Cervical Cancer Vaccine for every woman for only 300 euros.

popecatapetal · 02-03-2009 5:44pm

This vaccine is an amazing discovery, but it works best before you're sexually active - so why oh why don't they include it in a baby's vaccine schedule at birth? Because it costs too much???

The_Minister · 02-03-2009 5:47pm

popecatapetal wrote: »

This vaccine is an amazing discovery, but it only really works before you're sexually active. Why oh why don't they include it in a baby's vaccine schedule at birth? Because it costs too much???

Firstly because vaccinating 1 month old children against an STD sends the wrong message:D

Secondly, I would imagine that there is a limit to the amount of vaccines that you can stick in an infant.

Thirdly, we get quicker results if we vaccinate the older children, 'cause they will have sex earlier (hopefully).

anne h. · 02-03-2009 7:07pm

I’ve got some information from newspapers, internet health sites, two well regarded medical journals and a link to Judicial watch, it’s all I have time to do for the moment. Hope you find it useful..

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/11/health/he-gardasil11

This is a nice outline of the debate in the states from the L.A times, although it comes to a different conclusion than I did.

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/10/29/01919.html

From the article above:
A lead researcher who spent 20 years developing the vaccine for human papilloma virus also says the HPV vaccine is not for younger girls, and that it is "silly" for states to be mandating it for them.

Not only that, she says it's not been tested for effectiveness in younger girls, and administering the vaccine to girls as young as 9 may not even protect them at all. And, in the worst-case scenario, instead of serving to reduce the numbers of cervical cancers within 25 years, such a vaccination crusade actually could cause the numbers to go up.

"Giving it to 11-year-olds is a great big public health experiment," said Diane M. Harper, who is a scientist, physician, professor and the director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth Medical School in New Hampshire.

"It is silly to mandate vaccination of 11- to 12-year-old girls There also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue."

This is a much more detailed version of Harpers stance on the vaccine:

http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/503/27/

New England Journal of medicine:

...A cautious approach may be warranted in light of important unanswered questions about overall vaccine effectiveness, duration of protection, and adverse effects that may emerge over time.. HPV vaccination has the potential for profound public health benefit if the most optimistic scenario of effectiveness is realized.

(I know that they are going with the ‘optimistic scenario’ but it’s worth acknowledging their advocacy of the cautious approach.. Anne)

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/19/1991

HPV Vaccine: Gardasil may be a killer

14 June 2007

The HPV vaccine – which is being given to girls aged between 11 and 12 to prevent cervical cancer in later life – may be a killer. So far three young girls have died after being vaccinated, and there have been 1,637 adverse reactions reported in under a year.

In Australia 25 girls at the same school who had been given their first HPV vaccine last month experienced headache and nausea, and four ended up in hospital.

The vaccine, Gardasil, has courted controversy since it was approved for use last year. Some states in the USA have decided to make the vaccine compulsory, which has caused an outcry among parents who see the vaccine as a license for sexual relationships outside of marriage.

Gardasil is supposed to protect against human papillomavirus types 6, 11, 16 and 18, which cause most cervical cancers and genital warts.

A public interest group, Judicial Watch, discovered the extent of the adverse reactions only when they made a request to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Freedom of Information Act

Presumably the FDA would have preferred to have stayed silent rather than alert the public about a vaccine that may need more safety trials

(Source: British Medical Journal, 2007; 334: 1182).

This was published in the What Doctors don’t tell you website hosted by award winning journalist lynne Mc Taggard and her husband, Bryan Hubbard, also a senior journalist

When you do go the Journal article there is reference to there being mild adverse effects reported from a group of girls from a catholic girls school.

I don’t know if the Journal elaborated on this, but I saw that elsewhere this was seen as a ‘hysteria’ reaction. It’s a good point and of course the context of this reporting seems a problem for their credibility. At the same time, had these girls’ families not approved I’m guessing they wouldn’t have been involved in the trial? (anne)

http://www.judicialwatch.org/gardasil

Judicial watch’s report. I did wonder if they were a Christian organisation or had any ties to the overall ‘promotion of virtue and abolition of vice’ but I didn’t get a sense of this from the website...

You're other question, sorry just remembered, most of this refers to the Gardasil vaccine, one of the two the irish medical board approved for Ireland.

x

Anne.

P.s sorry bout the spelling mistakes, i haven't downloaded the correct spell checking programme for this computer...

Nevyn · 02-03-2009 7:20pm

The vaccine being offered is not Gardasil.

anne h. · 02-03-2009 9:43pm

Hi,

There are two vaccine's endorsed for Irish use, my mistake for discussing the Gardasil one in most detail, I didn't spot that the other one was being offered in this clinic till I read over the post's a second time.

However, a significant number of points made regarding the Gardasil vaccine are relevant for both vaccines.

For example, the leading HPV researcher Diane Harper points regarding smear tests vs vaccines, or how it will take at least a decade to really know the result's of these tests etc..

