fall, FOX News has confirmed.
This comes as a government panel recommends certain groups be placed at the front of the line for swine flu vaccinations this fall, including pregnant women, health care workers and children six months and older.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices panel also said those first vaccinated should include parents and other caregivers of infants; non-elderly adults who have high-risk medical conditions, and young adults ages 19 to 24. The panel, whose recommendations typically are adopted by federal health officials, voted to set vaccination priorities for those groups Wednesday during a meeting in Atlanta.
Obama administration officials told Congress that H1N1 vaccinations won't be available for several months.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is preparing to sign an order authorizing the military to set up five regional teams to deal with the potential outbreak of H1N1 influenza if FEMA requests help.
A senior U.S. defense official told FOX News that the plan calls for military task forces to work in conjunction with the FEMA. No final decision has been reached on how the military effort would be manned, but one source said it likely would include personnel from all branches of the military.
It is not known how many troops would be needed and whether they would come from the active duty or the National Guard and Reserve forces.
In the event of a major outbreak, civilian authorities would lead any relief efforts, the official said. The military, as it would for a natural disaster or other significant emergency situation, could provide support and fulfill any tasks that civilian authorities could not, such as air transport or testing of large numbers of viral samples from infected patients.
As a first step, military leaders have asked Gates to authorize planning for the potential assistance.
Orders to deploy actual forces would be reviewed later, depending on how much of a health threat the flu poses this fall, the officials said.
FOX News' Jennifer Griffin, Brian Wilson and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Concerns Surround H1N1 Vaccine Which May Contain Thimerosal
A swine flu vaccine expected this fall is raising red flags because it will likely contain a preservative some link to autism despite scientific research repeatedly proving otherwise.
Government officials say they hope to have 160 million doses of a vaccine for swine flu, or H1N1, available by the fall when flu season is expected to kick in. A vaccine is currently going through clinical trials. Pregnant women, children and health care workers will be the first to be vaccinated.
Scientists say the swine flu vaccine will be similar to the flu vaccines provided annually with little fanfare. However, some consumer groups are reserved about the new vaccine because of the possibility that it could contain thimerosal in combination with a second additive in an effort to produce large quantities more quickly.
Furthermore, a vaccine offered to combat a different strain of the swine flu in the 1970s is linked to increased incidents of a neurological disorder.
But makers of the vaccine say they anticiptate manufacturing two versions, one with and one without thimerosal, which ought to ease some fears, reports ABC News. To read more click here.
Copyright © 2009 Disability Scoop, LLC. All Rights Reserved. For reprints and permissions click here.
Government officials say they hope to have 160 million doses of a vaccine for swine flu, or H1N1, available by the fall when flu season is expected to kick in. A vaccine is currently going through clinical trials. Pregnant women, children and health care workers will be the first to be vaccinated.
Scientists say the swine flu vaccine will be similar to the flu vaccines provided annually with little fanfare. However, some consumer groups are reserved about the new vaccine because of the possibility that it could contain thimerosal in combination with a second additive in an effort to produce large quantities more quickly.
Furthermore, a vaccine offered to combat a different strain of the swine flu in the 1970s is linked to increased incidents of a neurological disorder.
But makers of the vaccine say they anticiptate manufacturing two versions, one with and one without thimerosal, which ought to ease some fears, reports ABC News. To read more click here.
Copyright © 2009 Disability Scoop, LLC. All Rights Reserved. For reprints and permissions click here.
UK TIMESONLINE: Tamiflu causes sickness and nightmares in children, study finds - Times Online
More than half of children taking the swine flu drug Tamiflu experience side-effects such as nausea and nightmares, research suggests.
An estimated 150,000 people with flu symptoms were prescribed the drug through a new hotline and website last week, according to figures revealed yesterday.
Studies of children attending three schools in London and one in the South West showed that 51-53 per cent had one or more side-effects from the medication, which is offered to everyone in England with swine flu symptoms.
Read full story:Tamiflu causes sickness and nightmares in children, study finds - Times Online
Shared via AddThis
An estimated 150,000 people with flu symptoms were prescribed the drug through a new hotline and website last week, according to figures revealed yesterday.
Studies of children attending three schools in London and one in the South West showed that 51-53 per cent had one or more side-effects from the medication, which is offered to everyone in England with swine flu symptoms.
