http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20091016/rare-disease-may-be-linked-vaccine?src=RSS_PUBLIC2 ALS Cases May Be Linked to Gardasil VaccineResearchers Believe Cervical Cancer Vaccine Could Be Linked to Cases of LouGehrig's DiseaseBy Charlene LainoWebMD Health NewsReviewed by Louise Chang, MDOct. 16, 2009 (Baltimore) -- Researchers believe that there may be a linkbetween a vaccine against cervical cancer and a rapidly progressive, fataldisease in two young women.Both the timing of the symptoms and autopsy results "suggest a link between"the Gardasil vaccine and the fatal cases of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis(ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, says Catherine Lomen-Hoerth, MD,director of the ALS Center at University of California San Francisco MedicalCenter.With only two confirmed cases, "we don't know for sure if it's coincidenceor if they're connected [to the vaccine]," she tells WebMD. "We hope that byraising awareness, we will become aware of any other cases."Pam Eisele, a spokeswoman for Merck & Co., which makes the vaccine, says thecompany cannot comment specifically on the cases as it has not seen thedata."However, after carefully reviewing all the information available to usabout reported adverse events, including reports of deaths, Merck does notbelieve these events have been caused by Gardasil," she says.The vaccine has been given to more than 7 million girls and young womennationwide.Gardasil and ALS: Jenny's StoryThe tragic story of one of the girls, Jenny Tetlock, is chronicled on "Jenny's Journey," a web site created by her parents to publicize her case and getothers with similar symptoms to come forward.http://jenjensfamily.blogspot.com/The first sign that something was wrong was when 14-year-old Jenny trippedon a hurdle that others in her class cleared easily, according to the website. That was just months after her third and final booster Gardasil shot,Lomen-Hoerth says.The disease rapidly progressed; both her legs, and then her arms becameweak, Lomen-Hoerth continues. Jenny began to limp and had trouble grippingobjects. She felt pins and needles in her feet, and her muscles atrophied,she tells WebMD.Within a year, Jenny was paralyzed, a quadriplegic breathing only with thehelp of life support. She died shortly afterward, Lomen-Hoerth says.Throughout the course of her illness, Jenny's mind was as sharp as ever, sheadds.The other patient, a 20-year-old, developed similar symptoms within fourmonths of her first Gardasil shot, Lomen-Hoerth says. The disease followed asimilar course, and the girl died 28 months later.Rapidly Progressive CourseIn addition to the short time span between vaccination and the onset ofsymptoms, several other factors made the researchers suspect a link toGardasil vaccination, Lomen-Hoerth says.In both young women, the disease progressed more quickly than typical foryoung ALS patients, she says.Additionally, at autopsy, "we were surprised that the spinal cord was soinflammatory. That is very different from what we normally see in ALS," shesays.The pathology features "all support a temporal association between [theillness] and vaccination," Lomen-Hoerth says.She spoke at the annual meeting of the American Neurological Association.Because it is extremely rare, affecting just one in 2-3 million youngpeople, there are very few studies of juvenile ALS, Lomen-Hoerth says.Her team plans further study comparing the symptoms and pathologicalfeatures of young adults with ALS who got the Gardasil vaccine to those whodidn't get the shots. "If the features are identical, then we'll know [thevaccine] is not the cause," Lomen-Hoerth says.In the meantime, she and colleagues have met with scientists from the FDAand CDC to scour their adverse-event database, called the Vaccine AdverseEvent Reporting System (VAERS), for any other reports linking ALS toGardasil or other vaccinations. "So far, we haven't found any," she says.Merck is also continuing to work with the CDC and FDA to monitor any adverseevents that may have been caused by the vaccine, according to Eisele.Yadollah Harati, MD, a neurologist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston,says the findings raise a red flag.The fact that "the postmortem studies show distinct immunological featuresdifferent from what is typical of ALS" suggest an association betweenvaccination and ALS, he says."I will be asking any of my young patients with ALS whether they receivedthe Gardasil vaccine," he tells WebMD. "I have one 20-year old ALS patient,and we didn't think to ask that."SOURCES134th Annual Meeting of the American Neurological Association, Baltimore,Oct. 11-14, 2009.Catherine Lomen-Hoerth, MD, director, ALS Center, University of CaliforniaSan Francisco Medical Center.Pam Eisele, Merck & Co.Yadollah Harati, MD, department of neurology, Baylor College of Medicine,Houston.Jenny's Journey blog.© 2009 WebMD, LLC. All rights reserved.

