Margaret Rose STRINGER: "... why does this posting software tell me that spelling "marvellous" with two 'l's is wrong?". Probably because your browser is set to US English. In IE, go to Settings/Internet Options/Appearance/Languages and set it to English (Australia) [en-AU]. For Firefox, try https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/au-english-dictionary/?src=api

I find this article a bit disturbing. I don't agree that vaccines are the cure all to cancer. We need to be supporting healthy cell formation through supporting our immune system with nutritional building blocks. Glyconutrition is a good start. To promote the cervical cancer vaccine as a way of preventing cancer is risky. There is a lot of research and evidence to suggest it causes other cancers ie breast cancer. I have a 28 yr old daughter who had this vaccine at 24 and who at 26 was diagnosed with breast cancer. So much for this vaccine protecting her. Do your own research!

Andrea Walker, Teacher Librarian, recommends so-called "glyconutrients", but scientists who work in this area do not.

Interesting paper in the scientific journal "Glycobiology": "A “Glyconutrient Sham”

An extract:
"The discipline of glycobiology contributes to our understanding of human health and disease through research, most of which is published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Recently, legitimate discoveries in glycobiology have been used as marketing tools to help sell plant extracts termed “glyconutrients.” The glyconutrient industry has a worldwide sales force of over half a million people and sells nearly half a billion dollars (USD) of products annually. Here we address the relationship between glyconutrients and glycobiology, and how glyconutrient claims may impact the public and our discipline. "

Is there no end to these supposed nutrient scams?

So where does it implicate the sale of glyconutrients as a scam? It talks about "legitimate discoveries" and that it's published in peer-reviewed scientific journals...
You endorse anything marketed by drug companies and slam anything that competes with it.
Pretty transparent.

There is no doubt that there are examples of pharmaceutical companies covering up side effects etc so we need to treat their claims with care. However there is also a strong body of research that has no connection with companies showing linkages between some cancers and infection. Vaccines that prevent the infection can also prevent the cancer. One person in three will get cancer in their lives and public health strategies of which vaccination is one, are one of the most cost effective means of controlling infections.

Cervical cancer is preventable without this vaccine, ie regular pap smears. I don't believe the risks/side effects make this vaccine worth considering. See this article http://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/hpv-vaccine-facts

That article is not a good source of information on the cervical cancer prevention. It is however a fine example of the following logical fallacies.

"But thousands of women have also reported more worrisome issues, including crippling fatigue, paralysis, blindness, or autoimmune complications, and some have even died, according to CDC and FDA data. "

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion
Big scary emotive sentence here.
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter
Without information on the harm prevented by the vaccine this paragraph is meaningless.

""I was 19 when I got the first shot, but my arm hurt so badly for the next three months that I didn't go back for the second," says a 21-year-old who asked not to be identified. "Even now my arm is considerably weak, and I have vertigo and other health problems. I used to run almost four miles a day. Now I spend a lot of time seeing doctors."

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

"While researchers aren't certain that grievances like these stem from direct Gardasil side effects (Cervarix hasn't been around long enough to amass complaints), "it's critical to note that more than 70 healthy young girls have died from a neurological reaction that occurred soon after getting Gardasil," says Harper. (The FDA is not required to act in response to any side effect that occurs in fewer than one in 10,000 people.)"

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause
I'd like to know the source of this data, It could be an exaggeration of the VAERS data, which is unreliable and needs careful examination before use. For example if you die in a car accident in the weeks following a vaccination your death will and up in VAERS as a death associated with that vaccine.

According to CDC and FDA figures over 40 million doses of Gardasil have been delivered, the vaccine was considered a factor in 32 deaths, and only a factor most of the deaths have been thrombosis and 90% of the women who died had multiple risk factors for thrombosis.

In the same period of time approximately 12,000 women have died in the US from cervical cancer, 8400 of these deaths could be have prevented by the HPV vaccine.

I would suggest Elizabeth that it can't be justified - it's all about money!! The manufacturers, Merck, have been trying to get compulsory vaccination mandated in order to boost the flagging sales of Gardisal. For example check out the financial and social links of White House hopeful, Governor Rick Perry of Texas who wanted Gardisal mandated as a compulsory vaccine for all sixth grade girl students. It's worth reading about his connections to Merck. There have been thousands of side effects including deaths attributed to this drug (http://truthaboutgardasil.org/) - Merck have been embroiled in controversy for years and their Vioxx drug is estimated to have killed more Americans than all those killed in the Vietnam war. I am so surprised the Conversation has published this very one sided article from someone who benefits financially from this drug. I note the negative score attributed to my previous entry - how very interesting. Big Pharma, big business, big profits....

Leo, on the subject of mandated vaccination, the Australian Government recently announced that “families will now need to have their children fully immunised to receive the existing $726 per child Family Tax Benefit Part A supplement”.

In this regard, I am questioning the Government’s requirement that children be vaccinated twice with the measles/mumps/rubella (MMR) vaccine as it is likely most children will already have lifelong immunity after the first dose.