Read full story:Tamiflu causes sickness and nightmares in children, study finds - Times Online
Shared via AddThis
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Obama’s Science Czar Said a Born Baby ‘Will Ultimately Develop Into a Human Being’
Obama’s Science Czar Said a Born Baby ‘Will Ultimately Develop Into a Human Being’
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief
(CNSNews.com) - President Obama’s top science adviser said in a book he co-authored in 1973 that a newborn child “will ultimately develop into a human being” if he or she is properly fed and socialized.
“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,” John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, wrote in “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.”
Holdren co-authored the book with Stanford professors Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich. The book was published by W.H. Freeman and Company.
At the time “Human Ecology” was published, Holdren was a senior research fellow at the California Institute of Technology. Paul Ehrlich, currently president of The Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford, is also author of the 1968 bestseller, “The Population Bomb,” a book The Washington Post said “launched the popular movement for zero population growth.”
“Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions” argued that the human race faced dire consequences unless human population growth was stopped.
“Human values and institutions have set mankind on a collision course with the laws of nature,” wrote the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “Human beings cling jealously to their prerogative to reproduce as they please—and they please to make each new generation larger than the last—yet endless multiplication on a finite planet is impossible. Most humans aspire to greater material prosperity, but the number of people that can be supported on Earth if everyone is rich is even smaller than if everyone is poor.”
The specific passage expressing the authors’ view that a baby “will ultimately develop into a human being” is on page 235 in chapter 8 of the book, which is titled “Population Limitation.”
At the time the book was written, the Supreme Court had not yet issued its Roe v. Wade decision, and the passage in question was part of a subsection of the “Population Limitation” chapter that argued for legalized abortion.
“To a biologist the question of when life begins for a human child is almost meaningless, since life is continuous and has been since it first began on Earth several billion years ago,” wrote the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “The precursors of the egg and sperm cells that create the next generation have been present in the parents from the time they were embryos themselves. To most biologists, an embryo (unborn child during the first two or three months of development) or a fetus is no more a complete human being than a blueprint is a building. The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being. Where any of these essential elements is lacking, the resultant individual will be deficient in some respect.”
In the same paragraph, the authors continue on to note that legal scholars hold the view that a “fetus” is not considered a “person” under the U.S. Constitution until “it is born.” But they do not revisit the issue of when exactly the “fetus” would properly be considered a “human being.”
“From this point of view, a fetus is only a potential human being [italics in original],” wrote the authors. “Historically, the law has dated most rights and privileges from the moment of birth, and legal scholars generally agree that a fetus is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of the United States Constitution until it is born and living independent of its mother’s body.”
The same section of the book goes on to argue that abortion spares “unwanted children” from “undesirable consequences.”
“From the standpoint of the terminated fetus, it makes no difference whether the mother had an induced abortion or a spontaneous abortion,” write the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “On the other hand, it subsequently makes a great deal of difference to the child if an abortion is denied, and the mother, contrary to her wishes, is forced to devote her body and life to the production and care of the child. In Sweden, studies were made to determine what eventually happened to children born to mothers whose requests for abortions had been turned down. When compared to a matched group of children from similar backgrounds who had been wanted, more than twice as many as these unwanted youngsters grew up in undesirable circumstances (illegitimate, in broken homes, or in institutions), more than twice as many had records of delinquency, or were deemed unfit for military service, almost twice as many had needed psychiatric care, and nearly five times as many had been on public assistance during their teens."
“There seems little doubt that the forced bearing of unwanted children has undesirable consequences not only for the children themselves and their families but for society as well, apart from the problems of overpopulation,” wrote the authors.
The Ehrlichs and Holdren then chide opponents of abortion for condemning future generations to an “overcrowded planet.”
“Those who oppose abortion often raise the argument that a decision is being made for an unborn person who ‘has no say,’” write the authors. “But unthinking actions of the very same people help to commit future unheard generations to misery and early death on an overcrowded planet.”
Holdren has impeccable academic credentials. He earned his bachelor’s degree at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his doctorate at Stanford. He worked as a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory before becoming a senior research fellow at California Institute of Technology. He then became a professor at the University of California at Berkeley before joining the faculty at Harvard in 1996, where he was the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and director of the Program in Science, Technology and Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government.
In addition to his duties at Harvard, Holdren was director of the Woods Hole Research Center in Falmouth, Mass.
His curriculum vitae posted at the Woods Hole Web site lists “Human Ecology” as one of the books he has co-authored or co-edited.
