CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Backlash against the backlash

Re: Backlash against the backlash

Online Levitra Us — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:22:30 -0000

kxxgxu@hotmail.com - - - - - - - - - -

Re: Backlash against the backlash

48r59yj0i4 — Fri, 25 May 2007 12:20:59 -0000

1u9fkqm7gd http://www.1084407.com/7048... 0qvjetneu5q3djrk4

Re: Backlash against the backlash

crazyschoollady — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:39:23 -0000

There are manufactured "lots" of vaccines with a shelf life passed 2007 that are still "out there", and a parent doesn't know if a vaccine is a new "Thimerasol free" vaccine (if its free) or not, and will they even have the knowledge to ask first? Especially when they have been led to believe there is no more Thimerasol in Vaccines which is hardly the truth...As for infants, the flu shot is recommended for babies as young as 6 months by the "experts". Here are a few tidbits I found about Gardasil:

"Because Merck only studied GARDASIL in fewer than 1200 girls under age 16 in pre-licensure trials, it is critical that doctors and parents be made aware of the nature of the initial adverse event reports coming into VAERS and that they report serious health problems after vaccination when they occur," said NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher. "There are twice as many children collapsing and four times as many children experiencing tingling, numbness and loss of sensation after getting a GARDASIL vaccination compared to those getting a Tdap (tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis) vaccination. There have been reports of facial paralysis and Guillain-Barre Syndrome. And doctors who give GARDASIL in combination with other vaccines are basically conducting an experiment on their young patients because Merck has not published any safety data for simultaneous vaccination with any vaccine except hepatitis B vaccine."

"There are more than 15 types of HPV associated with cervical cancer but GARDASIL only contains HPV types 16 and 18. It is unknown whether non-vaccine HPV types will become more dominant in the future. However, there are indications this could occur because some of the seven strains of pneumococcal contained in Wyeth's PREVNAR vaccine, which was recommended by the CDC for universal use in all babies in 2000, have been replaced by some of the more than 80 other pneumococcal strains not contained in the vaccine."

Read more at:
http://www.hapihealth.com/i...

This is just one site. I'm sure one could research the internet for hours and find opinions that don't concur with yours, AP.

Re: Backlash against the backlash

Archpundit — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:28:12 -0000

===Again, No offense Archpundit. Sorry for my Ã¢â‚¬Å“wierdÃ¢â‚¬Â comparison to Vioxx, and I guess that I must be crazy because I want more research before I expose my 9yo to a vaccine that is not proven to prevent this cancer, at all, not buying it, sorry

And again, it's substance free. What kind of research do you think is sufficient? The argument that there is insufficient research means that you must have some standard for sufficient. And what do you consider acceptable in terms of side effects? What is it? Do you abide by it in other drugs you take including over the counter drugs with far more side effects?

Of course, the point was that the dangers from vaccines are different than other pharmaceuticals. What is weird is comparing the case of Vioxx which had far less testing and very different potential risks compared to Gardasil which the primary risk is autoimmune response which was absent in the trials.

In terms of thiomerasol, you are right, there are three vaccines that still use it, though none for infants.

The discussion is fundamentally irrational and all too common in discussions on anything related to science. The problem isn't that you disagree with someone, it's that you cannot offer evidence supporting why you disagree. This is the common problem in dealing with scientific issues where the argument isn't over the science, but over feelings.

Furthermore, thiomersal's danger isn't in autism as that has been rejected in multiple studies. The danger is simply that one should avoid using a heavy metal when possible since they generally have detrimental effects on human health. While estimates consider the levels that were used safe, there are alternatives except in the case of the flu vaccine.

Re: Backlash against the backlash

crazyschoollady — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:23:50 -0000

Again, No offense Archpundit. Sorry for my "wierd" comparison to Vioxx, and I guess that I must be crazy because I want more research before I expose my 9yo to a vaccine that is not proven to prevent this cancer, at all, not buying it, sorry..."no offense". Also, you are either being fed false info, or you just don't know the facts about Thimerasol. You said "One is the preservative issue with Thimerasol which is no longer a problem. Thimerasol is no longer used." That is entirely false. Thimerasol may not be in this vaccine but it is being used in many vaccines that are being administered today, including the flu shot. Again, no offense, I just don't agree with you, and I don't think that makes me wierd...

Re: Backlash against the backlash

Bill Baar — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:32:11 -0000

It's a communicable disease through sexual activity and some 50% to 75% or (~ 20 of us (apprx 20 million Americans) who are sexually active, have it.

Whether a mandating vaccine that's effective 70% of the time agains some strains of it, which can then go on to cause cervical cancer in a percentage of women (and a smaller percentage of cancers in men) makes sense as Public Health Policy, I don't know....

Red Flags just go up for me when Pols lobbied my Merck jump onto this bandwagen in Springfield.

A good blog on the ethics of vaccines is from U of Penn center for Bioethics.

Also keep in mind, the rule of thumb told Medical Students, is that about half the literature they're reading, is wrong.