And I think the New England Journal that I've cited and gave links to discusses the other vaccine.

The Judicial watch and some other pieces clearly only applies to the Gardasil vaccine, but are worth reading if someone is considering going elsewhere for their child's vaccine than the clinic which is offering vaccine's referred to at the head of this thread.

And since the thread has become a broader discussion than the availability of the vaccine at a particular clinic, I expect it will still be relevant to pass on some details on both vaccines.

Anne

Anne

Stheno · 02-03-2009 11:48pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

The vaccine being offered is not Gardasil.

It's Cervarix isn't it? Afaik both Gardasil and Cervarix have actually been tested effectively in women up to mid forties, ( still apparently awaiting FDA approval) and once women are HPV free at the time of testing, it has been shown to make a difference.

I'm 35 and my last smear was clear of HPV, I'm hoping to get the vaccine, and will have another prior to doing so with my doctors agreement

My doctor and gynae both take the view that if you are HPV negative and can do so you should go for the vaccine.

AmcD · 03-03-2009 12:24am

You should read this same thread on the biology and medicine forum.
Just noticed the charter medical group ad for the vaccine at the bottom of the screen. Fast work!

Crumble Froo · 03-03-2009 12:35am

though i was just thinking...a nd i guess it just shows how naive i probably am... but i hadn't realised that doctors made profit on vaccines. like... this one is being done not-for-profit, and costing half what it is everywhere else...why is it costing so much more *everywhere* else?

Nevyn · 03-03-2009 12:49am

Thats not what I see, I see kickboxing, paintball and a cookery school.

Crumble Froo · 03-03-2009 1:05am

for the weirdest moment there, i thought you were replying to my post :pac:

tallaght01 · 03-03-2009 1:10pm

popecatapetal wrote: »

This vaccine is an amazing discovery, but it works best before you're sexually active - so why oh why don't they include it in a baby's vaccine schedule at birth? Because it costs too much???

The reason that it's not given to babies is that it's safety hasn't been evaluated in them yet. It's only been trialled in women/girls aged 9-26. that's not to say it won't be safe in other groups outside this age range. There's every chance it will be. It's just the trials haven't been done in these groups yet.
Trials take a lot of time, and the priority was to get the vaccine out to the at risk groups initially, so they tested it on that group first.

It's currently being trialled on men, and women from 26-45.

anne h. wrote: »

Hi,

There are two vaccine's endorsed for Irish use, my mistake for discussing the Gardasil one in most detail, I didn't spot that the other one was being offered in this clinic till I read over the post's a second time.

However, a significant number of points made regarding the Gardasil vaccine are relevant for both vaccines.

For example, the leading HPV researcher Diane Harper points regarding smear tests vs vaccines, or how it will take at least a decade to really know the result's of these tests etc..

And I think the New England Journal that I've cited and gave links to discusses the other vaccine.

The Judicial watch and some other pieces clearly only applies to the Gardasil vaccine, but are worth reading if someone is considering going elsewhere for their child's vaccine than the clinic which is offering vaccine's referred to at the head of this thread.

And since the thread has become a broader discussion than the availability of the vaccine at a particular clinic, I expect it will still be relevant to pass on some details on both vaccines.

Anne

Anne

Yea, any side effects are pretty likely to be similar for both vaccines, as they're pretty similar.

But really what the new england journal said was that we can't be 100% about how long protection lasts for, and whether side effects will come out over time.
That's fine. But the vaccine has fulfilled the safety requirements that any vaccine has to fulfill. You can wait 60 years to make sure side effects don't show up later in life. But no other vaccine has long term effects, so not sure why this would be any different.

The link you gave to Diane Harper saying that the vaccine hasn't been tested in younger kids must be out of date, because it's not true. It's been tested in kids as young as 9 for safety. But the effectiveness won't be apparent for many years in this group. But once you're out of infancy, vaccine reactions aren't usually age dependent.

The kids in Australia seem to have had a fainting reaction. It's thought that there were other factors at play. But it's very hard to prove 100% either way. But they came to no harm, and they were only a tiny tiny proportion of those who've ever received it.

The big issue with this vaccine is that, unlike gardasil, it doesn't protect against most genital warts.

de5p0i1er · 03-03-2009 6:18pm

A friend of mine had a scare a few months ago. I'll send her there.

PrettyInPunk · 03-03-2009 6:28pm

Crumble Froo wrote: »

though i was just thinking...a nd i guess it just shows how naive i probably am... but i hadn't realised that doctors made profit on vaccines. like... this one is being done not-for-profit, and costing half what it is everywhere else...why is it costing so much more *everywhere* else?