“Dr. Holdren,” says the Web posting, “is the author of some 300 articles and papers, and he has co-authored and co-edited some 20 books and book-length reports, such as Energy (1971), Human Ecology (1973), Ecoscience (1977), Energy in Transition (1980), Earth and the Human Future (1986), Strategic Defences and the Future of the Arms Race (1987), Building Global Security Through Cooperation (1990), Conversion of Military R&D (1998), and Ending the Energy Stalemate (2004).”
The next to last subsection of the chapter on “Population Limitation” in “Human Ecology” is entitled, “Involuntary Fertility Control,” which the authors stress is an “unpalatable idea.”
“The third approach to population control is that of involuntary fertility control,” write the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “Several coercive proposals deserve discussion mainly because societies may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means.”
“Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying” the authors state at the end of the subsection. “As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1970s, we may well find them demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to begin now with milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while ensuring that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly, perhaps the need for involuntary or repressive measures can be averted.”
In February, when Holdren appeared before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee for a confirmation hearing, he was not asked about his comment in “Human Ecology” that a baby “will ultimately develop into a human being.”
Sen. David Vitter (R.-La.) did ask him, however, about the population-control ideas he expressed in 1973.
“In 1973, you encouraged a, quote, ‘decline in fertility to well below replacement,’ close quote, in the United States, because, quote, ‘280 million in 2040 is likely to be too many,’ close quote,” said Vitter. “What would your number for the right population in the U.S. be today?”
“I no longer think it’s productive, senator, to focus on the optimum population for the United States,” Holdren responded. “I don’t think any of us know what the right answer is. When I wrote those lines in 1973, I was preoccupied with the fact that many problems in the United States appeared to be being made more difficult by the rate of population growth that then prevailed.
“I think everyone who studies these matters understands that population growth brings some benefits and some liabilities,” Holdren continued. “It’s a tough question to determine which will prevail in a given time period. But I think the key thing today is that we need to work to improve the conditions that all of our citizens face economically, environmentally and in other respects. And we need to aim for something that I have been calling ‘sustainable prosperity.’”
In a subsequent question, Vitter asked, “Do you think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?”
“No, senator, I do not,” said Holdren.
The White House Press Office did not respond to emailed and telephoned inquiries from CNSNews.com about Holdren’s statement in “Human Ecology” that a baby will “ultimately develop into a human being.”
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief
(CNSNews.com) - President Obama’s top science adviser said in a book he co-authored in 1973 that a newborn child “will ultimately develop into a human being” if he or she is properly fed and socialized.
“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,” John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, wrote in “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.”
Holdren co-authored the book with Stanford professors Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich. The book was published by W.H. Freeman and Company.
At the time “Human Ecology” was published, Holdren was a senior research fellow at the California Institute of Technology. Paul Ehrlich, currently president of The Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford, is also author of the 1968 bestseller, “The Population Bomb,” a book The Washington Post said “launched the popular movement for zero population growth.”
“Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions” argued that the human race faced dire consequences unless human population growth was stopped.
“Human values and institutions have set mankind on a collision course with the laws of nature,” wrote the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “Human beings cling jealously to their prerogative to reproduce as they please—and they please to make each new generation larger than the last—yet endless multiplication on a finite planet is impossible. Most humans aspire to greater material prosperity, but the number of people that can be supported on Earth if everyone is rich is even smaller than if everyone is poor.”
The specific passage expressing the authors’ view that a baby “will ultimately develop into a human being” is on page 235 in chapter 8 of the book, which is titled “Population Limitation.”
At the time the book was written, the Supreme Court had not yet issued its Roe v. Wade decision, and the passage in question was part of a subsection of the “Population Limitation” chapter that argued for legalized abortion.
“To a biologist the question of when life begins for a human child is almost meaningless, since life is continuous and has been since it first began on Earth several billion years ago,” wrote the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “The precursors of the egg and sperm cells that create the next generation have been present in the parents from the time they were embryos themselves. To most biologists, an embryo (unborn child during the first two or three months of development) or a fetus is no more a complete human being than a blueprint is a building. The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being. Where any of these essential elements is lacking, the resultant individual will be deficient in some respect.”
In the same paragraph, the authors continue on to note that legal scholars hold the view that a “fetus” is not considered a “person” under the U.S. Constitution until “it is born.” But they do not revisit the issue of when exactly the “fetus” would properly be considered a “human being.”