Re: Backlash against the backlash

Archpundit — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:42:30 -0000

And that's one of the reasons I think it shouldn't be mandated, but the insurance companies should cover it. AAP does highly recommend the vaccine and CDC points out that the side effects documented are minimal. All that said, parents should have the ability to choose whether to a new vaccine is given to their child in the case where it isn't a communicable disease.

The Vioxx comparison is a little weird given Vioxx isn't a vaccine which have completely different sets of risks. Vioxx was tested over six months with about 4000 people in the control and the experimental group compared to five years and 13,000 in the experimental group alone. Vioxx was expidited and on top of that had more reactions than does gardasil. More study is a good thing, but as far as the initial results, they are incredibly positive.

Re: Backlash against the backlash

Rich Miller — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:14:31 -0000

I'm gonna step into this discussion with one important fact that's being overlooked.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is against a vaccine mandate until more studies are done about side effects.

Re: Backlash against the backlash

Archpundit — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:08:37 -0000

===Skeeter, When the Office Supply people mandate I buy my kids school supplies from their sole source store, and are found lobbying my reps and teachers to mandate I purchase their pens, paper and notebooksÃ¢â‚¬Â¦. well, yeah, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d have a problem with it. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s bad enough the Profs have my kids buy their own books.

So you are against pharmaceutical patents now? Or all patents?

Re: Backlash against the backlash

Archpundit — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:07:44 -0000

===Adverse drug reactions a huge source of med errors. The drug lobby a huge lobby. Sit in your Doctors office some day and count the drug reps coming in with stuff for your Doc. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a very open conspiracy.

And again, non-substantive. The problem of drug reps comes in that doctors are too lazy and simply go with what they are told by the reps. That's an entirely different issue from a vaccine.

The danger of vaccines isn't due to problems of interaction with other drugs, but with two different issues. One is the preservative issue with Thimerasol which is no longer a problem. Thimerasol is no longer used.

The second is if the vaccine creates an autoimmune response. Five years is very adequate to test that and there was no significant finding of autoimmune responses being triggered, but even then the warning for the vaccine suggests girls with such existing issues not get the vaccine.

Merck's lobbying was stupid, however, that isn't relevant to a discussion over the safety of the vaccine.

Re: Backlash against the backlash

Bill Baar — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:58:39 -0000

Skeeter, When the Office Supply people mandate I buy my kids school supplies from their sole source store, and are found lobbying my reps and teachers to mandate I purchase their pens, paper and notebooks.... well, yeah, I'd have a problem with it. It's bad enough the Profs have my kids buy their own books.

Re: Backlash against the backlash

Skeeter — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:50:18 -0000

Baar,

I have a topic for your next column: The Car Controversy.

These so-called "Car Salesmen" set up shop and try and push their so-called "automobiles" on people. Know why? Because they want to MAKE MONEY.

There is another group that Baar should be aware of: The Office Supply Lobby. They come into your office and want to SELL you paper and pens!

With Baar's help, we can stop all these "salesmen" from pushing their products. Heck, if Baar has his way, we can shut down this awful free market of ours!

Thanks for taking the lead on this Baar! Where there are Sales, there must be Conspiracy. At least according to Baar and his "interesting" friends on the far right.

Re: Backlash against the backlash

dan l — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:48:04 -0000

#

Stanek rambling on about a womanÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s sex life and Baar rambling about the Military-Industrial Complex. With those two as the Voice of the Right, no wonder the ILGOP is little more than a footnote.

Fair point Skeeter. I don't think the good Dr. Baar is really ranting Big Pharma or vast medical industrialist complex, rather just pointing out the fact that there is a certain danger when big medical companies are actively lobbying for fairly bold legislation. It's more so dangerous than most corporate work, because it's actually involving the health and well being of our children.

Stanek the other hand, attempting to tie the HPV vaccine to the vast homosexual agenda while trying to explain to us that being a woman is actually about not being sexually empowered is what makes ILGOP so grabasstic.

Check the noize I done brought.

Re: Backlash against the backlash

Bill Baar — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:42:14 -0000

Adverse drug reactions a huge source of med errors. The drug lobby a huge lobby. Sit in your Doctors office some day and count the drug reps coming in with stuff for your Doc. It's a very open conspiracy.

I'm old enough to have gone to school with kids victims of the thalidomide tragedy.

So I'd be concerned about any drug given to girls just before child bearing age that's heavily lobbied by the drug reps. Even without the lobbying....

And don't doubt the Healt care industry's clout man... it's a big outfit, big bucks, and tough...

Re: Backlash against the backlash

Archpundit — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:03:00 -0000

====Public Health decisions are all about waying these odds.

Yep, and the odds are very strongly in favor of gardasil being a benefit to those who are administered it with the worst reaction being a slight fever and no long term effects.

Nearly all drug trials are paid for by the manufacturer. That is the system set up by the FDA. It's not the best type of system, but it's also regulated and overseen by the FDA-if you are upset about the FDA, talk to those who have emasculated it under the Bush Administration.

All that being said, the worst thing that can be said about the vaccine is that it cause slight fevers and it hurts when injected.