I think it was Gardasil that i got, i got it with my GP and it cost in or around the 400 mark which isnt hugely more than 300

anne h. · 03-03-2009 10:03pm

re - 'But really what the new england journal said was that we can't be 100% about how long protection lasts for, and whether side effects will come out over time.
That's fine. But the vaccine has fulfilled the safety requirements that any vaccine has to fulfill. You can wait 60 years to make sure side effects don't show up later in life. But no other vaccine has long term effects, so not sure why this would be any different.'

The vaccine makes claims for how long you are safe for and as it's in response to safety during sexual activity, isn't it's important that it can gaurentee that the x amount of years coverage it gives it's accurate.. otherwise it comprimises health in a major way i would have thought.

I know there has to be a limit on trial length but Merck etc. appear to be being criticised for quite short trials even amongst the medical community.

'No other vaccine has long term effects'?

Disability, death, etc.. Vaccines can and do have long term efffects. My uncle was in critical condition from a reaction to the flu virus.

'The link you gave to Diane Harper saying that the vaccine hasn't been tested in younger kids must be out of date, because it's not true. It's been tested in kids as young as 9 for safety. But the effectiveness won't be apparent for many years in this group. But once you're out of infancy, vaccine reactions aren't usually age dependent.'

'It's not true?' would be kool if you get me the citations etc.. Not meant in a smart arse way, i'm simply very interested in this topic.

And yeah it's been tested in people, but precisely 'effectiveness won't be known for years' doesn't this support Harpers point that it's a pro merck experiment?

People like Dr marcia Angell former ed. in chief of the New England Jounal of Medicine, and a nationally recognized authority in the field of healthy policy and medical ethics in the states, says the pharma industy is 'deeply corrupt' and even 'rig's their trials to make their products look better than they are'. 'The truth about the drug companies (2004)',

In light of books like hers I think it's appropriate to be cautious at the end of the day.

'The kids in Australia seem to have had a fainting reaction. It's thought that there were other factors at play. But it's very hard to prove 100% either way. But they came to no harm, and they were only a tiny tiny proportion of those who've ever received it.'

Yeah, i wasn't too worried about the fainting, it was the severe side effects, deaths etc.. and just what is acceptable risk?

That whole fallace of false alternatives seems a popular argument in this case, as if, if your kid doesn't get a vaccine and is exposed to hpv through sex then the odds are they will get cervical cancer and die. Aka get the vaccine or die?

Vaccine coverage is possibley quite short, can lull you into a false sense of security, you may go without a condom/ may skip smears apparantly more effective..can cause severe side effects, Plus if you're immunity is good many people clear the virus naturally.

Yes and a whole other argument, but i'm throwing it out there, there are a host of effective complemtary and holistic approaches to treating HPV. E.G Collustrum supplement has amazing anti viral properties.

I've had clients who've had Herpes who've used it and who've found it great (and studies support it's use antivirally in that case.), so perhaps also with HPV?

So foods, herbs, acupuncture, etc..there are many routes to regaining your health in a drug free, pain free, effective manner is essentially another position that can be taken.

Or even better working preventatively so as to make sure you can protect yourself and your family.

'The big issue with this vaccine is that, unlike gardasil, it doesn't protect against most genital warts.'

ah right that's interesting, on the plus side, i hear that vaccine has aluminium as a preservative, and not mercury, thimersol etc.. so apparantly less potentially dangerous, except for fears regarding altheizemers.

I know I have a lot to learn on this vaccine so whatever the discussion brings up is all good, I'm not trying to present myeslf as an expert or anything... I wish I had more time to read up on it than i do right now.

tallaght01 · 04-03-2009 8:00am

anne h. wrote: »

re - 'But really what the new england journal said was that we can't be 100% about how long protection lasts for, and whether side effects will come out over time.
That's fine. But the vaccine has fulfilled the safety requirements that any vaccine has to fulfill. You can wait 60 years to make sure side effects don't show up later in life. But no other vaccine has long term effects, so not sure why this would be any different.'

The vaccine makes claims for how long you are safe for and as it's in response to safety during sexual activity, isn't it's important that it can gaurentee that the x amount of years coverage it gives it's accurate.. otherwise it comprimises health in a major way i would have thought.

I know there has to be a limit on trial length but Merck etc. appear to be being criticised for quite short trials even amongst the medical community.

'No other vaccine has long term effects'?

Disability, death, etc.. Vaccines can and do have long term efffects. My uncle was in critical condition from a reaction to the flu virus.

'The link you gave to Diane Harper saying that the vaccine hasn't been tested in younger kids must be out of date, because it's not true. It's been tested in kids as young as 9 for safety. But the effectiveness won't be apparent for many years in this group. But once you're out of infancy, vaccine reactions aren't usually age dependent.'

'It's not true?' would be kool if you get me the citations etc.. Not meant in a smart arse way, i'm simply very interested in this topic.

And yeah it's been tested in people, but precisely 'effectiveness won't be known for years' doesn't this support Harpers point that it's a pro merck experiment?