“From this point of view, a fetus is only a potential human being [italics in original],” wrote the authors. “Historically, the law has dated most rights and privileges from the moment of birth, and legal scholars generally agree that a fetus is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of the United States Constitution until it is born and living independent of its mother’s body.”
The same section of the book goes on to argue that abortion spares “unwanted children” from “undesirable consequences.”
“From the standpoint of the terminated fetus, it makes no difference whether the mother had an induced abortion or a spontaneous abortion,” write the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “On the other hand, it subsequently makes a great deal of difference to the child if an abortion is denied, and the mother, contrary to her wishes, is forced to devote her body and life to the production and care of the child. In Sweden, studies were made to determine what eventually happened to children born to mothers whose requests for abortions had been turned down. When compared to a matched group of children from similar backgrounds who had been wanted, more than twice as many as these unwanted youngsters grew up in undesirable circumstances (illegitimate, in broken homes, or in institutions), more than twice as many had records of delinquency, or were deemed unfit for military service, almost twice as many had needed psychiatric care, and nearly five times as many had been on public assistance during their teens."
“There seems little doubt that the forced bearing of unwanted children has undesirable consequences not only for the children themselves and their families but for society as well, apart from the problems of overpopulation,” wrote the authors.
The Ehrlichs and Holdren then chide opponents of abortion for condemning future generations to an “overcrowded planet.”
“Those who oppose abortion often raise the argument that a decision is being made for an unborn person who ‘has no say,’” write the authors. “But unthinking actions of the very same people help to commit future unheard generations to misery and early death on an overcrowded planet.”
Holdren has impeccable academic credentials. He earned his bachelor’s degree at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his doctorate at Stanford. He worked as a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory before becoming a senior research fellow at California Institute of Technology. He then became a professor at the University of California at Berkeley before joining the faculty at Harvard in 1996, where he was the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and director of the Program in Science, Technology and Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government.
In addition to his duties at Harvard, Holdren was director of the Woods Hole Research Center in Falmouth, Mass.
His curriculum vitae posted at the Woods Hole Web site lists “Human Ecology” as one of the books he has co-authored or co-edited.
“Dr. Holdren,” says the Web posting, “is the author of some 300 articles and papers, and he has co-authored and co-edited some 20 books and book-length reports, such as Energy (1971), Human Ecology (1973), Ecoscience (1977), Energy in Transition (1980), Earth and the Human Future (1986), Strategic Defences and the Future of the Arms Race (1987), Building Global Security Through Cooperation (1990), Conversion of Military R&D (1998), and Ending the Energy Stalemate (2004).”
The next to last subsection of the chapter on “Population Limitation” in “Human Ecology” is entitled, “Involuntary Fertility Control,” which the authors stress is an “unpalatable idea.”
“The third approach to population control is that of involuntary fertility control,” write the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “Several coercive proposals deserve discussion mainly because societies may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means.”
“Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying” the authors state at the end of the subsection. “As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1970s, we may well find them demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to begin now with milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while ensuring that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly, perhaps the need for involuntary or repressive measures can be averted.”
In February, when Holdren appeared before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee for a confirmation hearing, he was not asked about his comment in “Human Ecology” that a baby “will ultimately develop into a human being.”
Sen. David Vitter (R.-La.) did ask him, however, about the population-control ideas he expressed in 1973.
“In 1973, you encouraged a, quote, ‘decline in fertility to well below replacement,’ close quote, in the United States, because, quote, ‘280 million in 2040 is likely to be too many,’ close quote,” said Vitter. “What would your number for the right population in the U.S. be today?”
“I no longer think it’s productive, senator, to focus on the optimum population for the United States,” Holdren responded. “I don’t think any of us know what the right answer is. When I wrote those lines in 1973, I was preoccupied with the fact that many problems in the United States appeared to be being made more difficult by the rate of population growth that then prevailed.
“I think everyone who studies these matters understands that population growth brings some benefits and some liabilities,” Holdren continued. “It’s a tough question to determine which will prevail in a given time period. But I think the key thing today is that we need to work to improve the conditions that all of our citizens face economically, environmentally and in other respects. And we need to aim for something that I have been calling ‘sustainable prosperity.’”
In a subsequent question, Vitter asked, “Do you think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?”
“No, senator, I do not,” said Holdren.
The White House Press Office did not respond to emailed and telephoned inquiries from CNSNews.com about Holdren’s statement in “Human Ecology” that a baby will “ultimately develop into a human being.”