On Oct 17, 2:13 pm, "john"  wrote:
>  http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20091016/rare-disease-may-be-...ALS Cases May Be Linked to Gardasil Vaccine

This condition is so rare, and the researchers even acknowledge that
the matter may even be temporal.

But, of course, John Scumamore has to rush to bleat and bray as a fear
monger.

Copyright material deleted.

 Baylor College of Medicine,Houston.Jenny's Journey blog.© 2009 WebMD,
LLC. All rights reserved.

john wrote:
>  http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20091016/rare-disease-may-be-linked-vaccine?src=RSS_PUBLIC2 ALS Cases May Be Linked to Gardasil Vaccine

"I think there's a strong possibility that Gardasil was the catalyst 
that set off the ALS," Harper says. "It could have been the straw that 
broke the camel's back in a child who was already predisposed to the 
condition."

http://health.usnews.com/blogs/on-women/2009/03/30/is-gardasil-more-effective-in-older-teens.html

"We can't tell you it is 100% safe because we don't know that. IN FIVE 
YEARS IT WILL BE PRETTY CLEAR HOW SAFE IT REALLY IS BECAUSE 70% OF 
ADVERSE EVENTS OCCUR WITHIN FIVE YEARS. That way we would have a good 
sense of comfort and you can reassure your population."

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/918487

Gals, you can serve humanity by being guinea pigs, so more will be known
about side effects. Isn't reducing cervical cancer a great cause?
Oh, wait...

"If we vaccinate 11 year olds and the protection doesn’t last... we’ve
put them at harm from side effects, small but real, for no benefit,” 
says Dr. Harper. “THE BENEFIT TO PUBLIC HEALTH IS NOTHING, THERE IS NO 
REDUCTION IN CERVICAL CANCERS <...>” She also says that enough serious
side effects have been reported after Gardasil use that THE VACCINE
COULD PROVE RISKIER THAN THE CERVICAL CANCER it purports to prevent.
Cervical cancer is usually entirely curable when detected early through
normal Pap screenings.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/19/cbsnews_investigates/main5253431.shtml

"the net benefit of the HPV vaccine to a woman is uncertain. Even if 
persistently infected with HPV, a woman most likely will not develop 
cancer if she is regularly screened"

Dr. Charlotte Haug, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of the Norwegian
Medical Association

http://www.colleenhammond.com/blog/2009/08/gardasil-researcher-cautions-parents-of-high-risks-and-low-effectiveness/

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:55:27 -0400, Mike  wrote:

>john wrote:
>>  http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20091016/rare-disease-may-be-linked-vaccine?src=RSS_PUBLIC2 ALS Cases May Be Linked to Gardasil Vaccine
>
>"I think 

And there you see the reason for the crap: they "think". 

Immunology is not made for zerobrainers.
-- 
"Die Frau ist ein Mißgriff der Natur... mit ihrem Feuchtigkeits-Überschuß
und ihrer Untertemperatur körperlich und geistig minderwertiger... eine 
Art verstümmelter, verfehlter, mißlungener Mann...die volle Verwirklichung
der menschlichen Art ist nur der Mann."
Thomas von Aquin, hl., Kirchenlehrer, 1225-1274
Heilsames über christliche Lebensart: http://www.reimbibel.de

Happy Oyster wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:55:27 -0400, Mike  wrote:
> 
>> john wrote:
>>>  http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20091016/rare-disease-may-be-linked-vaccine?src=RSS_PUBLIC2 ALS Cases May Be Linked to Gardasil Vaccine
>> "I think 
> 
> And there you see the reason for the crap: they "think". 
> 
> Immunology is not made for zerobrainers.

Yes, imbecile, Dr. Harper thinks. You have no idea what thinking is.
You can type, monkeys can too.

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:49:29 -0400, Mike  wrote:

>Happy Oyster wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:55:27 -0400, Mike  wrote:
>> 
>>> john wrote:
>>>>  http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20091016/rare-disease-may-be-linked-vaccine?src=RSS_PUBLIC2 ALS Cases May Be Linked to Gardasil Vaccine
>>> "I think 
>> 
>> And there you see the reason for the crap: they "think". 
>> 
>> Immunology is not made for zerobrainers.
>
>Yes, imbecile, Dr. Harper thinks. You have no idea what thinking is.
>You can type, monkeys can too.