People like Dr marcia Angell former ed. in chief of the New England Jounal of Medicine, and a nationally recognized authority in the field of healthy policy and medical ethics in the states, says the pharma industy is 'deeply corrupt' and even 'rig's their trials to make their products look better than they are'. 'The truth about the drug companies (2004)',

In light of books like hers I think it's appropriate to be cautious at the end of the day.

'The kids in Australia seem to have had a fainting reaction. It's thought that there were other factors at play. But it's very hard to prove 100% either way. But they came to no harm, and they were only a tiny tiny proportion of those who've ever received it.'

Yeah, i wasn't too worried about the fainting, it was the severe side effects, deaths etc.. and just what is acceptable risk?

That whole fallace of false alternatives seems a popular argument in this case, as if, if your kid doesn't get a vaccine and is exposed to hpv through sex then the odds are they will get cervical cancer and die. Aka get the vaccine or die?

Vaccine coverage is possibley quite short, can lull you into a false sense of security, you may go without a condom/ may skip smears apparantly more effective..can cause severe side effects, Plus if you're immunity is good many people clear the virus naturally.

Yes and a whole other argument, but i'm throwing it out there, there are a host of effective complemtary and holistic approaches to treating HPV. E.G Collustrum supplement has amazing anti viral properties.

I've had clients who've had Herpes who've used it and who've found it great (and studies support it's use antivirally in that case.), so perhaps also with HPV?

So foods, herbs, acupuncture, etc..there are many routes to regaining your health in a drug free, pain free, effective manner is essentially another position that can be taken.

Or even better working preventatively so as to make sure you can protect yourself and your family.

'The big issue with this vaccine is that, unlike gardasil, it doesn't protect against most genital warts.'

ah right that's interesting, on the plus side, i hear that vaccine has aluminium as a preservative, and not mercury, thimersol etc.. so apparantly less potentially dangerous, except for fears regarding altheizemers.

I know I have a lot to learn on this vaccine so whatever the discussion brings up is all good, I'm not trying to present myeslf as an expert or anything... I wish I had more time to read up on it than i do right now.

To address the points you've made, Anne:

1) The duration of effectiveness: The vaccines may have effects that last a lifetime. But you'd have to wait on average 65 years after vaccinating a study group of 15 year old girls to see if the effect lasted a lifetime. This isn't practical. But we know that once you're immune to a certain degree, you tend to stay immune for most of your life. There are exceptions, and it's a fair question. Basically, we know the immunity persists for at least 5 years at levels above which you would achieve if you had caught the infection naturally.
But there may indeed be a need for a booster. Even so, if you can tell a young woman that she will have even, say, 10 year immunity against HPV 16+18, then that will significantly reduce her risk of cervical cancer.

2) The issue of long term effects: You say "disability and death", but these are exceptionally rare outcomes of vaccination. Virtually the only threat to life from vaccination is a very rare allergic reaction. This is not usually fatal, and it's a risk when we eat seafood or peanuts, or take any medication, including alternative medicines. There have only ever been a tiny tiny amount of vaccine related deaths.

3) Marcia Angel is right about drug companies being corrupt. I hate drug companies. I won't even use the free pens they give out. they try and fool doctors by manipulating statistics every single day. Most doctors can't stanbd drug companies. that's why our own regulatory bodies independently review all the data, and often do their own studies.

4) aluminium in vaccines: We are all exposed to ingested aluminium all the time. The amount on vaccines is tiny compared to our exposure from elsewhere. The World Health Organisation and the Global advisory committe on vaccine safety are really very trustworthy and independent organistions, who are also very clever people. They say that the really tiny amount of aluminium is some vaccines has never been shown to cause harm. That's fair enough, as people are much healthier since the advent of vaccines. There is no good link between alzheimers and aluminium. Lots of initial crackpot studies claiming a link. Then they were done by proper scientists, and no links were found. Still a bit of debate in some quarters, but the amount of aluminium in a vaccine is in microgrammes.

5) The age range issue: Girls as young as 9 have been tested, even before the license was granted.I don't have an online citation, but you can google it aswell as I can. My stuff is all print copies.What they haven't done in the young girls is to do smears in them before they gave them the vaccine, as it was thought to be overly invasive, and I htink that was the right call.

6) I agree with you that vaccines can lull people into a false sense of security. We don't know how society will react to it. It will be interesting. But you have to give people the option, and the benefit of the doubt.

7) You're very concerned about the efficacy and safety of this vaccines, and that's fine. It's good to question. But I'm just confused that, at the same time, you advocate the use of complementary and alternative medicines, which have been shown time and time again to be of no benefit. I have never seen a randomised controlled trial for collustrum in treatment of herpes. I can also guarantee you that, whatever it is, it won't have been through the same safety process as any conventional medical treatment.

Agent Smith · 04-03-2009 8:14am

The Irish Times wrote:

The Irish Cancer Society has said the decision by a group of GPs to make cervical cancer vaccinations available free of charge to 300 sixth class girls in north Dublin is a welcome gesture but no substitute for a free nationwide vaccination programme.