Monday, July 27, 2009
FDA records link 28 deaths in 2008 to the Gardasil vaccine
Records obtained by Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act show 47 deaths and thousands of serious adverse events associated with Gardasil.
Last year, clinic staff and family members told the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that the Gardasil vaccine was responsible for 28 deaths of girls and young women.
The deaths included several girls ages 11 and 12 who had no existing medical conditions prior to receiving the vaccine. In some cases, the girls died within three days of receiving one shot of the vaccine. Others died following their third Gardasil injection. Several died in their sleep.
Gardasil is a vaccine marketed by the pharmaceutical company Merck (Click here for some history of MERCK)and recommended by U.S. public health authorities for the prevention of human papillomavirus (HPV) in girls and young women. HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer in women.
Gardasil has been implicated in 47 deaths since gaining FDA approval in 2006, according to data voluntarily submitted to the FDA by physicians, hospital staff and family members.
FDA records also show 6,723 "adverse events" were reported following Gardasil vaccinations in 2008, ranging from genital and facial warts and permanent disability to cervical cancer and Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
Of the total 47 reported deaths, 41 occurred within a month of receiving the vaccine.
The FDA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) records, a voluntary reporting system, were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Judicial Watch, a government watchdog group.
The following are several "adverse events" documented in the FDA records:
"15 months from the completion of the GARDASIL HPV vaccination, I had full blown cervical cancer. My oncologist would like to do a hysterectomy at this time, but [as I have] always wanted children, I have chosen to wait . . . I have two of the [strains] that the shot is suppose to prevent . . . I now have cervical cancer and I am left wondering what role the GARDASIL HPV vaccination played in the hasty onset." (ID: 319836)
"After receiving her second dose of GARDASIL … she could crawl but … needed to use crutches or a wheel chair ... She was experienced problems breathing and had ‘super migraines' that never went away … She had swelling in her face, jaw and wrists. The patient was diagnosed with GUILLAIN-BARRE syndrome, myelin sheath degeneration and peripheral neuropathy. Patient was hospitalized twice … patient has not recovered from symptoms." (ID: 318052)
A 19-year-old girl with no medical history immediately experienced side effects after receiving the Gardasil vaccine. Within eleven days her symptoms included "Aggression, Arthralgia, Complex partial seizures, Confusional state, Convulsion, Crying, Dizziness, Epilepsy, Fatigue, Feeling abnormal, Grand mal convulsion, Immediate post-injection reaction, Irritability, Myalgia, Nausea, Pain, Postictal state, Somnolence, Syncope, Tremor, and Unresponsive to stimuli." (ID: 320598)
"Two weeks after the third dose, the patient developed a complication. She was taken to the hospital by ambulance but passed away during the transport from an unknown cause…Upon arrival in ER unresponsive, pupils fixed and dilated, no cardiac activity. Resuscitation unsuccessful and patient expired." (ID: 314769)
"The FDA is supposed to be a guardian of public health, and yet the agency continues to turn a blind eye to what seems to be an extremely serious public health problem. The public relations push for Gardasil by Merck, politicians and public health officials needs to pause so that these adverse reactions can be further studied," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The already serious problems associated with Gardasil seem to be getting worse. No one should require this vaccine for young children."
CDC and FDA downplay risks of Gardasil
Responding to concerns about Gardasil safety, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) notes on its website that “the HPV vaccine was studied in 5 clinical trials before it was licensed. There were over 21,000 girls and women ages 9 through 26 in these clinical trials.” CDC states that more than 24 million doses of Gardasil were distributed in the United States as of May 1, 2009, with 13,758 VAERS reports of adverse events.
CDC also notes that it and the FDA have been “closely monitoring” the safety of Gardasil through three systems.
The main system of tracking Gardasil outcomes is VAERS, a “passive” system of data collection managed by the CDC and FDA. Anyone can submit reports of an “adverse event” or side effect online or by downloading a form. The website states that someone working with the VAERS system may contact the person or their health care provider for additional follow-up information.