Which makes monkey more intelligent than anti-vaxxers. Oh, well, that is easy...
.
-- 
"Wo sich ein Priester aufhält, darf kein Weib eintreten."
Synode von Paris, 846
"In keiner Religion oder Weltanschauung ist die Frau so geachtet und geehrt
wie im Christentum!" Der katholische Theologe Bernhard Häring im 20. Jahrhundert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   http://www.reimbibel.de  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On Oct 19, 12:55 am, Mike  wrote:
> john wrote:
> >  http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20091016/rare-disease-may-be-...ALS Cases May Be Linked to Gardasil Vaccine
>
> "I think there's a strong possibility that Gardasil was the catalyst
> that set off the ALS," Harper says. "It could have been the straw that
> broke the camel's back in a child who was already predisposed to the
> condition."
>
> http://health.usnews.com/blogs/on-women/2009/03/30/is-gardasil-more-e...
>
> "We can't tell you it is 100% safe because we don't know that. IN FIVE
> YEARS IT WILL BE PRETTY CLEAR HOW SAFE IT REALLY IS BECAUSE 70% OF
> ADVERSE EVENTS OCCUR WITHIN FIVE YEARS. That way we would have a good
> sense of comfort and you can reassure your population."
>
> http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/918487
>
> Gals, you can serve humanity by being guinea pigs, so more will be known
> about side effects. Isn't reducing cervical cancer a great cause?
> Oh, wait...
>
> "If we vaccinate 11 year olds and the protection doesn’t last... we’ve
> put them at harm from side effects, small but real, for no benefit,”
> says Dr. Harper. “THE BENEFIT TO PUBLIC HEALTH IS NOTHING, THERE IS NO
> REDUCTION IN CERVICAL CANCERS <...>” She also says that enough serious
> side effects have been reported after Gardasil use that THE VACCINE
> COULD PROVE RISKIER THAN THE CERVICAL CANCER it purports to prevent.
> Cervical cancer is usually entirely curable when detected early through
> normal Pap screenings.
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/19/cbsnews_investigates/main52...
>
> "the net benefit of the HPV vaccine to a woman is uncertain. Even if
> persistently infected with HPV, a woman most likely will not develop
> cancer if she is regularly screened"

The alleged quote from Dr. Harper (you cited one from March 2008) was
reported in several media outlets. However, she has been
mischaracterized :

http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/jabs-as-bad-as-the-cancer/#more-1374

"So I contacted Professor Harper. For avoidance of doubt, so that
there can be no question of me misrepresenting her views, unlike the
Express, I will explain Professor Harper’s position on this issue in
her own words. They are unambiguous.

“I did not say that Cervarix was as deadly as cervical cancer. I did
not say that Cervarix could be riskier or more deadly than cervical
cancer. I did not say that Cervarix was controversial, I stated that
Cervarix is not a ‘controversial drug’. I did not ‘hit out’ – I was
contacted by the press for facts. And this was not an exclusive
interview.”

Professor Harper did not “develop Cervarix”, as the Sunday Express
said, but she did work on some important trials of Gardasil, and also
Cervarix. “Gardasil is not a ‘sister vaccine’ as the Express said, it
is a different compound. I do not know of the side effects of Cervarix
as it is not available in the US.” Furthermore she did not say that
Cervarix was being over marketed. “I did say that Merck was
egregiously overmarketing Gardasil in the US- but Gardasil and
Cervarix are not the same vaccines.”"

You may wish to read her work directly, as I have:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Harper%20DM%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

Reading and relying on mass media for medical decisions is just dumb.

