Group items tagged

his Web site was launched in early 1995, and was amongst the first sites dedicated to, not only providing&nbsp; alternative theories of addictive behavior and change, but providing addiction information in general. HabitSmart has been alive and kicking since its debut, despite occasional objections to its non-twelve step focus, and primarily because of the hundreds of positive responses to the site.&nbsp; The site offers an abundance of information about addictive behavior: theories of habit endurance and habit change as well as tips for effectively managing problematic habitual behavior. Many people grappling with addictive behavior are not aware that, as opposed to just one,&nbsp; there are many potentially effective routes to change.&nbsp;&nbsp; In as much as AA and associated 12-step approaches have been useful to many, one size does not fit all. Furthermore, many who align themselves with the 12-step model can augment their recovery with other information and tools. INFORMATION DRIVES CHANGE &nbsp; The Self Scoring Alcohol Check-up is an on-line questionnaire for people concerned about their alcohol&nbsp;&nbsp; consumption. It is hoped that filling out the form will enable respondents to examine important aspects of this behavior and consider various change options. This is not a diagnostic assessment, but an opportunity to examine "the facts" about your drinking (e.g. quantity consumed, unique triggers, consequences) and hopefully find some route to change which is commensurate with your needs and goals.. Includes the SADD (Short-Form Alcohol Dependence Data Questionnaire). &nbsp;The Codependency Idea: A Disease of Caring This lengthy article offers an alternative to the "codependency mentality" and tips for people in relationships with addicted individuals. &nbsp; &nbsp; The Cognitive Therapy Pages This new addition to HabitSmart is designed to be an introduction to cognitive therapy of emotional problems. Articles address the cognitive model, depression, anxiety, anger management, as well as tips on thought monitoring and cognitive disputation. Under Construction: THE COGNITIVE MODEL OF DEPRESSION: A MULTI-MEDIA PRESENTATION First in a series of presentations to educate the principles of cognitive therapy. NEW&nbsp; &nbsp; Kicking Depression's Ugly Butt&nbsp; Chapter summary and excerpt from Dr. Westermeyer's depression self-help book, available Summer, 2004 at bookstores and directly from Quick Publications. Tipping the Scale This exercise and accompanying documents were written to help you understand and counter ambivalence. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Push Harm Reduction: This was the first site on the WWW dedicated to providing information about Harm Reduction and associated interventions. Check it out! Assimilate and spread the word! Nine articles dealing with outreach, needle exchange, methadone,&nbsp; as well as dieting and clinical implications of harm reduction. &nbsp; Jump Starting that New Years Resolution Failed your January change agenda? Here's some tips for getting back on track. By the way, You don't have to wait until 1-1 to make a resolution! &nbsp;Memory Model of Problem Drinking: This empirically-based document offers an information-processing conceptualization of craving, urges and loss of control. &nbsp; &nbsp; Coping With Urges: The article offers tips for "out-smarting" the various breeds of urge. Coping with Addiction is an excellent article that provides answers to many questions people have about drug and alcohol abuse plus some useful advice on methods of change. <

Methods 277 young women (mean age 20·2 years [SD 1·7]) were randomly assigned to quadrivalent HPV (20 É g type 6, 40 É g type 11, 40 É g type 16, and 20 É g type 18) L1 virus-like-particle (VLP) vaccine and 275 (mean age 20·0 years [1·7]) to one of two placebo preparations at day 1, month 2, and month 6. For 36 months, participants underwent regular gynaecological examinations, cervicovaginal sampling for HPV DNA, testing for serum antibodies to HPV, and Pap testing. The primary endpoint was the combined incidence of infection with HPV 6, 11, 16, or 18, or cervical or external genital disease (ie, persistent HPV infection, HPV detection at the last recorded visit, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, cervical cancer, or external genital lesions caused by the HPV types in the vaccine). Main analyses were done per protocol. Findings Combined incidence of persistent infection or disease with HPV 6, 11, 16, or 18 fell by 90% (95% CI 71-97, p&lt;0·0001) in those assigned vaccine compared with those assigned placebo. Interpretation A vaccine targeting HPV types 6, 11, 16, 18 could substantially reduce the acquisition of infection and clinical disease caused by common HPV types. AUTHOR DISCUSSION We have shown that a multivalent vaccine is efficacious against HPV types that cause cancer and genital warts. Over 35 months’ follow-up, incidence of persistent infection associated with HPV 6, 11, 16, or 18 decreased by 89% in women allocated active vaccine who had at least one dose (ie, the modified intention-to-treat population) compared with those allocated placebo. Vaccine efficacy was 90% in the per-protocol efficacy population, suggesting that the vaccine was protective even during the vaccination period. For example, during the course of vaccination (day 1 through month 7), three women assigned active vaccine and five women assigned placebo were detected with HPV 18 DNA. Of these, only one was verifiable persistent infection (in the placebo group). Thus, one woman allocated placebo and no women allocated active vaccine developed persistent HPV 18 infection during the vaccination period. Furthermore, efficacy with regard to clinical disease associated with HPV 6, 11, 16, or 18 was 100%.