I have forwarded a letter on this matter to the Federal Minister for Health, Tanya Plibersek. The letter can be accessed via this link: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Letter_to_Minister_Plibersek_re_MMR_vaccine.pdf

David, on the push for HPV vaccination, David Sackett’s editorial “The arrogance of preventive medicine” comes to mind, i.e.:

“But surely the fundamental promise we make when we actively solicit individuals and exhort them to accept preventive interventions must be that, on average, they will be the better for it.2 Accordingly, the presumption that justifies the aggressive assertiveness with which we go after the unsuspecting healthy must be based on the highest level of randomized evidence that our preventive manoeuvre will, in fact, do more good than harm. Without evidence from positive randomized trials (and, better still, systematic reviews of randomized trials) we cannot justify soliciting the well to accept any personal health intervention. There are simply too many examples of the disastrous inadequacy of lesser evidence as a basis for individual interventions among the well: supplemental oxygen for healthy premies (causing retrolental fibroplasia), healthy babies sleeping face down (causing SIDS), thymic irradiation in healthy children, and the list goes on.”
http://www.cmajopen.com/content/167/4/363.full

I’ll be interested to read the Cochrane systematic review on HPV vaccination when it’s available: http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD009069/prophylactic-vaccination-against-human-papillomaviruses-to-prevent-cervical-cancer-and-its-precursors

I suggest the “unsuspecting healthy” should bear in mind this highlighted statement from the National Cervical Screening Program website, i.e.:

“It is important to remember that most women who have HPV clear the virus naturally and do not go on to develop cervical cancer.”
http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/Content/hpv

Can you clarify your position David? Are you arguing that HPV vaccination should be compulsory for all girls/women, despite the National Cervical Screening Program’s statement: “It is important to remember that most women who have HPV clear the virus naturally and do not go on to develop cervical cancer.”?

Your letter refers to a MMR vaccine controversy. Are you referring to the Wakefield paper? Are you not aware that he faked his data, took payments from vested interests and had a financial conflict of interest due to patents he held on competing vaccines?

Elizabeth writes"
I would like some clarification on this. If “only a few individual accumulate enough genetic mistakes in the virus-infected cell for these to acquire the properties of cancer cells”, can universal HPV vaccination be justified?"

The National Cervical Cancer Coalition estimates 253,500 deaths per year from cervical cancer. 70% of those cancers can be prevented by this vaccine.

A few individuals over the world population really adds up.

David, re your comment: “There is no compulsory vaccination for the general Australian public.”

The Immunise Australia Program website notes: “Families will need to have their children fully immunised to receive the existing $726 per child Family Tax Benefit Part A supplement, replacing the Maternity Immunisation Allowance from 1 July 2012.”

This appears to be a significant financial incentive for vaccination. The vaccinations required to fulfil the definition of ‘fully immunised’ are listed on the website, refer to this link: http://immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/faq-related-payments#immunised

At this stage the HPV vaccine is not included on the required vaccine list (which was last modified on 24 November 2011.) It will be interesting to see if this changes in light of today’s announcement that boys are to get the Gardasil vaccine.

Also, re Leo Kerr’s comment: “The manufacturers, Merck, have been trying to get compulsory vaccination mandated in order to boost the flagging sales of Gardisal.” These ABC News articles from last year are relevant:
Renewed push to give boys free cancer vaccine, 29 October 2011: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-29/bid-to-give-boys-free-gardasil-vaccine/3607838
Boys won't get free Gardasil vaccine, 28 April 2011: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-04-28/boys-wont-get-free-gardasil-vaccine/2696628

PS: Please don’t accuse me of being ‘anti-vax’. My letter to Health Minister Tanya Plibersek, which I have referenced in my comments on this thread, illustrates that, based on my current knowledge, I am not against measles, mumps or rubella vaccination (with a single effective dose). However, I think it’s fair and reasonable to be allowed to ask questions about vaccines that continue to be added to the National Immunisation Program Schedule.

Further to my response to David above, and my reference to “current knowledge” in my PS comment.

An Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority media release today announces: “New Australian research showing that poultry vaccines have recombined to produce more virulent viruses has prompted the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) to examine regulatory controls over the approval and use of veterinary vaccines.”
Ref: “Agvet regulator responds to chicken vaccine concerns”. APVMA 13 July 2012: http://www.apvma.gov.au/news_media/media_releases/2012/mr2012-04.php

According to a report on ABC News, the scientists involved in the research “say the findings are not only important for vaccines in chickens, but also for any vaccine which might be able to multiply – including those used in humans…Dr Joanne Devlin, a lecturer in Veterinary Public Health-Epidemiology at the Asia-Pacific Centre for Animal Health, says the deaths were caused when two vaccines used to treat the virus combined. "These new strains were formed by recombination from the different vaccine strains and that they were actually more virulent than the vaccine strains that gave rise to them," she said. "This is something we've never…seen before in the field." Live vaccines, where a weaker version of the virus is introduced to allow the immune system to build up its own defences, are quite commonly used for animals and humans, and include polio, measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox and rabies.”
Ref: “Chicken vaccines combine to create deadly virus”. ABC News, 13 July 2012: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-13/chicken-vaccines-combine-to-create-deadly-virus/4127804

This brings to mind “The Law of Unintended Consequences”, i.e. consequences of action that were not anticipated, which could be perverse effects that result in the opposite of what was intended.
Ref: http://university-discoveries.com/the-law-of-unintended-consequences

I think this highlights the care that should be taken in vaccination practice, across the variety of vaccines, e.g. live, inactivated, subunit, toxoid, conjugate, DNA or recombinant vector. There is always the possibility of unintended consequences, over the short or long term, which is why the “unsuspecting healthy” must learn to be vigilant and questioning about any medical interventions pressed upon them by the pharmaceutical industry and governments.

Note: The paper regarding the poultry vaccine research referred to above has been published today in the journal Science. The paper is titled “Attenuated Vaccines Can Recombine to Form Virulent Field Viruses”, authored by Sang-Won Lee et al. Given the possible implications of this research, including relevance to the H5N1 controversy, it is surprising that this paper is currently not free access. Also, in relation to the H5N1 controversy, my open letter to the NSABB re the political and ethical implications of lethal virus development provides some background: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Open_Letter_to_Paul_Keim_NSABB_31_Jan_2012.pdf This is a subject I am continuing to follow with interest.

There are some very alarming things happening in the vaccination industry. It seems to me there is a lot of ‘over-vaccination’ of both humans and animals being promoted by pharmaceutical companies, and their supporters in the human and veterinary medicine establishment. It’s about time the spotlight was thrown onto the exploitation of the “unsuspecting healthy”. Perhaps The Conversation could take a lead here?