Mark Probert wrote:
> On Oct 19, 12:55 am, Mike  wrote:
>> john wrote:
>>>  http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20091016/rare-disease-may-be-...ALS Cases May Be Linked to Gardasil Vaccine
>> "I think there's a strong possibility that Gardasil was the catalyst
>> that set off the ALS," Harper says. "It could have been the straw that
>> broke the camel's back in a child who was already predisposed to the
>> condition."
>>
>> http://health.usnews.com/blogs/on-women/2009/03/30/is-gardasil-more-e...
>>
>> "We can't tell you it is 100% safe because we don't know that. IN FIVE
>> YEARS IT WILL BE PRETTY CLEAR HOW SAFE IT REALLY IS BECAUSE 70% OF
>> ADVERSE EVENTS OCCUR WITHIN FIVE YEARS. That way we would have a good
>> sense of comfort and you can reassure your population."
>>
>> http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/918487
>>
>> Gals, you can serve humanity by being guinea pigs, so more will be known
>> about side effects. Isn't reducing cervical cancer a great cause?
>> Oh, wait...
>>
>> "If we vaccinate 11 year olds and the protection doesn’t last... we’ve
>> put them at harm from side effects, small but real, for no benefit,”
>> says Dr. Harper. “THE BENEFIT TO PUBLIC HEALTH IS NOTHING, THERE IS NO
>> REDUCTION IN CERVICAL CANCERS <...>” She also says that enough serious
>> side effects have been reported after Gardasil use that THE VACCINE
>> COULD PROVE RISKIER THAN THE CERVICAL CANCER it purports to prevent.
>> Cervical cancer is usually entirely curable when detected early through
>> normal Pap screenings.
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/19/cbsnews_investigates/main52...
>>
>> "the net benefit of the HPV vaccine to a woman is uncertain. Even if
>> persistently infected with HPV, a woman most likely will not develop
>> cancer if she is regularly screened"
> 
> The alleged quote from Dr. Harper (you cited one from March 2008) was
> reported in several media outlets. However, she has been
> mischaracterized :
> 
> http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/jabs-as-bad-as-the-cancer/#more-1374
> 
> "So I contacted Professor Harper. For avoidance of doubt, so that
> there can be no question of me misrepresenting her views, unlike the
> Express, I will explain Professor Harper’s position on this issue in
> her own words. They are unambiguous.

Non sequitur. She was somewhat mischaracterized (not much really
but that's for later) by Sunday Express. Sunday Express pulled the
story. The quotes above were from CBS, US News and other outlets,
they remain there and Dr. Harper does not protest.

Dr. Harper is on record speaking against Gardasil (that she helped
get approved). But after reading the Sunday Express piece a casual
reader might conclude that she was saying these things about Cervarix.

> 
> “I did not say that Cervarix was as deadly as cervical cancer.

Did Sunday Express say she said that? No.

*** from Sunday Express ******************

THE cervical cancer vaccine may be riskier and more deadly than the 
cancer it is designed to prevent, a leading expert who developed the 
drug has warned.

She also claimed the jab would do nothing to reduce the rates of 
cervical cancer in the UK.

*** end of quote ******************

There is no mischaracterizing here. She indeed said to the media
(possibly including Sunday Express) that Gardasil (not Cervarix)
could be (not was) riskier (not as deadly) than cervical cancer.

The phrase "Jab as deadly as cancer" is the title and the paper
dis not attribute it to Dr. Harper.

> I did not say that Cervarix was controversial

The paper did not say she did, it is obviously the journalist's
opinion.

>, I stated that
> Cervarix is not a ‘controversial drug’. I did not ‘hit out’ – I was
> contacted by the press for facts. And this was not an exclusive
> interview.”

This is mischaracterization but not a serious one. Paper editors
sex up the stories all the time.

> 
> Professor Harper did not “develop Cervarix”, as the Sunday Express
> said, but she did work on some important trials of Gardasil, and also
> Cervarix.
“Gardasil is not a ‘sister vaccine’ as the Express said, it
> is a different compound. I do not know of the side effects of Cervarix
> as it is not available in the US.” Furthermore she did not say that
> Cervarix was being over marketed. “I did say that Merck was
> egregiously overmarketing Gardasil in the US- but Gardasil and
> Cervarix are not the same vaccines.”"

The piece has quotes from Dr. Harper (and probably all of them
authentic) without the word 'Gardasil', and the reader is lead
(intentionally or not) to believe that they are about Cervarix.
This is the extent of mischaracterization by Sunday Express.

Here is the apology from Sunday Express:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/oct/11/sundayexpress-pcc

********************************************************************

Last Sunday we incorrectly suggested that the cervical cancer vaccine
Cervarix could be as deadly as cervical cancer and that the vaccine is
ineffective.

We now accept that there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case
and that Cervarix in fact provides protection against the viruses that
cause 70% of cervical cancers.

We are happy to set the record straight and apologise for causing undue
alarm to all those women and teenage girls considering vaccination
against cervical cancer."

********************************************************************

Mischaracterization by vax flacks is of a more serious kind: they
intentionally misrepresent opinion of Dr. Harper about Gardasil.

By the way her criticisms about insufficient testing of Gardasil
can be applied to Cervarix as well, she just did not express that.

> 
> You may wish to read her work directly, as I have:
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Harper%20DM%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus
> 
> Reading and relying on mass media for medical decisions is just dumb.
> 

It is not just mass media, it is public statements of the researcher,
and she stands behind them.

Did anybody read this posting to the end?