Methods Study design A phase II randomised, multicentre, double-blind placebo-controlled study of a quadrivalent HPV (type 6, 11, 16, and 18) L1 VLP vaccine was done in two parts. Part A was a sequential dose-escalation safety assessment, in which participants, investigators, and staff were blinded as to assignment of vaccine or placebo, but not to assignment of doses in the active-treatment group. Part B was a fully blinded dose-ranging assessment of immunogenicity and efficacy. Study procedures for individuals in part A and part B were identical. The results presented in this article are from part B. 1158 women aged 16-23 years were recruited in Brazil, Europe, and the USA. The study enrolled healthy women, who were not pregnant, had no previous abnormal Pap smears, and reported a lifetime history of four or fewer male sex partners. Enrolment of virgins was restricted to women who were 18 years or older and who were seeking contraception. This study did not exclude women with previous HPV infection. Participants were required to use effective contraception during the trial. The active quadrivalent vaccine was a mixture of four recombinant HPV type-specific VLPs (Merck Research Laboratories, West Point, PA, USA) consisting of the L1 major capsid proteins of HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 synthesised in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.10,14,16 The four VLP types were purified and adsorbed onto amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulfate adjuvant. The placebo consisted of the same adjuvant and was visually indistinguishable from vaccine. Three preparations of a quadrivalent HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18 L1 VLP were used. The three preparations were&nbsp;: 20 É g type 6, 40 É g type 11, 40 É g type 16, and 20 É g type 18, with 225 É g aluminium adjuvant&nbsp;; 40 É g type 6, 40 É g type 11, 40 É g type 16, and 40 É g type 18, with 225 É g aluminium adjuvant&nbsp;; and 80 É g type 6, 80 É g type 11, 40 É g type 16, and 80 É g type 18, with 395 É g aluminium adjuvant. The study had two placebo groups with adjuvant doses of 225 É g or 450 É g for appropriate safety comparisons. 0·5 mL vaccine or placebo was given by intramuscular injection at day 1, month 2, and month 6. After vaccination, participants were observed for 30 min. Temperatures were also recorded orally every day in the evening for 5 days after vaccination, and the participant noted adverse events by standard diary card for 14 days after vaccination. Gynaecological examination was done at day 1 and at months 7, 12, 24, and 36. A ThinPrep™ Pap test (Cytyc, Boxborough, MA, USA) and external genital, lateral vaginal, and cervical swabs for PCR analysis of HPV were obtained from all participants at day 1 and at months 7, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36. Biopsy samples of external genital lesions identified during the study were taken, and serum samples were obtained at day 1 and months 2, 3, 6, 7, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36. This study was done in accordance with national or local requirements for ethics-committee review, informed consent, and other statutes or regulations regarding the protection of the rights and welfare of those participating in biomedical research. All individuals, or their parents or legal guardians, gave written informed consent after review of the protocol procedures. The aim of the study was to assess a quadrivalent HPV L1 VLP vaccine in terms of the composite primary endpoint of persistent infection associated with HPV 6, 11, 16, or 18, or cervical or external genital disease compared with placebo. Women with persistent infection were defined as those who had the same vaccine-HPV-type DNA in cervicovaginal samples obtained 7 months after vaccination as those obtained from two or more consecutive visits (required to be 4 months or longer apart unless at least one tissue sample was diagnosed as cervical disease by a panel of pathologists), or as those who had vaccine-HPV-type DNA detected in a sample recorded during the last visit before being lost to follow-up. HPV-associated disease was defined as a tissue sample diagnosed as CIN by a panel of pathologists 7 months after vaccination&nbsp;; vulval intraepithelial neoplasia&nbsp;; vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia&nbsp;; external genital warts&nbsp;; or cervical, vulval, or vaginal cancer with vaccine-HPV-type DNA detected in tissue from, or in a swab of, the same lesion and in cervicovaginal samples obtained at the visit before the biopsy visit.

