Myth: Gardisil protects against cervical cancer by vaccinating against HPV.
Fact: There are over 100 different types (strains) of HPV, and about 40 of these cause genital infections. Of those 40, about half can cause cancer, and some can cause genital warts. The four types of the virus that the vaccine prevents cause 90 percent of genital warts (types 6 and 11) and 70 percent of cervical cancer (types 16 and 18). So, even though the vaccine only targets a few strains of the virus, those few strains are responsible for causing most cases of cervical cancer and genital warts. Some mistakenly believe that the vaccine prevents 70 percent of HPV. This is not true. Others mistakenly believe that the vaccine is only 70 percent effective. This, also, is not true. The vaccine is extremely effective, but only as it relates to preventing those four types of the virus. While the vaccine may stop two cancer-causing strains of HPV, an article in The New England Journal of Medicine pointed out that blocking these strains of the virus may allow other cancerous HPV strains to fill the void. If this happens, the overall decrease in cervical cancer would be minimal. {Kahn, “Vaccination as a Prevention Strategy for Human Papillomavirus-Related Diseases,” Journal of Adolescent Health 37: 6S (2005): S10-6; Munoz, et al., “Chapter 1: HPV in the Etiology of Human Cancer,” Vaccine 24 (S3) S1-S10 (2006). G. F. Sawaya and K. Smith-McCune, “HPV Vaccination—More Answers, More Questions,” The New England Journal of Medicine 356:19 (10 May 2007): 1991-1993.}

Myth: Condoms prevent 70% of HPV infections.
Fact: Condoms provide NO protection against HPV simply because HPV can be transmitted as easily as hand-to-genital contact.

"In 1999, the National Cancer Institute reported to Congress that "Condoms are ineffective against HPV" and that "additional research efforts by NCIL on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HPV transmission are not warranted."

On October 3, 2000, the "Cervical Cancer Public Awareness Resolution" was presented before the US House of Representatives. In it, Congressman Tom Coburn, who had a full-time practice in obstetrics and family medicine, said, "Along with that comes the very sad fact that our institutions that we should be trusting in this area have failed us. The Center for Disease Control has failed, because the full name of the Center for Disease Control is the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. The NIH has released a statement, as well as NCI, and on their Web site you can find that this disease is caused by human papilloma virus and that a condom fails to protect. We are so sold on this concept of 'safe sex' in this country that we refuse to accept the etiology and pathogenesis of this disease, and we refuse to be honest with the American public in that a condom cannot protect them from this. The thing that is exciting to me about this resolution coming up is it perhaps will have some honesty coming out of the institutions that are funded with the taxpayers' money in this country, both the NIH and the NCI, as well as the CDC."

Coburn added that they had a breast and cervical cancer treatment bill that was "being held up at this time on the basis of the Senate conferees not wanting to agree to the language in that in regards to HPV and cervical cancer." He pleaded to the Speaker of the House, " Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the body that they would put pressure on their fellow Senators that they might accede to this. The fact is, the reason we have this awareness up is we want women to get treated. This is a disease that is absolutely curable. It is not like breast cancer; we cannot always cure breast cancer. This disease, if diagnosed properly and treated, is 100 percent curable. Knowledge and the fact that we are allowing a safe sex message of condoms preventing this disease to continue will do nothing but harm women....The fact is, it is harmful to women to let that lie continue."

Later that year, the United States Congress approved Public Law 106-554. This law directed the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and FDA to educate the public about HPV. Part of the bill required that educational material regarding STDs like HPV shall “contain medically accurate information regarding the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of condoms in preventing the STD the materials are designed to address.” The CDC was given until December 21, 2003 to issue a report “including a detailed summary of the significant findings and problems and best strategies to prevent future infections, based upon available science.”

December 21st came and went, and nothing was done. Indiana Representative Souder (the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources), pressed them on it and they finally released the January 2004 report to Congress: “Prevention of Genital Human Papillomavirus Infection.” In it, the CDC admitted, “The available scientific evidence is not sufficient to recommend condoms as a primary prevention strategy [against HPV]”. However, it remains to be seen if the CDC will actually implement an effective public policy to inform Americans of this.