A spokeswoman for the society said a national vaccination programme had been recommended and it wants to see the programme put in place.

A nationwide vaccination programme for all 12 year old girls was due to go ahead later this year but in November the Minister for Health Mary Harney announced the plan was being shelved due to budget constraints. The estimated cost was around €10 million.

The vaccine, which is most effective when given before girls become sexually active, guards against the most common, but not all, strains of the HPV virus which causes cervical cancer

As a result it is recommended that vaccination runs hand in hand with a cervical cancer screening programme. CervicalCheck, the national screening programme for women aged 25 to 60 years, commenced last September.

The society said having a national vaccination programme alongside screening would be "the ideal situation".

There are over 200 new cases of cervical cancer diagnosed in Ireland each year and also around 70 deaths from the disease.

The 300 girls in north Dublin being offered the HPV vaccine free of charge by Fine Gael health spokesman Dr James Reilly and other GPs are all 12 years old. They are in sixth class in schools in Balbriggan, Skerries, Rush, Lusk, Loughshinny, Corduff, Hedgestown and Balscadden.

The vaccines, which will be administered next Saturday, were bought by a consortium of four local businessman and will be given free of charge by GPs.

Forms and information packs will be distributed through the 19 schools in the area and one local pharmacy.

Dr Reilly denied the vaccination programme in his area was a political stunt. He said the vaccine will save lives and money.

"The fact that the local community, 19 schools, parents associations, teachers, parents, doctors, nurses, and 300 children have indicated their demand for this vaccine should send a loud message to the Minister and this Government and the Minister should take up the baton and continue this programme throughout the country," he said.

"Ireland has 28,000 girls who should be receiving the vaccination. [The Health Information and Quality Authority] has stated unequivocally that this vaccine would save 52 lives and will prevent 111 cancers annually," he added. “This vaccine is available in 13 European countries and indeed in Northern Ireland, an hour from north Dublin.”

A spokesman for Ms Harney said the Government's policy was to prioritise the roll out and take up of the national cervical cancer screening programme. "That is underway at a full year cost of €35 million," he said.

He added that the Minister is actively keeping the issue of a national HPV vaccination programme under review as part of the national cancer control programme.

Note: I may be somewhat biased, But fairplay to the man

Original link

Cmol · 04-03-2009 6:54pm

Edit - Answered my own question, blonde moment!

anne h. · 04-03-2009 10:01pm

Hi Tallagh 01

1) The duration of effectiveness: The vaccines may have effects that last a lifetime. But you'd have to wait on average 65 years after vaccinating a study group of 15 year old girls to see if the effect lasted a lifetime. This isn't practical. But we know that once you're immune to a certain degree, you tend to stay immune for most of your life. There are exceptions, and it's a fair question. Basically, we know the immunity persists for at least 5 years at levels above which you would achieve if you had caught the infection naturally.

But there may indeed be a need for a booster. Even so, if you can tell a young woman that she will have even, say, 10 year immunity against HPV 16+18, then that will significantly reduce her risk of cervical cancer.

Reply - Yeah 65 years is too long to wait but I’m with Harper that longer trials are necessary rather than having this current crop of users being an inadvertent trial group.

2) The issue of long term effects: You say "disability and death", but these are exceptionally rare outcomes of vaccination. Virtually the only threat to life from vaccination is a very rare allergic reaction. This is not usually fatal, and it's a risk when we eat seafood or peanuts, or take any medication, including alternative medicines. There have only ever been a tiny tiny amount of vaccine related deaths.

Reply -I see figures of up to 18 deaths being mentioned on the judicial watch page and a couple of hundred severe reactions, its worth knowing that these risks, despite the numbers being comparatively small in total. This is especially as there are alternatives preventatively and treatment wise (more later).

3) Marcia Angel is right about drug companies being corrupt. I hate drug companies. I won't even use the free pens they give out. they try and fool doctors by manipulating statistics every single day. Most doctors can't stanbd drug companies. that's why our own regulatory bodies independently review all the data, and often do their own studies.

Reply – That’s interesting, Are you a doctor? I know many doc’s are au fait with some of big pharma’s nefarious practices and ideally independent bodies try and stay on top of it, but it’s a powerful well financed industry. I wonder how successful they are in that endeavour. I don’t know any insiders in the industry but it would make a good topic in of itself wouldn’t it?

4) aluminium in vaccines: We are all exposed to ingested aluminium all the time. The amount on vaccines is tiny compared to our exposure from elsewhere. The World Health Organisation and the Global advisory committe on vaccine safety are really very trustworthy and independent organistions, who are also very clever people. They say that the really tiny amount of aluminium is some vaccines has never been shown to cause harm. That's fair enough, as people are much healthier since the advent of vaccines. There is no good link between alzheimers and aluminium. Lots of initial crackpot studies claiming a link. Then they were done by proper scientists, and no links were found. Still a bit of debate in some quarters, but the amount of aluminium in a vaccine is in microgrammes.