While most reports on Gardasil appear to have been submitted by registered nurses or other clinical staff, one parent of a 20-year-old woman who died Nov. 15, 2008 submitted this report on Jan. 15, 2009:
“My daughter had her 3rd GARDASIL vaccine in Sept. She was a very healthy young lady, she went to take a shower and died. Autopsy report states undetermined death. There was no sign of the body to indicate a fall. She had pointed the shower head away from her and she got down on her knees and put her hand on the edge of the tub and passed away. This has been a living nightmare for her family. She is not the only one to have had problems and death from this vaccine. Please I beg you to take it off until it can be further tested. –not tested long enough to begin with.- There will be others that will die if the cause is not found.”
The CDC and FDA continue to recommend Gardasil injections.The CDC recommends the HPV vaccine be given systematically to all girls 11 and 12 years old, or before engaging in sexual activity, and to girls and women 13 through 26 years of age who did not receive it when they were younger. The vaccine is given in a series of three injections over a six-month period.
“Based on all of the information we have today, CDC continues to recommend Gardasil vaccination for the prevention of 4 types of HPV,” states the CDC website. “As with all approved vaccines, CDC and FDA will continue to closely monitor the safety of Gardasil. Any problems detected with this vaccine will be reported to health officials, healthcare providers, and the public, and needed action will be taken to ensure the public's health and safety.”
Merck has actively promoted Gardasil through TV ads aimed at the public and through Congressional lobbying. Several state legislatures have attempted to enact mandatory Gardasil vaccinations for adolescent girls. As of March of 2009, 12 states have proposed HPV-related legislation or resolutions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Merck is also seeking the FDA’s approval of Gardasil for the inoculation of boys and older women. Gardasil sales reached $1.5 billion in 2007.
Resources:
Judicial Watch Special Report: Examining the FDA's HPV Vaccine Records - June 30, 2008
Examining the FDA's HPV Vaccine Records - Appendices - June 30, 2008
Vaccine Adverse Effects Report System (VAERS) cumulative deaths report - June 16, 2009
HPV Vaccine, National Council of State Legislatures
Last year, clinic staff and family members told the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that the Gardasil vaccine was responsible for 28 deaths of girls and young women.
The deaths included several girls ages 11 and 12 who had no existing medical conditions prior to receiving the vaccine. In some cases, the girls died within three days of receiving one shot of the vaccine. Others died following their third Gardasil injection. Several died in their sleep.
Gardasil is a vaccine marketed by the pharmaceutical company Merck (Click here for some history of MERCK)and recommended by U.S. public health authorities for the prevention of human papillomavirus (HPV) in girls and young women. HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer in women.
Gardasil has been implicated in 47 deaths since gaining FDA approval in 2006, according to data voluntarily submitted to the FDA by physicians, hospital staff and family members.
FDA records also show 6,723 "adverse events" were reported following Gardasil vaccinations in 2008, ranging from genital and facial warts and permanent disability to cervical cancer and Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
Of the total 47 reported deaths, 41 occurred within a month of receiving the vaccine.
The FDA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) records, a voluntary reporting system, were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Judicial Watch, a government watchdog group.
The following are several "adverse events" documented in the FDA records:
"15 months from the completion of the GARDASIL HPV vaccination, I had full blown cervical cancer. My oncologist would like to do a hysterectomy at this time, but [as I have] always wanted children, I have chosen to wait . . . I have two of the [strains] that the shot is suppose to prevent . . . I now have cervical cancer and I am left wondering what role the GARDASIL HPV vaccination played in the hasty onset." (ID: 319836)
"After receiving her second dose of GARDASIL … she could crawl but … needed to use crutches or a wheel chair ... She was experienced problems breathing and had ‘super migraines' that never went away … She had swelling in her face, jaw and wrists. The patient was diagnosed with GUILLAIN-BARRE syndrome, myelin sheath degeneration and peripheral neuropathy. Patient was hospitalized twice … patient has not recovered from symptoms." (ID: 318052)
A 19-year-old girl with no medical history immediately experienced side effects after receiving the Gardasil vaccine. Within eleven days her symptoms included "Aggression, Arthralgia, Complex partial seizures, Confusional state, Convulsion, Crying, Dizziness, Epilepsy, Fatigue, Feeling abnormal, Grand mal convulsion, Immediate post-injection reaction, Irritability, Myalgia, Nausea, Pain, Postictal state, Somnolence, Syncope, Tremor, and Unresponsive to stimuli." (ID: 320598)
"Two weeks after the third dose, the patient developed a complication. She was taken to the hospital by ambulance but passed away during the transport from an unknown cause…Upon arrival in ER unresponsive, pupils fixed and dilated, no cardiac activity. Resuscitation unsuccessful and patient expired." (ID: 314769)
"The FDA is supposed to be a guardian of public health, and yet the agency continues to turn a blind eye to what seems to be an extremely serious public health problem. The public relations push for Gardasil by Merck, politicians and public health officials needs to pause so that these adverse reactions can be further studied," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The already serious problems associated with Gardasil seem to be getting worse. No one should require this vaccine for young children."