Contrary to assertions above 13,000 people over 5 years is quite sufficient to test for serious effects of a vaccine. What theoretical reason would you expect the 13000 people to be different from the general population? And given it is a vaccine what would change in five years? What would be adequate and of the medicines you take how many would fit your standard?

Now, can we stop with 'liberals' say this in this case and have a discussion over the actual evidence in this case? It's lame and silly argument.

===So you want to mandate this risk accross the board to Illinois girls based on a lobbyists wordÃ¢â‚¬Â¦.

Actually, I have said I don't think it needs to be mandated as long as insurance companies provide coverage for it. And it isn't a lobbyist's word, it is in the documentation provided to the FDA.

Re: Backlash against the backlash

Skeeter — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:59:59 -0000

I have to laugh at all the conspiracy freaks here:

"They want to sell a product -- MUST BE BAD!"

As if the act of selling somehow inevitably means that the product is not worthwhile.

Stanek rambling on about a woman's sex life and Baar rambling about the Military-Industrial Complex. With those two as the Voice of the Right, no wonder the ILGOP is little more than a footnote.

Re: Backlash against the backlash

Bill Baar — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:51:24 -0000

Geez... Halliborton getting a contract under Logcap more competitive than this... Jill Stanek puts a twist on things I don't share, but she knows a set up when she sees it. Credit her that....

But the Virginia Beach Republican expects the bill to become law and that Merck & Co. -- the lone maker of Gardasil -- will benefit greatly.

Merck, which yesterday suspended an expensive behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign, had pushed local lawmakers in more than 20 states to bar preteens from attending school unless they were inoculated against the human papillomavirus (HPV).

From steakhouse meals for elected officials in North Carolina to a lobbying job for a former top staffer of the Texas governor, Merck had lobbied officials on numerous issues, but HPV is a major topic of discussion, disclosure reports filed in statehouses across the country show.

Re: Backlash against the backlash

Bill Baar — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:46:28 -0000

I wish the odds on the lotto were one out of 13,000 by the way.

Re: Backlash against the backlash

Bill Baar — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:44:17 -0000

PS who funded the research you cited? That's always the first question with these outfits.

Re: Backlash against the backlash

crazyschoollady — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:44:06 -0000

13,000 women is a drop in the bucket and 5 years is not very much time at all... I don't think enough is known or being researched and the State has no business making this vaccine it's business...no offense Archpundit.

Re: Backlash against the backlash

Bill Baar — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:42:49 -0000

weighing I mean... but you get the pic

Re: Backlash against the backlash

Bill Baar — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:42:07 -0000

Arch, adverse events are a certainity with any drug or vaccine. A tiny chance for each of us, but a certainity for someone in the whole universe (odd how statistics work that way and why we I keep playing lotto...I know someone will win with certaintiy).

Public Health decisions are all about waying these odds.

Liberals so quick to question the Military Industrial complex but their obliviouis to the Medical Industrial complex.

So you want to mandate this risk accross the board to Illinois girls based on a lobbyists word....

Re: Backlash against the backlash

Archpundit — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:51:46 -0000

Two things to remember--the vaccine has been tested on over 13,000 women over the last five years. This isn't something still in the testing phase.

Secondly, the notion that there are widespread side effects is just not true. Here is the report on the testing:
http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/g...

I'm fine with not requiring as long as insurance has to cover it, but the scare tactics by those opposing gardasil are nonsense. The science on the vaccine is good. If parents want to not have their kids vaccinated that is their choice, but it's more likely to help them in the future than to create anything worse than a slight fever.

Re: Backlash against the backlash

Fan of the Game — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:43:31 -0000

i d - Tuesday, Feb 20, 07 @ 4:12 pm:

I think that if this is mandated, it must be covered by insurance or given at county health departments for a minimum fee.
----------------------------------------------
If the state mandates it, the state should pay 100%. Of course, that means tax payers pay 100%. This is just a bad proposal all the way around.

Re: Backlash against the backlash

crazyschoollady — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:14:48 -0000

Parents rushing to get this shot need to slow down and do some "homework". This vaccine is not proven yet. Let's not forget Vioxx. The State should not be mandating a vaccine that does not pose an immediate health risk to the general public. While left untreated, cervical cancer is deadly, but that's "untreated". Regular gyne exams and paps and the it is also one of the most treatable cancers. If young girls are "scared" to go to the gyne, they are too young to be having sex. If they are going to take on the realities of sexual activity, they have to accept all that goes with it, including speculums! All of you who support the mandate, don't you wonder why Merck has been funding the lobbyists? They stand to make a boatload, that alone is a conflict and should raise eyebrows. Young children have been exposed to enought "mandates" and with the rising rates of Austism spectrum disorders, there should be more research on Autism causation. There are too many questions about vaccines and autism. Until we know for sure that thimerisol does not have a link to autism, and we do not, no one should be mandating that young girls receive another vaccine, that hasn't even been proven to be effective. Perhaps Merck should be funding more research in effectiveness and autism causation instead of politics and lobbyists.