GARDASIL AND HPV INFECTION — GET THE FACTS NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER National Vaccine Information Center (Debold V, Downey C, Fisher B). (2007). NVIC Analysis of Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System Reports: Part III, Human Papilloma Virus Vaccine Safety, Analysis of Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System Reports: Part III (August 15, 2007 http://www.nvic.org/Diseases/HPV/HPV_Vaccine_Safety_ Report__Part_III_(081507_revised)[1].pdf NVIC Analysis Shows Greater Risk of GBS Reports When HPV Vaccine Is Given with Other Vaccines, August 15, 2007, NVIC Press Release NVIC Letter to ACIP Chairman regarding HPV VAERS reports, August 14, 2007 Making An Informed Decision: WUSA-9, Washington DC, November 28, 2007 Listen to Parents! Not Merck, March 8, 2007, Rally in Washington DC Statement at DC Rally by Barbara Loe Fisher, March 8, 2007 Vaccine Safety Group Releases GARDASIL Reaction Report, February 21, 2007, NVIC Press Release -FDA and CDC Should Warn&nbsp; Doctors National Vaccine Information Center (Debold V, Fisher B). (2007). Human Papilloma Virus Vaccine Safety, Analysis of Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System Reports: Part II (February 21, 2007). http://www.nvic.org/Diseases/HPV/HPVRPT2.htm HPV Infection Facts&nbsp; National Vaccine Information Center (Debold V, Fisher B). (2007). Human Papilloma Virus Vaccine Safety, Analysis of Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System Reports: Adverse Reactions, Concerns and Implications (undated). http://www.nvic.org/Diseases/HPV/HPVrpt.htm HPV Vaccine Mandates Risky and Expensive, February 1, 2007, NVIC Press Release and Citations Survey of GARDASIL Costs&nbsp;— Private Pediatricians Offices, January 2007 Merck's GARDASIL Not Proven Safe for Little Girls, June 27, 2006, NVIC Press Release on GARDASIL aluminum content and clinical trials with reference citations&nbsp; TODAY SHOW - FEBRUARY 13, 2007 - Should HPV Vaccine Be Mandatory?&nbsp; Barbara Loe Fisher, NVIC President and Co-founder, http://tinyurl.com/2kfkb4 HPV Video - 7 Minutes, Grindley Productions made for NVIC WNYC Radio (NPR) The Brian Lehrer Show February 22, 2007 Healthy &amp; Wise: "Strange Bedfellows" "At least 20 states are considering mandatory vaccination of young girls against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer. But the backlash has been fast and furious--and has led to some unlikely alliances. Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center, and Moira Gaul, director of women's and reproductive health at the Family Research Council, talk about their opposition to mandatory vaccination. Sheila Krumholz, executive director, Center for Responsive Politics, talks about the lobbying efforts and legislative influence of the pharmaceutical industry." VAERS REPORTS — GARDASIL ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS VAERS REPORT — GARDASIL ADVERSE EVENTS REPORTS National Vaccine Information Center. VAERS reports related to HPV4 vaccine http://www.medalerts.