CDC and FDA downplay risks of Gardasil
Responding to concerns about Gardasil safety, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) notes on its website that “the HPV vaccine was studied in 5 clinical trials before it was licensed. There were over 21,000 girls and women ages 9 through 26 in these clinical trials.” CDC states that more than 24 million doses of Gardasil were distributed in the United States as of May 1, 2009, with 13,758 VAERS reports of adverse events.
CDC also notes that it and the FDA have been “closely monitoring” the safety of Gardasil through three systems.
The main system of tracking Gardasil outcomes is VAERS, a “passive” system of data collection managed by the CDC and FDA. Anyone can submit reports of an “adverse event” or side effect online or by downloading a form. The website states that someone working with the VAERS system may contact the person or their health care provider for additional follow-up information.
While most reports on Gardasil appear to have been submitted by registered nurses or other clinical staff, one parent of a 20-year-old woman who died Nov. 15, 2008 submitted this report on Jan. 15, 2009:
“My daughter had her 3rd GARDASIL vaccine in Sept. She was a very healthy young lady, she went to take a shower and died. Autopsy report states undetermined death. There was no sign of the body to indicate a fall. She had pointed the shower head away from her and she got down on her knees and put her hand on the edge of the tub and passed away. This has been a living nightmare for her family. She is not the only one to have had problems and death from this vaccine. Please I beg you to take it off until it can be further tested. –not tested long enough to begin with.- There will be others that will die if the cause is not found.”
The CDC and FDA continue to recommend Gardasil injections.The CDC recommends the HPV vaccine be given systematically to all girls 11 and 12 years old, or before engaging in sexual activity, and to girls and women 13 through 26 years of age who did not receive it when they were younger. The vaccine is given in a series of three injections over a six-month period.
“Based on all of the information we have today, CDC continues to recommend Gardasil vaccination for the prevention of 4 types of HPV,” states the CDC website. “As with all approved vaccines, CDC and FDA will continue to closely monitor the safety of Gardasil. Any problems detected with this vaccine will be reported to health officials, healthcare providers, and the public, and needed action will be taken to ensure the public's health and safety.”
Merck has actively promoted Gardasil through TV ads aimed at the public and through Congressional lobbying. Several state legislatures have attempted to enact mandatory Gardasil vaccinations for adolescent girls. As of March of 2009, 12 states have proposed HPV-related legislation or resolutions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Merck is also seeking the FDA’s approval of Gardasil for the inoculation of boys and older women. Gardasil sales reached $1.5 billion in 2007.
Resources:
Judicial Watch Special Report: Examining the FDA's HPV Vaccine Records - June 30, 2008
Examining the FDA's HPV Vaccine Records - Appendices - June 30, 2008
Vaccine Adverse Effects Report System (VAERS) cumulative deaths report - June 16, 2009
HPV Vaccine, National Council of State Legislatures
Does Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg support eugenics through abortion? - Los Angeles Times
Here's what Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in Sunday's New York Times Magazine: "Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe vs. Wade] was decided," Ginsburg told her interviewer, Emily Bazelon, "there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."
The comment, which bizarrely elicited no follow-up from Bazelon or any further coverage from the New York Times -- or any other major news outlet -- was in the context of Medicaid funding for abortion. Ginsburg was surprised when the Supreme Court in 1980 barred taxpayer support for abortions for poor women. After all, if poverty partly described the population you had "too many" of, you would want to subsidize it in order to expedite the reduction of unwanted populations.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE: Does Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg support eugenics through abortion? - Los Angeles Times
Posted using ShareThis
The comment, which bizarrely elicited no follow-up from Bazelon or any further coverage from the New York Times -- or any other major news outlet -- was in the context of Medicaid funding for abortion. Ginsburg was surprised when the Supreme Court in 1980 barred taxpayer support for abortions for poor women. After all, if poverty partly described the population you had "too many" of, you would want to subsidize it in order to expedite the reduction of unwanted populations.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE: Does Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg support eugenics through abortion? - Los Angeles Times
Posted using ShareThis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