Excellent points raised in your letter Elizabeth. Today's worrying alert about poultry vaccines is yet another wakeup call to resist pressure from Big Pharma to make vaccinations mandatory.

Yes Joel, I’m referring to the MMR/Wakefield controversy.

Re your reference to “a financial conflict of interest”. It is imperative that scientists, doctors and others are open and transparent about any possible conflicts of interest regarding their endorsement of medical products.

For example, both Ian Frazer and the Minister for Health, Tanya Plibersek, were involved in advertising the HPV vaccine for boys (and girls) yesterday, yet the media articles I read on the launch of the HPV vaccine for boys made no mention of the fact that Ian Frazer will receive royalties from the sale of HPV vaccines in the developed world. See for example: “Schoolboys to get Gardasil vaccine”. Brisbane Times, 12 July 2012: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/schoolboys-to-get-gardasil-vaccine-20120712-21xqg.html

This relevant information was not included in Tanya Plibersek’s media release yesterday, nor did Ian Frazer’s “Message of Support” note that he will receive royalties from sales of the HPV vaccines.

Also, the dangers of papillomavirus were played up in the HPV vaccine launch for the mainstream media yesterday. This less sensational message, relayed by Ian Frazer on The Conversation website on 10 July 2012, appears to have been relegated to the background, i.e.: “Through sexual activity, most of us will get infected with the genital papillomaviruses that can cause cancer. Fortunately, most of us get rid of them between 12 months to five years later without even knowing we’ve had the infection. Even if the infection persists, only a few individuals accumulate enough genetic mistakes in the virus-infected cell for these to acquire the properties of cancer cells.”

I wonder if 12 and 13 year old boys and girls and their parents will be given the opportunity to consider this information before they give consent for HPV vaccination? Perhaps they should also consider that things can go wrong with vaccination, e.g. as detailed in the report today that two different vaccines used to control an infectious disease in chickens can recombine to create new lethal virus strains.

Refs:
- Media Release from The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP, Minister for Health - “HPV Vaccine Extended to Boys”. 12 July 2012: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/59C397F61CACF02FCA257A390000C65A/$File/TP059.pdf
- Message of Support from Professor Ian Frazer AC (creator of the HPV Vaccine). Funding of national HPV vaccine for boys. 12 July 2012: http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/home/$file/Frazer-message-of-support.pdf
- Chicken vaccines combine to create deadly virus. ABC News, 13 July: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-13/chicken-vaccines-combine-to-create-deadly-virus/4127804

Elizabeth Hart - you say " It’s about time the spotlight was thrown onto the exploitation of the “unsuspecting healthy”.

That's exactly why it is so important to shine light on ineffective "therapies" like homeopathy.

I don't know what your area of "research" is, but your apparent paranoia about vaccination suggest it is not a scietific area.

Sue, I’m employed as a part-time Research Officer providing assistance on research projects in areas unrelated to vaccination. I have experience with scientific literature searching. I am also aware of processes for ethics approval of scientific projects. My tertiary education majored in politics and philosophy.

I’m particularly interested in the ethical aspects of companion animal and human vaccination, and also evidence based medicine. I became interested in these topics after my dog became very ill and was put down after an annual vaccination. I subsequently discovered the combination of modified live virus (MLV) and killed vaccines a veterinarian had insisted my dog have every year were of no proven benefit to my dog, and were potentially harmful. I was not given the opportunity to give my ‘informed consent’ to the application of these vaccine products. I also discovered that veterinarians are most reluctant to acknowledge the possibility of adverse reactions after vaccination. International dog and cat vaccination guidelines, issued by the World Small Animal Veterinary Association, acknowledge “there is gross under-reporting of vaccine-associated adverse events which impedes knowledge of the ongoing safety of these products”(1).

I’ve been researching and campaigning on the international problem of ‘over-vaccination’ of pets for the past nearly four years, see for example my submission to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons re professional conduct and companion animal vaccination practice. This submission also contains hyperlinks to much of my other correspondence with parties such as the Australian Veterinary Association, Australasian Veterinary Boards Council, Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, UK Veterinary Medicines Directorate etc: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Submission_re_RCVS_Draft_Code_of_Professional_Conduct.pdf

See also “Over-vaccination of pets – an unethical practice” which I circulated in June 2009: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Over-vaccination_of_pets_-_an_unethical_practice.pdf

For many years there have been calls to reduce vaccination of companion animals because it may be harmful. For example, during a roundtable discussion between veterinary academics and a veterinary specialist regarding titre testing and vaccination(2) (report published in 2002), Professor Richard Ford said: “I believe that repeated injections of immunogenic proteins can potentially be harmful. I work on the internal medicine service in a busy referral teaching hospital. My colleagues and I are all concerned about the inordinate number of cases we see of autoimmune disease like immune-mediated haemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, and polyarthritis – more than ever before.” Dr Jory Olsen said: “I think we underestimate how many problems overvaccination may be causing…At our practice, we think overvaccination probably causes immunologic problems or at least contributes to immunologic problems. I think there are a vast number of other diseases – immunologic, or degenerative diseases such as atopy, chronic allergies, asthma, and other airway diseases – that are exaggerated by, caused by, or stimulated by overvaccination. But it is impossible to prove.”

Another participant, Professor Ronald Schultz, said: “I tell practitioners that vaccines are drugs, albeit biological drugs. I remind them that they would not consider it good medicine to give an unnecessary pharmaceutical drug on a recurring basis. I think it is even worse to give a vaccine, or biological drug, that isn’t necessary. The possible adverse consequences of a vaccine generally far outweigh the adverse consequences of a pharmaceutical drug. A pharmaceutical drug is usually much more restricted in its action. However, each time we stimulate an immune response, we have to look at the effect on all body systems – not only on antibody responses or cell-mediated immunity, but also on interactions with the endocrine system and the nervous system…”

The international vaccination guidelines for dogs and cats referred to previously(1), (first published in 2007 and updated in 2010), warn we should “reduce the ‘vaccine load’ on individual animals in order to minimize the potential for adverse reactions to vaccine products”. These guidelines are generally ignored by many veterinarians who appear to be reluctant to reduce vaccination as it is a “convenient income generator”(3).