Research Sponsored by NIAAA (Extramural) &nbsp;Contents: •&nbsp;Funding Opportunities&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; NIAAA Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Cross-NIH Funding Opportunities&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Training and Career Development&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Alcohol and HIV/AIDS&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Small Business Opportunities•&nbsp;About NIAAA Extramural Research&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recommendations of the NIAAA Extramural Advisory Board (EAB)&nbsp;•&nbsp;Resources for Applicants/Grantees&nbsp;•&nbsp;Submission and Peer Review •&nbsp;Research and Development (R&amp;D) Contracts •&nbsp;NIAAA-Funded Collaborative Research Programs

[Transcripts of Oral Argument (#1) (#2)] the landmark (7-2) abortion decision voided the abortion laws of nearly every state. Striking down a Texas statute that prohibited all abortions except to save the mother's life, the Supreme Court, per Blackmun, held that abortion was a constitutional right that the states could only abridge after the first six months of pregnancy. More specifically, the Court held that: (1) the Court had jurisdiction; (2) Roe's case was not moot, despite the birth of her child, because the case was "capable of repetition, yet evading review;" (3) the right to privacy includes the right to abortion; (4) since abortion is a fundamental right, state regulation must meet the "strict scrutiny" standard, which means the state must show it has a "compelling interest" in having the law; (5) the word "person" in the 14th Amendment, does not apply to the unborn; (6) the state has an important interest in both preserving the heath of a pregnant woman and in protecting fetal life; (7) the state's interest in maternal health becomes compelling at three months; (8) the state's interest in fetal life becomes compelling at viability--six months; (9) the state may not regulate abortion at all during the first trimester; (10) the state may regulate abortion during the second three months, but only for the protection of the woman's health; (11) the state may regulate or ban abortion during the third trimester to protect fetal life. Roe, the only successful suit of a group of test cases designed to challenge validity of the Texas abortion statute, was brought by Norma McCorvey (alias "Jane Roe") and her lawyer, Sarah Weddington. It was heard twice by the Court because the retirement of Black and Harlan had left two vacancies. With Powell and Rehnquist added, the case was then re-heard. Though Douglas was rightly the intellectual father of Roe, it was Blackmun who worked feverishly behind the scenes to build a consensus for the ruling that he would ultimately write for the Court. [Recently released internal memoranda, while shedding fascinating light on the workings of the Roe Court, have also resulted in stark criticism of the majority's conduct.]&nbsp;The two dissenters, Rehnquist and White would champion the cause against Roe for more than twenty years to come. Though legally it has been eclipsed by Casey, it remains as the essential centerpiece of constitutional jurisprudence on abortion.

[Transcripts of Oral Argument (#1) (#2) ] the landmark (7-2) abortion decision voided the abortion laws of nearly every state. Striking down a Texas statute that prohibited all abortions except to save the mother's life, the Supreme Court, per Blackmun, held that abortion was a constitutional right that the states could only abridge after the first six months of pregnancy. More specifically, the Court held that: (1) the Court had jurisdiction; (2) Roe's case was not moot, despite the birth of her child, because the case was "capable of repetition, yet evading review;" (3) the right to privacy includes the right to abortion; (4) since abortion is a fundamental right, state regulation must meet the "strict scrutiny" standard, which means the state must show it has a "compelling interest" in having the law; (5) the word "person" in the 14th Amendment , does not apply to the unborn; (6) the state has an important interest in both preserving the heath of a pregnant woman and in protecting fetal life; (7) the state's interest in maternal health becomes compelling at three months; (8) the state's interest in fetal life becomes compelling at viability--six months; (9) the state may not regulate abortion at all during the first trimester; (10) the state may regulate abortion during the second three months, but only for the protection of the woman's health; (11) the state may regulate or ban abortion during the third trimester to protect fetal life. Roe, the only successful suit of a group of test cases designed to challenge validity of the Texas abortion statute, was brought by Norma McCorvey (alias "Jane Roe") and her lawyer, Sarah Weddington. It was heard twice by the Court because the retirement of Black and Harlan had left two vacancies. With Powell and Rehnquist added, the case was then re-heard. Though Douglas was rightly the intellectual father of Roe, it was Blackmun who worked feverishly behind the scenes to build a consensus for the ruling that he would ultimately write for the Court. [Recently released internal memoranda, while shedding fascinating light on the workings of the Roe Court, have also resulted in stark criticism of the majority's conduct.] &nbsp; The two dissenters, Rehnquist and White would champion the cause against Roe for more than twenty years to come. Though legally it has been eclipsed by Casey , it remains as the essential centerpiece of constitutional jurisprudence on abortion.