On February 12, 2004, Rep. Souder wrote a letter to the Commissioner of the FDA, Mark McClellan, M.D., Ph.D., asking him to re-examine the misleading information given on condom labels. In this letter, he reminded the FDA of the findings in the CDC report the previous month, and wrote, “A meta-analysis reviewing ‘the best available data describing the relationship between condoms and HPV-related conditions’ from the past two decades published in the November 29, 2002 edition of the journal Sexually Transmitted Diseases found, ‘There was no consistent evidence of a protective effect of condom use on HPV DNA detection, and in some studies, condom use was associated with a slightly increased risk for these lesions. Three years after Public Law 106-554 was signed by President Clinton, condom labels still do not warn consumers about the lack of protection against HPV infection. The Subcommittee urges FDA to act on the release of CDC’s HPV prevention report and immediately relabel condoms to alert consumers that condoms do not provide effective protection against HPV infection.” However, Dr. McClellan remained the commissioner of the FDA for only a month after this letter was written, so not much was done under his watch.

Since then, the FDA has not done a great deal. They said that they’re “certainly committed to looking at this and making the requisite changes.”(1) They’ve added that they’re “preparing new guidance on condom labeling,” “exploring new opportunities to best inform condom users about important limitations of the device,” and “proposing to amend the classification regulations for condoms.”(2) In other words, condom labels still haven't changed. Dr. Tom Coburn, who is a physician, congressman, and co-chairman of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS said, “The FDA has been dragging its feet for three and a half years.”(3)

Opponents of abstinence education disagree with Coburn. For example, Henry Waxman (D- CA), argues "we want to be sure that we do not end up with an unintended effect of confusing people about the situations when condoms do work—in HIV transmission to name only one—and actually reduce their use." Furthermore, he added, condom labels that "include information on HPV can result in so much information on such a small package that it reduces the effectiveness of any information." Waxman apparently thinks that self-control is an unrealistic option for teens. He assumes that if teens knew the truth about condoms, they'd just throw them away and continue having sex.

More recently, in June 2005, Senator Coburn placed a hold on President Bush’s nomination for a new federal drug agency chief, hoping it would force the FDA to enforce a federal condom labeling law that requires all condom packaging to warn consumers that condoms are not effective in preventing HPV. Then, in September 2006, President Bush asked National Cancer Institute Director Andrew von Eschenbach to serve as acting agency commissioner of the FDA. Prior to his confirmation hearing, Dr. Eschenbach was asked if he would ensure that condom labels would be updated. He displayed his familiarity with the ineffectiveness of the condom, and added that it may offer some risk reduction for HPV related diseases. He then added that in November of 2005, the FDA drafted a document with proposed language for a new condom label. As a result of this document, Eschenbach said, "FDA received roughly 400 comments on the proposed rule. Almost all comments suggested the proposed labeling language was confusing and difficult for consumers to understand. As a result, the Agency intends to undertake additional labeling comprehension studies to help insure that the final labeling recommendations issued by the Agency are understandable to users."

Regarding the proposed new condom labels, Senator Coburn remarked, “In the five years it took the FDA to implement this law, over 27 million Americans have become infected with HPV, over 50,000 women have been diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer, and nearly 20,000 women have died from the disease. Despite these tragic numbers, very few Americans are still not aware of HPV or its link to cervical cancer and the FDA seems to be content with providing inconclusive claims of effectiveness that may endanger women be providing a false security against cervical cancer."

In November of 2006--six years after the law was created requiring medically accurate condom labels--nothing had changed. So, Senator Coburn requested an investigation by the Government Accountability office of the failure of the FDA in this matter. In it, he stated, "I am requesting that GAO investigate the failure of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to comply with the provision of the same law that requires the agency to 'reexamine existing condom labels that are authorized pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to determine whether the labels are medically accurate regarding the overall effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted diseases, including HPV.' It has been six years since this law was signed and FDA has yet to issue guidance to ensure condom labels meet this criteria. As you noted in your letter, 'Section 317P of the Public Health Service Act addresses human papillomavirus specifically.' Yet, condom labels do not currently mention the lack of effectiveness of condoms in protecting against HPV infection, which has been conclusively documented over the past decade."