While warnings are being issued to reduce vaccination of dogs and cats, vaccination for humans is increasing. Ever more vaccines, and repeat vaccinations, are being added to the children’s vaccination schedule(4). All of us are now being urged to have annual vaccinations for influenza.

I suggest it would be useful to compare human and companion animal vaccination practice from a “One Health”(5) perspective, and consider the possible deleterious consequences of repeated vaccination throughout life.

References:
1. Day, M.J., Horzinek, M.C., Schultz, R.D. World Small Animal Veterinary Association’s (WSAVA) Guidelines for the Vaccination of Dogs and Cats. Journal of Small Animal Practice. Vol. 51, June 2010: http://www.wsava.org/PDF/Misc/VaccinationGuidelines2010.pdf
2. Titer testing and vaccination: A new look at traditional practices. Published by Veterinary Healthcare Communications, Lenexa, Kansas. 2002: http://www.synbiotics.com/Products/CompanionAnimals/Canine/TiterCHEK-CDV-CPV-Distemper/96-0460-RoundTableDiscussion.pdf
3. A term used by Alan Radford in the Journal of Small Animal Practice’s editorial discussing the updated WSAVA 2010 guidelines: The hitchhiker’s guide to dog and cat vaccination. Journal of Small Animal Practice. June 2010. Vol. 51, Issue 6, pp293-294.
4. Immunise Australia Program – National Immunisation Program Schedule: http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/nips2
5. “One Health Initiative will unite human and veterinary medicine”: http://www.onehealthinitiative.com/

Elizabeth Hart - being literate in research methods is certainly an advantage, but the ability to do a critical analysis of medical research also requires an understanding of the underlying clinical sciences and clinical practice.

Have you read the basic science underlying the development of the various vaccines? Have you read and analysed the data on the early-phase developmental studies of vaccines? What is your analysis?

Your comment about the "unsuspecting healthy" also suggests that you don't appreciate the principles of public health measures. Preventative measures must be directed at the healthy - that's the whole point of prevention.

This is quite different to the exploitative treatment if the truly "unsuspecting mildly ill" by people promoting pseudo-remedies like homeopathy for self-limiting conditions.

I respect and acknowledge your understanding of politics and philosophy - these are crucial areas of knowledge for our society. I would also urge you, however, to respect the scientific knowledge and training of the people who battle away in laboratories and clinics, who do basic and clinical research, and who are held accountable when a child dies or is damaged.

The new knowledge about the effects of a combination of live vaccines used in poultry is not a "wake-up call" - it is just a new piece of evidence in ever-developing health science that will continue to make vaccination better and safer.

People who bemoan the fact that the current whooping cough vaccine is not the most effective of vaccines should understand the history of its development - the previous vaccine that was used was more effective, but had a higher rate of side-effects. The new Pertussis vaccine is acellular - less side effects but also less effective (although a lot better than nothing). Science improves in this way - gradually and in steps.

Wakefield is now suing the BMJ and Brian Deer, the again-unemployed journalist who faked the evidence against Wakefield as a means of boosting his career.

Viruses are neither alive nor dead -- they are incapable of "doing" anything until they occupy a live host.
Viruses contain DNA and RNA that invade the DNA and RNA of the host. What goes on from there is a crap-shoot, and researchers are far from having all the answers. Seeing that the research is being manipulated by and for the benefit/profit of the drug companies, they are more interested in good ad copy and promotion than the public good. With the further manipulation of medical journals, it's a safe bet that the independent research that does not support vaccination will be buried.
The fact that we are seeing all sorts of virus mutations is not surprising at all with all the manipulations that are going on in labs. It also explains why some viruses are now able to cross species.

Sue, I don’t claim to be an expert about anything, least of all immunology/vaccinology, that’s why I’m careful to quote others when I make my arguments. For example, I quoted Ronald Schultz in my previous response to you, did you read it? Schultz says: “I tell practitioners that vaccines are drugs, albeit biological drugs. I remind them that they would not consider it good medicine to give an unnecessary pharmaceutical drug on a recurring basis. I think it is even worse to give a vaccine, or biological drug, that isn’t necessary. The possible adverse consequences of a vaccine generally far outweigh the adverse consequences of a pharmaceutical drug. A pharmaceutical drug is usually much more restricted in its action. However, each time we stimulate an immune response, we have to look at the effect on all body systems – not only on antibody responses or cell-mediated immunity, but also on interactions with the endocrine system and the nervous system…”(1)

Ronald Schultz is Professor and Chair of the Department of Pathobiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine -University of Wisconsin-Madison. He’s a veterinary immunologist and has won a number of awards including the first Distinguished Veterinary Immunologist Award in 1988. He’s been working in this area since the 60’s. See this link for a bio: http://www.freewebs.com/rcfbenefit2009/documents/pressrelease/RonaldDSchultzAndJeanDoddsBios.pdf

Professor Schultz is one of the authors of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association’s Guidelines for the Vaccination of Dogs and Cats. These guidelines warn we should “reduce the ‘vaccine load’ on individual animals in order to minimize the potential for adverse reactions to vaccine products”. These guidelines also acknowledge “there is gross under-reporting of vaccine-associated adverse events which impedes knowledge of the ongoing safety of these products”(2). Given there are more and more vaccine products and repeat vaccinations coming on the market for people, I think we should be alert to these warnings and avoid any unnecessary vaccinations.