Vaccine Safety Concerns Most parents today have never seen a case of diphtheria, measles, or other once-common diseases now preventable by vaccines. As a result, some parents wonder why their children must receive shots for diseases that do not seem to exist. Myths and misinformation about vaccine safety abound and can confuse parents who are trying to make sound decisions about their children's healthcare. Vaccination is a common, memorable event, and association of events in time often signals cause and effect. While some of the sickness or reactions that follow vaccination may be caused by the vaccine, many are unrelated events that occur by coincidence after vaccination. Therefore, the scientific research that attempts to distinguish true vaccine side effects from unrelated, chance occurrences is important. Recent Health Concerns Entertainment as a Source of Health Information Questions About Vaccine Recalls Kawasaki Syndrome and RotaTeq Vaccine Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) Vaccine and Autism Guillain Barré Syndrome and Menactra® Meningococcal Vaccine fact sheet and frequently asked questions Mercury and Vaccines (Thimerosal) Frequently Asked Questions about Thimerosal Frequently Asked Questions about Thimerosal-free Vaccines Frequently Asked Questions about Mercury and Thimerosal Timeline: Thimerosal in Vaccines (1999–2008) Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Archived Health Concerns Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) (updated March 2004) Cancer, Simian Virus 40, and the Polio Vaccine (updated April 2004) fact sheet and frequently asked questions Chronic Diseases Diabetes (updated May 2004) Febrile Seizures After MMR and DTP Vaccinations Hair Loss Inflammatory Bowel Disease and the Measles Vaccine Multiple Vaccinations and the Immune System (updated May 2004) Multiple Sclerosis and the Hepatitis B Vaccine (updated September 2004) Additives in Vaccines Intussusception and Rotavirus Vaccine Page last reviewed: February 29, 2008 Page last updated: February 29, 2008 Content source: Immunization Safety Office, Office of the Chief Science Officer

The war on drugs is an expensive battle, as a great deal of resources go into catching those who buy or sell illegal drugs on the black market, prosecuting them in court, and housing them in jail. These costs seem particularly exorbitant when dealing with the drug marijuana, as it is widely used, and is likely no more harmful than currently legal drugs such as tobacco and alcohol. There's another cost to the war on drugs, however, which is the revenue lost by governments who cannot collect taxes on illegal drugs. In a recent study for the Fraser Institute, Economist Stephen T. Easton attempted to calculate how much tax revenue the Canadian government could gain by legalizing marijuana.

The study estimates that the average price of 0.5 grams (a unit) of marijuana sold for $8.60 on the street, while its cost of production was only $1.70. In a free market, a $6.90 profit for a unit of marijuana would not last for long. Entrepreneurs noticing the great profits to be made in the marijuana market would start their own grow operations, increasing the supply of marijuana on the street, which would cause the street price of the drug to fall to a level much closer to the cost of production. Of course, this doesn't happen because the product is illegal; the prospect of jail time deters many entrepreneurs and the occasional drug bust ensures that the supply stays relatively low. We can consider much of this $6.90 per unit of marijuana profit a risk-premium for participating in the underground economy. Unfortunately, this risk premium is making a lot of criminals, many of whom have ties to organized crime, very wealthy. Stephen T. Easton argues that if marijuana was legalized, we could transfer these excess profits caused by the risk-premium from these grow operations to the government: If we substitute a tax on marijuana cigarettes equal to the difference between the local production cost and the street price people currently pay--that is, transfer the revenue from the current producers and marketers (many of whom work with organized crime) to the government, leaving all other marketing and transportation issues aside we would have revenue of (say) $7 per [unit]. If you could collect on every cigarette and ignore the transportation, marketing, and advertising costs, this comes to over $2 billion on Canadian sales and substantially more from an export tax, and you forego the costs of enforcement and deploy your policing assets elsewhere. One interesting thing to note from such a scheme is that the street price of marijuana stays exactly the same, so the quantity demanded should remain the same as the price is unchanged. However, it's quite likely that the demand for marijuana would change from legalization. We saw that there was a risk in selling marijuana, but since drug laws often target both the buyer and the seller, there is also a risk (albeit smaller) to the consumer interested in buying marijuana. Legalization would eliminate this risk, causing the demand to rise. This is a mixed bag from a public policy standpoint: Increased marijuana use can have ill effects on the health of the population but the increased sales bring in more revenue for the government. However, if legalized, governments can control how much marijuana is consumed by increasing or decreasing the taxes on the product. There is a limit to this, however, as setting taxes too high will cause marijuana growers to sell on the black market to avoid excessive taxation. When considering legalizing marijuana, there are many economic, health, and social issues we must analyze. One economic study will not be the basis of Canada's public policy decisions, but Easton's research does conclusively show that there are economic benefits in the legalization of marijuana. With governments scrambling to find new sources of revenue to pay for important social objectives such as health care and education expect to see the idea raised in Parliament sooner rather than later.