Reply –The mode of administration is important too, ingested vs. Injection ? I know clever people have rejected the hypothesis that it’s dangerous and also clever people are still expressing reservations.. so as you said, the debate goes on..

5) The age range issue: Girls as young as 9 have been tested, even before the license was granted.I don't have an online citation, but you can google it aswell as I can.

Reply - The reason I asked for the citation was that I was originally asked by the moderator for all of mine and since I hadn’t come across your information and it seems to directly contradict harpers, it would have have been useful if you had it to hand.

7) You're very concerned about the efficacy and safety of this vaccines, and that's fine. It's good to question. But I'm just confused that, at the same time, you advocate the use of complementary and alternative medicines, which have been shown time and time again to be of no benefit. ***************

Reply - I’m a qualified acupuncturist, training to be a herbalist and you’re assertion that complementary/alternative med ‘has been shown time and time and time again to be of no benefit’ is completely inaccurate.

Approximately 70% of the world’s population rely on herbs as their primary source of medicine, a significant amount of western med’s have been derived from herbs or are synthesised version’s of the isolated active ingredients of a herbs. Up until about 50 yrs ago, nearly all the entries in the pharmacopeis described the manufacture of drugs indicated a herbal origin.

If anyones’ interested in data the efficacy of herb’s with reference to studies in the lancet,neuroscience etc. Check out The consumer’s guide to herbal medicine by steve Karch. It’s a professional medical review of the most popular medicinal and performance enhancing herbs.

Acupuncture’s a safe, effective, drug free and pain free form of medicine that’s been used by billions of people for over 2000 years. The World Health Organisation presents lists of diseases or disorders for which acupuncture therapy was tested in controlled clinical trials. (See - Acupuncture: Review and Analysis of Reports on Controlled Clinical Trialspublished in 2002 by the World Health Organization or : http://tcm.health-info.org/WHO-treatment-list.htm#_pain

Studies of acupuncture in the Western literature are often fairly limited by poor study design, that’s true, but brain imaging studies, using functional magnetic resonance (fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) is showing very interesting preliminary results

http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/212/1/133

Ted Kaptchuk, Traditional Chinese medicine expert explains the whole western medical trials of acupuncture issue pretty succinctly here:

‘Traditionally, acupuncture is embedded in naturalistic theories..... Such ideas as qi.....represent East Asian conceptual frameworks that emphasize the reliability of ordinary, human sensory awareness. [

Many physicians who practice acupuncture reject such prescientific notions. Numerous randomized, controlled trials and more than 25 systematic reviews and meta-analyses have evaluated the clinical efficacy of acupuncture.

Evidence from these trials indicates that acupuncture is effective for emesis developing after surgery or chemotherapy in adults and for nausea associated with pregnancy. Good evidence exists that acupuncture is also effective for relieving dental pain. For such conditions as chronic pain, back pain, and headache, the data are equivocal or contradictory. Clinical research on acupuncture poses unique methodologic challenges.

Basic-science research provides evidence that begins to offer plausible mechanisms for the presumed physiologic effects of acupuncture. Multiple research approaches have shown that acupuncture activates endogenous opioid mechanisms.

Recent data, obtained by using functional magnetic resonance imaging, suggest that acupuncture has regionally specific, quantifiable effects on relevant brain structures. Acupuncture may stimulate gene expression of neuropeptides’

Annals of Internal Medicine - http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/136/5/374

For what it worth, I know it works as I use it for myself and every day on clients and can verify it’s effectiveness that way, (in anticipation of placebo effect argument – it’s also effective for babies, horses and other animals. And in clinic with husbands who don’t want to be there and are made go by their missus and think it’s complete hokum... Until their problem is resolved

. [/FONT]

7 ½ (cut from 7).I have never seen a randomised controlled trial for collustrum in treatment of herpes. I can also guarantee you that, whatever it is, it won't have been through the same safety process as any conventional medical treatment.

Reply - Here’s the studies, my friend had a cardio virus and the opportunity to see a western medical expert in this field in the states. He recommended colostrum and my friend returned to full health within weeks after 3 years.

The trials below are for overall anti viral properties of Colusturm and there’s a reference to herpes and Colustrum, I didn’t do a big search, so I’m sure there’s more for anyone interested...

Boesman-Finkelstein M. and Finkelstein R. (1989) Passive oral immunization of children. Lancet. 2(8675):1336.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]‘Passive immunisation of children with bovine colostrum containing antibodies to human rotavirus.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Davidson GP, Whyte PB, Daniels E, Franklin K, Nunan H, McCloud PI, Moore AG, Moore DJ.[

The efficacy of a 10-day course of bovine colostrum with high antibody titre against the four known human rotavirus serotypes in protecting children against rotavirus infection was examined in patients admitted to hospital. .............................