As mentioned previously, I’ve been investigating pet vaccination for the past nearly four years, and I’ve read a lot of papers in that time. I’ve read papers by academics such as Nobel Laureates Professor Peter Doherty and Professor Rolf Zinkernagel, and of course most of it is right over my head. However, I think there’s a lot that the experts still don’t know about immunology…

Which reminds me of one of my favourite quotes from the late, great Christopher Hitchens, who explained his concept of ‘Hitch 22’, which is to defend science and reason, and which can be summarised in the following three mottoes:
-The only thing you are sure of is uncertainty.
-The only thing that is certain is doubt.
-The main thing is the Socratic principle - you’re only educated when you understand how ignorant you are.(3)
I suggest these are valuable mottoes of humility for all of us to keep in mind…particularly scientists experimenting with viruses and vaccines….

PS: Sue, you’ve referred to homeopathy in your responses to my comments. I haven’t mentioned anything about homeopathy in my comments, I don’t know much about it. I do know that it’s not mandatory, unlike vaccination which has now been linked to financial inducements by the Australian Government(3) on the creeping road to compulsion. And, for the record, I’m not ‘anti-vax’, I’m ‘pro-evidence based medicine’, and in favour of preventative health, although not of questionable medical interventions. My reference to the ‘unsuspecting healthy’ comes from David Sackett’s editorial “The arrogance of preventive medicine” CMAJ • AUG. 20, 2002; 167 (4): http://www.cmaj.ca/content/167/4/363.full.pdf
Professor Emeritus David Sackett is a pioneer of evidence based medicine/practice: http://fhs.mcmaster.ca/sackettsymposium/sackett_dave.html

References:
1. Titer testing and vaccination: A new look at traditional practices. Published by Veterinary Healthcare Communications, Lenexa, Kansas. 2002: http://www.synbiotics.com/Products/CompanionAnimals/Canine/TiterCHEK-CDV-CPV-Distemper/96-0460-RoundTableDiscussion.pdf
2. Day, M.J., Horzinek, M.C., Schultz, R.D. World Small Animal Veterinary Association’s (WSAVA) Guidelines for the Vaccination of Dogs and Cats. Journal of Small Animal Practice. Vol. 51, June 2010: http://www.wsava.org/PDF/Misc/VaccinationGuidelines2010.pdf
3. Jennifer Byrne Presents: Christopher Hitchens. First Tuesday Book Club. ABC. First aired 13/07/10: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/firsttuesday/s2898631.htm
4. Letter to Federal Health Minister, Tanya Plibersek, re Questions re the Ethics of Australian Government Mandated Vaccination: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Letter_to_Minister_Plibersek_re_MMR_vaccine.pdf

Elizabeth - it would take some time to explain to you that the assertion " The possible adverse consequences of a vaccine generally far outweigh the adverse consequences of a pharmaceutical drug." is just not true.

Firstly, there is no single category of "pharmaceutical drug". Does he mean topical antibiotics? Paracetamol? Aspirin? Digoxin? Then, the vaccines are injected intramuscularly - theya re not injested or intravenously administered. That is just a nonsensical statement.

However, I am fascinated about the fact that you prefer the opinion of this veterinary immunologist to the opinion of the author of this piece - a world-renowned sicentist and former Australian of the Year. Could it be that an underlying bias helps you select between "experts".

I have heard the "I'm not anti-vaccine...but " comment before. If you are truly interested in evidence, there is an abundance of evidence on both the safety and efficacy of vaccines - it is the most successful method of population health ever.

Hi David - the side effects are listed in many websites as you are probably aware:
Headache, Pyrexia, Oropharyngeal pain, Diarrhea, Nasopharyngitis, Nausea, Upper respiratory tract infection, Abdominal pain upper, Myalgia, Dizziness, Vomiting, Anaphylaxis has also been reported following vaccination with Gardisal. As I stated in my comment, the problem for me David with the article is that the author has a vested financial interest in promoting the drug, "Now, we need to make sure it’s used globally, to prevent this second most common cause of cancer death in women." The cynic in me adds "..... and I make a bundle of money on the way through". The manufacturer's questionable promotions tactics with this drug and their shameful history with Vioxx had my cynics radar on red alert. Oh and I think it was Andrea you referenced in your response, not Andrew.

oh I forgot toothache, syncope, insomnia and nasal congestion :)

David - you asked for the side effects - I expect you already knew them but I've listed them anyway and I don't consider Anaphylaxis as a minor side effect. I'll answer your question about whether I'd trust you when you develop the cure for the other diseases you mention - let me know when you've made the breakthrough.

What about Multiple Sclerosis-Like Symptoms and Paralysis - Check out this link http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/01/24/hpv-vaccine-victim-sues-merck.aspx

Mercola is not a medical doctor. He is very successful profiteer from human gullibility and desperation. He is a HIV/AIDS denialist, will tell you that sun exposure *prevents* skin cancer, sells a number of fake cancer, diabetes and autism cures, and promotes unpasteurised milk as the only safe food for infants if they can't be breast feed.

That article is typical of the content on his site. Lots of assertions with no data to back them up, links to conspiracy theory sites, links to his own articles plugging product from his shop.

He is not a reliable source of health information.

Not being a medical doctor does not make you an unreliable source. We need to look beyond the medical profession anyway and I believe there is enough evidence of harmful side-effects to carefully reconsider compulsory immunization. If you want real data from sources such as the FDA then this link also provides plenty of information. http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_HPV_Vaccine_0.html
Its interesting when the truth is sort that their is an immediate assertion of "conspiracy theory" if it does not support the popular, media driven belief. We need to keep open minds.

You are correct in the first statement, however that does not change anything about Mercola he is a dishonest profiteer.

The article you have linked to is quite dishonest. Have a look at this quote which is centre of his argument that the FDA is lying and HPV does not cause cancer.