This battle has been raging for years, without ever garnering the attention of the liberal media. When the CDC report on HPV was released, among major media outlets, only the Washington Post mentioned anything about it. In August of 2001, groups representing over 10,000 doctors accused the CDC for covering up the government’s own research about condom infectiveness (in particular, the NIH report). In the statement, which was released by the Physicians Consortium, former Congressman Tom Coburn, M.D., Congressman Dave Weldon, M.D. and others, it stated that the CDC has “systematically hidden and misrepresented vital medical information regarding the ineffectiveness of condoms to prevent the transmission of STDs. The CDC's refusal to acknowledge clinical research has contributed to the massive STD epidemic.”

The Physicians Consortium claimed that the CDC not only failed to educate the public about their findings, but tried to conceal the paper and delay its release. They added that the CDC demanded revisions of the report in order to cause “unwarranted confusion and misinformation to what otherwise is a clear-cut repudiation of condom effectiveness.”

Despite knowing about HPV and condom ineffectiveness, the CDC remained quiet. In a NIH "Consensus Statement" on Cervical Cancer, it was reported that "The data on the use of barrier methods of contraception to prevent the spread of HPV...does not support this as an effective method of prevention." That was in 1996! The CDC’s silence has been so inexcusable that the Physicians Consortium held a Capitol building press conference calling for the resignation of the (then) Director of the CDC, Dr. Jeffrey P. Koplan. Odds are, you didn’t see that on the evening news.

In a nutshell, that’s the battle that’s going on."
______________________________________
(1) FDA official Daniel Schultz, as quoted in “Condom Labels Called Inadequate,” Sylvia Smith, Fort Wayne Gazette, March 12, 2004.
(2) Emphasis mine
(3) “FDA Weighs Condom Warning Label,” by Keith Powers, Family News, March 15, 2004.

All the above information is taken from www.pureloveclub.com.

Fact: Abstaining from sexual intercourse until after you are married, Being faithful within marriage, and Character formation of oneself (the true ABC method, like that being used in Uganda) is the only 100% prevention of STDs.

If you want to get away with murder (literally) just say you are doing it "in the best interests of the child."

If you don't believe me, google "CPS" and "corruption", or "CPS" and "Organized Crime" or "CPS" and "Child Protection Industry".

CPS is the government body charged with "protecting" children. Yet AT LEAST five times more children die while in their "care" than if they were left with their biological parents.

If you are worried about HPV vaccine, you should know that this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of how the government is destroying children, for profit.

The pressure to get this vaccination is overwhelming. I'm 17 and I had the shot a year ago. My mother and I faced intense pressure from every doctor in the practice we go to. My sister was also encouraged to get the shots, even though she does not fit the criteria to receive them.

I know from experience how dangerous the adverse effects of this can be. One week after I was pushed into getting the first shot I was hospitalized with ventricular tachycardia, unreadable low blood pressure, abdominal pain, and extreme hypoglycemia. All of these symptoms, in addition the the unconsciousness that resulted from them mirror those of girls who have died or been permanently injured in relation to the vaccine.

I'd never had any health problems in the past. I'm deeply disturbed that Guardasil still on the market after seeing the emotional, physical, and financial strain my family has had faced because of my adverse reaction.

Read "Fatal Probe". Esp. chap. VII.

Excerpt:

Does the vaccine sound like good news? Not
if you buy into the physician-touted dormancy
theory. Where is the “common knowledge” that
HPV can remain dormant in a woman’s body for
30 years, or more? By basing the vaccine’s 100%
effectiveness in preventing HPV infection on the
fact that the vaccinated women did not develop
infection for up to 27 months, the study and all its
enthusiasts abandon the dormancy concept.

“…the vaccine was 100 percent
effective. Followed for 17 to 27 months, no
vaccinated women developed infections…
…The study will continue until all the
women have been tracked for four years.”

Obviously, the dormancy theory was
disregarded, scrubbed or dramatically
overlooked. The logical explanation is that the
dormancy theory is baseless and false. It is a
placating lie. It is suspected that, in the
excitement of the moment, and in true herd
mentality, pragmatism won the day.