The aim of the study was to produce a preparation of bovine colostrum with a high antibody titre against the 4 known human rotavirus. 65 of the children were placed in a control group, while the remaining 55 were placed in a treatment group. A colostrum was produced by introducing a vaccine containing all 4 human rotavirus into 25 pregnant Freisian cows.

The colostrum was then administered to the children, orally. Stool specimens were collected before admission, during the study and after discharge. The result of the study are as follows: 14% of the control group (9 of 65) acquired rotavirus during the study; 8 of the 9 patients probably acquired the infection on admission to the hospital. None of the treatment group were infected.

Ebina T, Umezu K, Ohyama S, et al. (1983) Prevention of rotavirus infection by cow colostrum containing antibody against human rotavirus. Lancet. 2(8357):1029-30.

Hilpert H, Brussow H, Mietens C, Sidoti J, Lerner L, Werchau H. (1987) Use of bovine milk concentrate containing antibody to rotavirus to treat rotavirus gastroenteritis in infants. Journal of Infectious Diseases. 156:158-166.

Lissner R, Thurmann P, Merz G, Karch, H. (1998) H. Antibody reactivity and fecal recovery of bovine immunoglobulins following oral administration of a colostrum concentrate from cows to healthy volunteers. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 36:239-245.

Petschow B, Talbott R. (1994). Reduction in virus-neutralizing activity of a bovine colostrum immunglobulin concentrate by gastic acid and digestive enzymes. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition. 19:228-235.

Veselsky L, Cechova D, Jonakova V. (1978) Secretion and Immunochemical Properties of the Trypsin Inhibitor from Bovine Colostrum. Hoppe-Seyler's Z. Physiol. Chem. 359:873-878.

Kohl S, Malloy, M, Pickering L, Morriss F, Adcock E, Walters D. (1978) Human colostral cytotoxicity: I. Antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity against herpes simplex viral-infected cells mediated by colostral cells. [FONT=&quot]Journal of Clinical Laboratory Immunology [/FONT]. 1:221-224.

PubMed Reference
UI: 80051884 [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Hasegawa K, Motsuchi W, Tanaka S, Dosako S. (1994) Inhibition with lactoferrin of in vitro infection with human herpes virus. [FONT=&quot]Jpn. Journal of Sci. Biol [/FONT]. 47:73-85.

PubMed Reference
UI: 95156852 [/FONT]

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/29/1/105

PEDIATRICS Vol. 29 No. 1 January 1962, pp. 105-115

‘A variety of distinct antiviral factors were found in human colostrum and milk against the herpes simplex virus, the group B arthropod-borne viruses (Japanese B, St. Louis, West Nile, dengue, yellow fever)’

Now it dawn's on me just now you said double bind?.. doh.. Sorry tallagh 01.

Take care,

Anne

tallaght01 · 05-03-2009 12:26pm

Anne, you're talking about human colostrum and bovine colostrum interchangeably. There's lots of evidence that human colostrum helps those with under developed immune system, such as babies. No evidence for it's use in adults with herpes.

You're also talking about immunising and treating conditions interchangeably.

The evidence you've posted is highly theoretical, but has never been shown to have any use in humans.

I have no problems with acupuncture, actually. It's the one form of alternative medicine that I think is fine for use in conditions that aren't serious.

It's the use of the other stuff you talk about that has no real basis in science or reality.

Anecdotes are a poor guide to the success of any treatment. And the placebo effect is seen markedly in babies and animals, as you're asking their owners/parents to give you the clinical history.

But, look, the statistical questions you ask are very important. They help decide whether you, and those you talk to, will take advantage of vaccines. Public knowledge of the science is really important.

But, it does tend to get some people's knickers in a twist. So, if you want to discuss it further, feel free to copy and paste your post and post it in the biology+medicine forum.

There's lots of people over there who will answer your questions, and are keen to give information to the public so they can make informed decisions.

See you there

Wibbs · 05-03-2009 12:50pm

anne h. OK lets keep the derailment of this thread to a minimum. As tallaght01 suggested, take it to the biology+medicine forum if you want to discuss it further. It won't be entertained on this thread. Thank you.

tallaght01 · 05-03-2009 1:19pm

Agent Smith wrote: »

Note: I may be somewhat biased, But fairplay to the man

Original link

This is actually the subject of our blog entry this week.

I still don't know what to make of it.

DrIndy · 12-03-2009 1:31am

Remember ladies of the ladies lounge:

HPV Vaccination DOES NOT PROTECT AGAINST CERVICAL CANCER

It simply vaccinates against the commonest and most serious strains.

YOU STILL NEED SMEAR TESTS
However, they are more likely to be clear if you are vaccinated.

DrIndy

vaccinesharm · 12-03-2009 5:15pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

I was told something really stunning yesterday.