FDA Quote
"The HPV DNA test is not intended to substitute for regular Pap screening. Nor is it intended to screen women under 30 who have normal Pap tests. Although the rate of HPV infection in this group is high, most infections are short-lived and not associated with cervical cancer."

Mike Adams reads this as
"In other words, the FDA knew in 2003 that HPV infections are not associated with cervical cancer."

The report does not say what Mike Adams says it does. for a start most does not equal all, the fact that most HPV infection are fought off does not change the fact that 70% of cervical cancers are linked to HPV infections. He is presenting no evidence to dispute this.

What Mike is doing here is cherry picking, he has quoted one paragraph from a 68 page document out of it's context and is claiming this as evidence of a conspiracy by the FDA and Merck to hide the harm, and force vaccination on young women.

This article is quite typical of Mike's body of work. Cherry picking and claims of the evidence being hidden from the public he really is a conspiracy theorist.

If you want to see the FDA data on Gardasil here not the NaturalNews.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm094042.htm

or

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/HPV/Index.html

Mercola IS a medical doctor who graduated as a Doctor of Osteopathy/DO which is the equivalent of an MD in the U.S. Get your facts straight.
Gardasil is said to "protect" against only 3 strains of HPV when there are about 90... There is also research showing that HPV is largely harmless and that the virus burns out on its own in a few weeks to months.
Cervical cancer has one of the lowest incidences of all cancers.
Correlation does not mean causality. Just because HPV is found in SOME women presenting with cervical cancer does not mean it is the cause.
Selling injections to hundreds of thousands of women to allegedly prevent one case of cervical cancer worldwide is hardly effective and certainly not cost-effective -- these are what the real statistics add up to.

Laurie Willberg - selling drops of water or alcohol containing no therapeutic substance to vulnerable people is certainly not either effective or cost-effective, nor is it ethical.

Laurie Willberg writes
"Mercola IS a medical doctor who graduated as a Doctor of Osteopathy/DO which is the equivalent of an MD in the U.S. Get your facts straight. "

No. He is a Doctor of Osteopathy, A Medical Doctor in the U.S.A. does a different degree program. The fact that in the U.S.A. Osteopaths have been given the privileges of medical doctors and that their degree program has some overlap with a medical degree does not change that the basis of osteopathy is the non-evidence based treatment of disease by skeletal manipulation.

Depends on what "treatment of disease by skeletal manipulation" you're referring to. I have a hunch you know very little about it, but this knee-jerk litany of pseudo-skeptic nonsense is typical.
Osteopaths in the U.S. get the same medical training as MDs and then some.
Pick the medical care you want. Don't be surprised if others are scoffing at you for being a "sheeple".

Just your opinion Sue. You're certainly no expert on other medical systems. You spend your time defending the old school status quo. Thousands of MDs are incorporating non-mainstream approaches and enjoying the gratification of seeing patients actually get better. You won't.

Actual Laurie my information on Osteopathy come from the American Osteopathy Association http://www.osteopathic.org

This is the body in the US responsible for licensing Osteopaths. They quite happily talk about using skeletal manipulation to treat asthma, and advocate cranial manipulation, neither of which has any evidence base.

No Laurie Willberg - not just my opinion. You've responded to most of the similar threads that show similar evidence - so you clearly know it is not just me.

Your comment about "old-school status quo" is such an amusing irony.

Instead of medical science, which continuously updates itself, you are promoting homeopathy, which upholds the principles invented by one person in the nineteenth century, and is uninfluenced by evidence?

I have the pleasure of seeing lots of my patients get better. It is gratifying indeed.

Medicine is not "science", it falls into the category of health care technology. The core theory behind mainstream medicine is the suppression of symptoms or the removal of organs -- this is not "updating". The notion of being able to use technology to diagnose a condition in order to be able to put a name on it is not therapeutic. It's just more of the same old same old.
Mainstream treatments like surgery are not evidence-based: just trial and error, otherwise how to do you explain the elaborate legal waivers patients are required to sign beforehand?
In fact, Homeopathy is backed by 200 years of clinical success and more recently over 200 scientific studies -- your POV is entirely based on the misinformation promulagated by pseudoskeptic propaganda and it's completely false. You are either completely uninformed or spreading deliberate nonsense.
Your patients don't get better. Unless they have an acute problem that would sort itself out on its own, you will see a steady progression of decline and just console yourself that it's out of your hands.

Mercola's own site says that he no longer practices - he spends his time promoting his book and marketing a whole lot of dubious retail products. If you wanted to hold up some idealistic examplar against the supposed medical-industrial complex, he would not be the one!

Well try this one Sue:
"The combined profits for the ten drug companies in the Fortune 500 ($35.9 billion) were more than the profits for all the other 490 businesses put together ($33.7 billion) [in 2002]. Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs. Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself."
-- Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine
Senior Lecturer in the Department of Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts

oh and here's a video that might help open your eyes to the "so called" medical industrial complex....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqKY6Gr6D3Q
President's Lecture Series 2009-10: Dr. Marcia Angell

Um David (you never did respond by the way to my query on anaphylaxis - too difficult for you or is that a minor side effect in your opinion).

David if you had read the quote properly you would have noticed that it did reference the year 2002. This isn't anti vax propaganda. If you'd checked the reference or watched the video link I'd provided, you would realise the quote had nothing to do with anti vax info. It was about the criminal activities of the pharmaceutical industry (activities such as fraud, illegal marketing, knowingly promoting unsafe drugs) and the distribution of their revenues. It is about the questionable marketing tactics employed by this criminal industry in promoting their products and their excessive influence over government, research institutions and the medical profession.

The quote is taken directly from Dr Marcia Angell - former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Hardly an anti vax campaigner - but a highly respected member of the medical fraternity who has studied the criminal activities of big pharma.