But, whether HPV “may remain dormant,”
“can remain dormant,” “can remain dormant for
months, for years or for many years,” “usually
remains dormant,” “usually remains dormant
forever” or “can remain dormant in your system for the
rest of your life,” the question remains:

How can one justify their support for a
vaccine study that claims success after tracking
the subjects for up to 27 months – and plans to
abandon follow-up after 48 months – without any
mention of the dormancy theory if they indeed
believe in such a theory.

But, keep in mind, this is only and excerpt. I would
be glad to publish the entire MS here; however, I
assume that is not acceptable.

BTW, I'm not trying to sell a book here, folks...
just add a bit of common logic.
William Parrish

Its amazing what the FDA will approve without a reasonable period of test results.I have a ten year old daughter. I told the doctor on the last exam that I will not allow the shot. The doctor while strongly recommending it commented "since we did not live in an URBAN area the risk or concern is not as high". I was shocked.......ironically enough we are "BLACK" which makes me think its being heavily pushed in so called "URBAN AREAS" or minority neighborhoods. To that end, what if it long term its found years later to have sterilized young pre-pubesent girls? Can anyone spell "thaylidomide"? That drug was supposedly a cure for nausea in pregnant women. I say the sloggan "One Less" should be "NOT ONE MORE!!!!!"

Unfortunately they don't say what the incidence of adverse reaction was. For that we'd need to know how many doses had been delivered versus the number of adverse reactions. Maybe the incidence is in line with Flu, MMR, Tetanus, etc...or maybe it's orders of magnitude worse. There's no way to know because Judicial Watch only told part of the story. -Rod-

I am a 41 year old mother of 2 children. A 20 year old son and a 13 year old daughter. I was pressured last year to get my pre-pubescent daughter innoculated with this poison. I said "absolutely not, it has not even been tested correctly". The doctor didn't know what I meant. My daughter was about 75lb and under 5 feet tall, not even close to puberty yet.

I truly believe this is some type of human sterilization experiment. I work as an RN at an infertility clinic. I can't believe how many people have "unexplained" infertility. I also used to work in a pediatrician's office and administered these deadly vaccines, I was part of the problem and used to turn my nose up at those few parents who refused to vaccinate. I have now become part of that movement against immunizations.

Remember the experiments that were done on US servicemen with LSD, without their knowledge? Well folks, it's going on all around the world with little 2 month old infants and now with girls of childbearing age. What do you think the objective here is? Remember that the healthcare lobby, the big pharma lobby and the insurance lobby all want us to stay sick, so they profit........bottom line in a Capitalistic society. They have dumbed us down so much, but not quite enough yet. Keep reading, thinking and fighting for what is right or else we will all be doomed.

Peace, love and good health to all

http://www.thinktwice.com

I find it interesting that from the comments that I have read, they are from mothers who do not have the condition, or from someone who knows someone else.

I have HPV.

I have had countless paps that have come up positive only to have my doctor perform a colposcopy. While neither one of these procedures are horrible, they are time consuming and uncomfortable. My dysplasia was always diagnosed as mild to medium. I began to feel that along with my annual pap, I should count on a follow-up colposcopy.

In 2005 my doctor found an area near my cervix that showed a high level of dysplasia. In May of '05 I underwent a "LEAP" procedure where a portion of my already incompetent cervix was removed. While paps are used as a tool, they are in no means perfect.

Did I mention that I have a pre-teen daughter?

I can try to teach my daughter (as well as my son) that they should wait for marriage. I cannot make those decisions for her/them. I can only pray that sex will be a decision and not an act that is forced on her/them. (What is the percentage that a woman will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime? I shudder to think, but I am not blind.)

Isn't it my job as a mother do to everything in my power to protect & teach my children? Along with self defense classes, shouldn't I protect my daughter? If I can help lessen her risk of developing cancer, shouldn't I? Isn't that why I make her use sun block? Please don't think that I am taking this as decision lightly as applying a lotion, but I should do what I can!

I thank you all for your posts. Because of all of your comments, I will need to do more research before I make a decision.