There is a medical clinic in Dublin city center who think that the Cervical Cancer Vaccine is so important that every woman should have it that they are
offering the course of the 3 injection at cost.

Meaning they are refusing to make any profit on it and are not adding stipulations about a woman having to be a virgin to receive it.

So the vaccine will then cost 300 euros rather then the 600 which is being charged by other providers.

http://www.chartermedical.ie/cervical-cancer-vaccinations

Finally people who know how important this is stepping forward.
A vaccine against cancer which saves lives should be put in the reach
as much as possible for every woman.

Please pass this info on to women that you know and let them know about this.

I wouldn't give this vaccine (or any vaccine for that matter), to my dog, if I had one. This vaccine is strictly for brain-washed morons. Merck's Vioxx drug has killed some 55,000 people because Merck falsified the safety studies, and now they're trying to recoup the compensation money they have been ordered to pay by exploiting girl's and young women's pelvic gold mine with this crap expermental vaccine. Give me a break! Already there have been about 30 deaths and many serious reactions, ncluding around 90 outbreaks of facial genital warts, due to the vaccine. Google "Jessica Ericzon Gardasil death". Jessica was seventeen. Her mother says: "My girl died as a guinea pig for Merck's Gardasil vaccine".

They would have to shoot me first before they could give this vaccine to any daughter of mine.

vaccinesharm · 12-03-2009 5:22pm

anne h. wrote: »

Hi Tallagh 01

1) The duration of effectiveness: The vaccines may have effects that last a lifetime (etc.)...

Take care,

Anne

I have news for you: vaccines do NOT prevent diseases, let alone save lives. Look at it as an elaborate hoax, an organised criminal enterprise, or chemical-biological warfare against civilians. Check out the facebook page 'Vaccination Information Network, or look up www.thinktwice.org or www.vran.org or www.vaccinetruth.org.

vaccinesharm · 12-03-2009 5:28pm

Agent Smith wrote: »

Note: I may be somewhat biased, But fairplay to the man

Original link

I wouldn't give Gardasil to a dog, let alone to a human being. Vaccination is an organised criminal enterprise which has now been around for over 200 years. Some of us have woken up; it would be good if the rest of us would, too. I mean, why carry on with this culturally and government-sanctioned child abuse if it's not good for anything except for sticking money into some criminals' pockets?

Wibbs · 12-03-2009 5:32pm

vaccinesharm you've said your piece, so please take this to medical/biology/conspiracy forum. Don't drag this thread further off topic. This thread is not the place for this kind of debate, or for axes to grind. Thank you.

vaccinesharm · 12-03-2009 5:32pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

Anne, you're talking about human colostrum and bovine colostrum interchangeably. There's lots of evidence that human colostrum helps those with under developed immune system, such as babies. No evidence for it's use in adults with herpes.

You're also talking about immunising and treating conditions interchangeably.

The evidence you've posted is highly theoretical, but has never been shown to have any use in humans.

I have no problems with acupuncture, actually. It's the one form of alternative medicine that I think is fine for use in conditions that aren't serious.

It's the use of the other stuff you talk about that has no real basis in science or reality.

Anecdotes are a poor guide to the success of any treatment. And the placebo effect is seen markedly in babies and animals, as you're asking their owners/parents to give you the clinical history.

But, look, the statistical questions you ask are very important. They help decide whether you, and those you talk to, will take advantage of vaccines. But, it does tend to get some people's knickers in a twist. So, if you want to discuss it further, feel free to copy and paste your post and post it in the biology+medicine forum.

There's lots of people over there who will answer your questions, and are keen to give information to the public so they can make informed decisions.

See you there

"Public knowledge of the science is really important."

There is no science behind vaccinations; I think you mean pseudo-science.

Wibbs · 12-03-2009 5:35pm

Look there has already been one warning on this thread about dragging off topic. Then a second one. Here's a third. Next time it's a ban.

vaccinesharm · 12-03-2009 5:37pm

DrIndy wrote: »

Remember ladies of the ladies lounge:

HPV Vaccination DOES NOT PROTECT AGAINST CERVICAL CANCER

It simply vaccinates against the commonest and most serious strains.

YOU STILL NEED SMEAR TESTS
However,
DrIndy

"they are more likely to be clear if you are vaccinated"

Says who? The Merck mafia who makes this horrible vaccine? I have a strong hunch that this vaccine is going to cause infertility and cancers a few years down the line. If this vaccine could be shown to be effective in preventing ill-health, it would be the first time a vaccine is preventing a disease. The chances of this being the case is about zilch.

Wibbs · 12-03-2009 5:44pm

vaccinesharm banned for two days(as you're new here) for ignoring repeated mod warnings about dragging this thread off topic. Please feel free to take this up on Biology & medicine forum or the Conspiracy forum as was suggested before. If you come back in two days and continue on this line your ban will be increased in the Ladies Lounge. Thank you.

Cervical Cancer Vaccine for every woman for only 300 euros.

Comments