A brief biography for you seeing as you don't check things out before firing off commetns:
"Dr. Angell is a member of the Association of American Physicians, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of the Sciences, the Alpha Omega Alpha National Honor Medical Society, and is a Master of the American College of Physicians and a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In 1997, Time magazine named Marcia Angell one of the 25 most influential Americans, and in 2002, she won the George Polk Award for magazine reporting." Hardly a crank or anti-vax campaigner.
Please read things properly and have a little more scientific rigour before making presumptions based on your own prejudices.

David - glad you're not a particular fan of the drug companies. Thanks for the link - it confirms the data in the quote - the mistake you made in looking at it, is you plugged in the year 2002. That gives results for the financial year 2001 - plug in the year 2003 to get the 2002 numbers (as can be verified by the annual reports of the drug companies e.g. Pfizer annual report at the following link showing 2003, 2002, 2001 comparative figures - Pfizer Annual Report: http://www.uic.edu/classes/actg/actg516rtr/Annual-Reports/Pfizer-2003.pdf).

Always a little dangerous doing a 5 minute google search and not being able to read the results correctly. If you doubt the figures you can always put them on a spread sheet and do the calculations from your source (money.cnn.com) which is what I did to confirm the figures in the quote.

So looks like those commonly parroted (as you put it) figures are actually correct. You might want to check out some of the other information in the quote now - it could just be correct also. Dr Angell is no subscriber to anti vax campaigns and actually is quite critical of alternative medicine. You might actually now check out her credentials and arguments about conflict of interest.

As an example of the reviews Dr Marcia Angell received in the US for her book: The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. Random, 2004

New York Times: "A scorching indictment of drug companies and their research and business practices...tough, persuasive and troubling."

Boston Globe: "A sober, clear-eyed attack on the excesses of drug company power...a lucid, persuasive, and highly important book."

Washington Post: "Always authoritative...[this book] delivers the message—that drug-company money and power is corrupting American medicine—in a convincing, no-nonsense manner."

My issue from the start of the article David has always been about conflict of interest. The quotes and information I've provided here confirm the unholy alliance of drug companies, research institutes, universities, the medical profession in general and the corrupting nature of that relationship by an industry where criminal activity seems to be entrenched. That's the point I was making. Nothing to do with whether this particular vaccine is effective or otherwise - I don't know. I have issues however about the way it is being promoted and would dearly like to know if a cost/benefit analysis has every been conducted into its effectiveness in Australia as opposed to other cancer reducing strategies. I mean they're my damn tax dollars too and I have a right to question.

Hey David - I'm actually getting to like you :)

For starters try www.extraordinarymedicine.org
PubMed has an easily found meta-analysis of placebo effect comparison between Homeopathy and conventional drugs -- the result is that it's about the same. Anyone who still wants to claim that Homeopathy produces nothing but placebo response will have to concede that pharmaceuticals are placeboes too.
RCTs are NOT the only standard for any treatment otherwise it would be used for surgery, psychiatry and... oh yeah, vaccines.
RCTs were developed and their best function remains as a means to test the suppressive effects of drugs. Since Homeopathic remedies do not act according to the theory of suppression, RCT methodology is not the best or even a proper means for testing it.
The bottom line is that around 50 modern studies into Homeopathy suggest the need for more research -- they do NOT proclaim it to be a placebo. Another 150 modern studies show Homeopathy to be superior to placebo.
You can also research the Banerji Protocol which is now being used at Texas Anderson MD Cancer Centre.
I am not about to play pseudo-skeptic scrabble whereby I post a study and you proceed to banter about what you think is wrong with it. Nice try, no cigar.

ah David - I thought you might make that calculation mistake (you may be a scientist but your maths are sloppy). The numbers aren't fudged - they are correct. Re-read the quote: "for all the other businesses put together" - now if you'd done as I'd suggested and run a spread sheet you get the total figure of profitability for the fortune 500. You're mistake this time is not including all the other businesses (some of which ran negative balances). It's just high school maths David (perhaps even primary school maths). What you have to do is plug in the whole of the 500 companies and combine their profits (as many made losses that year) "for all the other businesses put together".

Geez David - don't cherry pick the winners and then tell me I'm making stuff up. Do it properly this time mate.

Laurie Willberg - ALL therapies have the potential to have a placebo effect. That's exactly why therapies have to be tested AGAINST placebo. AN effective therapy is one whose benefit is GREATER than placebo.

Homeopathic water is, however, ONLY a placebo.

Leo Kerr: it definitely is not straightforward to calculate life-long cost-effectiveness of any intervention - though some are relatively simple (low cost, low risk and huge benefit).

Which of the vaccines that you or your family have received benefit from would you agree ARE cost-effective across a lifetime?

I see you don't comment on the conflict of interest issue that is and has been my main objection about this article. The question you pose to me is impossible to answer as I don't have details on the cost/benefit analysis of any vaccine but the incidence of death resulting from HPA is relatively small in this country as you are probably aware. There has been a substantial campaign by the manufacturers of Gardisal (Merck) to have this vaccine made mandatory. The motivation for this is not substantial public health outcomes but bottom line results. The manufacturers have been exposed for putting profits before people's health. Merck had to pay $321 million in criminal fines for illegally marketing Vioxx - this was on top of $600 million Merck paid to the US federal government, 43 states, and the District of Columbia to settle various other suits dealing with the company's illegal marketing tactics. Illegal marketing tactics. Would the taxpayer money devoted to this be better spent in other areas of health or education that would have a higher return - would for example that public money be better targeted to education for Australians living in lower socioeconomic areas (who have the highest mortality rates of cancer in Australia). Would the public return in investment be better spent is assisting more people quit smoking. I don't know the answers to these questions but the conflict of interest in this promotion of the HPA vaccine sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb and the article smells of a sales pitch.

I think you're probably a good guy Ian but you're in bed with the devil.

Leo Kerr - if Ian Frazer, good guy, was to get his discovery (vaccine against HPV) manufactured and distributed world-wide (where it can achieve its maximum benefit) - how would you suggest that he should get it manufactured and distributed in a way that would not disturb you?

Sue - it would be nice to think that the drug companies operate from a patient perspective with altruistic aims and make it available at pricing (or free) in developing countries that might lead to better health outcomes in those places. As profit is their motivation I doubt very much if this would ever come to pass.

Tongue in cheek - my suggestion for getting it manufactured and distributed - perhaps the bikie gangs could do that - they may be criminals but at least they're honest about it.

Leo - of course profit is their motivation - like all manufacturing businesses. We live in a capitalistic democracy. Unless the drug companies are being dishonest or acting in a dangerous way (for which they must be stopped and prosecuted), we can't regulate their motivations.

Without tongue in cheek - how would you advise Ian to get his discovery manufactured and distributed?

Sue I doubt Ian has any choice now in the way this vaccine is manufactured and distributed. That's part of this whole issue - the only way to globally distribute is via a mafia like corrupt industry. There is simply no incentive for them to change. The huge fines that have been dished out to them are just part of the cost of doing business - who cares if you get fined a billion dollars when you've already made billions in profit (or as I heard one commentator state, "that's a good business model") - it's a slap on the wrist. Until the upper management of these companies are jailed for their corrupt activities nothing will change. If you or I were involved in fraud and other illegal activities we would be jailed. The drug industry is so powerful (too big to fail - now where have I heard that before) and so influential that nothing will be done until the people at the very top are heavily punished. Although my previous comment was tongue in cheek the similarities between criminal gangs such as the bikes who manufacture drugs and distribute them quite effectively, and the pharmaceutical industry are too close for comfort.

Either we get away from a profit orientated model for the distribution of drugs (I'd think that would be impossible now) or we impose realistic penalties to act as a deterrent (no evidence so far of that happening). I can't answer your question but should we just hand medical breakthroughs (most times funded from the public purse) to these organisations when we know they are corrupt and through doing so allow them to become even more fabulously wealthy and powerful? It's an interesting ethical question for researchers and the medical fraternity.

Leo - the answer, like in most things, lies in the balance of good and bad.

Does the current manufacturing and distribution system bring more benefit to the people of the world than harm? IF it does, then it is worth continuing.

I can't see any benefit from accusing Ian Frazer of being "in bed with the devil" if the result is that developing countries are obtaining the benefits at reduced cost.

We can't compel multinational manufacturers to have the motivation of saints - we can only seek to regulate their behaviour.

Sue - you're right - I shouldn't have said in bed with the devil - I should have been more specific - in bed with a company that has been involved in corruption and criminal behaviour over many years. Sue I doubt if Merck are doing very much in the way of reducing the costs to developing countries - perhaps a bit of PR window dressing of course - they are after all a marketing company. Their intention in developing countries where admittedly the rates for HPV are higher is to expand their markets - that's all. Merck are not philanthropists - they are in the business of making money. With finite health budgets is it proper that aggressive marketing has been used to try to convince developing countries that cervical cancer prevention through HPV vaccinations takes priority. HPV doesn't rank in the top 10 causes of death in undeveloped countries.

oops that should have read.... " cervical cancer doesn't rank in the top 10 causes of death in undeveloped countries"

Leo Kerr - you seem to have a big hang-up about the motivation of multinational manufacturers, but can offer no alternative.

The top causes of death in impoverished countries are mainly infectious diseases and trauma. One of the most cost-effective ways of improving the outcomes from infectious diseases - especially in children - is vaccination. Solving poverty and hunger and producing employment, clean water and good food would be nice, but that is not a simple task.

You don't seem to like the idea of either vaccines or pharmaceutical manufacturers. What are your preferred solutions for health in impoverished countries? Do you have a simple and reliable way of bringing employment, good food and clean water to everyone in a developing country?

Recently, The Australian published an ‘exclusive’ report noting that University of Wollongong PhD student Judy Wilyman had “questioned the value of the vaccine Gardasil in the fight against cervical cancer”. (‘University stands by anti-vaccine student’, Rick Morton, 26 September 2012.)
While Ms Wilyman’s views on vaccination are highly controversial, she is not alone in questioning the value of the HPV vaccine against cervical cancer. Citizens are entitled to ask well-founded questions about vaccination when it appears powerful vested interests are pressing lucrative medical interventions on healthy people. In my opinion the HPV vaccine being urged upon 12-13 year olds is highly questionable, as even the co-inventor of the technology enabling the HPV vaccines, Ian Frazer, has admitted the risk of cancer is very low.
I have forwarded an open letter on this topic to Mr Chris Mitchell, Editor-in-Chief of The Australian. The letter can be accessed via this internet link: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Is_universal_HPV_vaccination_necessary.pdf
For further discussion on this topic, also refer to comments on The Conversation’s article ‘Study should dispel HPV vaccine myths’: https://theconversation.edu.au/study-should-dispel-hpv-vaccine-myths-9914#comments

While I agree that the risk of cervical cancer in those with HPV infection is low (about 1 chance in 100 in a lifetime) , the risk of cervical cancer for those who don't catch HPV infection is zero, and HPV infection amongst unvaccinated women is incredibly common, with 1 in every 2 women contracting the infection at some time. Worldwide, cancers arising from HPV infections kill 250,000 women every year, mostly at an age that they're still caring for their children - if the currently available vaccines were used universally, about 70% of these deaths could be avoided. While deaths amongst men from genital and oral cancers arising from HPV infection are not as common as cervical cancer deaths in women, they're not exactly rare either, and vaccinating boys protects them against these cancers and also protects their unvaccinated future partners.
If a flu pandemic were to kill as many people every year as HPV infection does, the demand for effective vaccines would be universal. However, HPV infection is a silent killer, killing long after acquisition of an otherwise symptomless infection. This should not diminish the value of protection through vaccination.