INTRODUCTION Children learn at a very early age what it means to be a boy or a girl in our society. Through myriad activities, opportunities, encouragements, discouragements, overt behaviors, covert suggestions, and various forms of guidance, children experience the process of gender role socialization. It is difficult for a child to grow to adulthood without experiencing some form of gender bias or stereotyping, whether it be the expectation that boys are better than girls at math or the idea that only females can nurture children. As children grow and develop, the gender stereotypes they are exposed to at home are reinforced by other elements in their environment and are thus perpetuated throughout childhood and on into adolescence (Martin, Wood, &amp; Little, 1990). Related Results Children's media skew... The recalled childhood... GENDER QUESTION AND... Gender stereotyping... Gender differences in... Most Popular Articlesin Health The, six best ...Soothe a dry, itchy ...Cocktails and ...The sour truth about ...Fuel your workout: ... More » A child's burgeoning sense of self, or self-concept, is a result of the multitude of ideas, attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs to which he or she is exposed. The information that surrounds the child and which is internalized comes to the child within the family arena through parent-child interactions, role modeling, reinforcement for desired behaviors, and parental approval or disapproval (Santrock, 1994). As children move into the larger world of friends and school, many of their ideas and beliefs are reinforced by those around them. A further reinforcement of acceptable and appropriate behavior is shown to children through the media, in particular, television. Through all these socialization agents, children learn gender stereotyped behavior. As children develop, these stereotypes become firmly entrenched beliefs and thus, are a part of the child's self-concept. Figure 1 illustrates some of the factors involved in parental influence on a child's self concep

For starters, it could cause harm. All vaccines carry the risk of injury or death. During trials, nine individuals developed arthritis after receiving the vaccine versus three for the placebo, out of approximately 21,000 individuals in that trial. Nine kids with arthritis after receiving the vaccine might not seem like a big deal in the grand scheme of things. After all, arthritis is better than cancer, right? That depends. Given the fact that cervical cancer is relatively rare, highly preventable and most often successfully treated early on, maybe the risk of arthritis — a painful and often debilitating disease — isn’t a worthwhile trade-off.

In order to learn the truth about an unknown, honest science dictates that we have to compare it to a known. When most people think about a vaccine placebo, they are probably thinking about saline. But that’s not what was used during trials. The “placebo” in this case was an aluminium-containing shot. The vaccine itself also contains aluminium. Aluminium hydroxide is what’s known as an adjuvant — it stimulates immune response. Studies in both animals and humans have found that aluminium adjuvants can cause death of brain cells. Similar studies have also shown that aluminium adjuvants in vaccines can cross the blood-brain barrier, as well as cause injection-site inflammation leading to chronic joint and muscle pain and fatigue. Aluminium adjuvants have never been subjected to clinical trials for safety. Read that again: Although the metal has been used in vaccines for decades, it has never been rigorously studied for long-term safety. So perhaps the 1 case of lupus and 2 cases of arthritis out of 9,701 participants who received the “placebo” were not just statistical anomalies. Maybe it was the aluminium. Perhaps that would also explain the 1 case of juvenile arthritis, 2 cases of rheumatoid arthritis, 5 cases of arthritis and 1 case of reactive arthritis in 11,813 Gardasil recipients. We’ll never know. (Some of the trial participants did, in fact, receive straight saline but there’s no way to tell from the data released which cases are which.) More importantly, a reactive placebo artificially decreases the appearance of danger of an experimental vaccine in a clinical trial because the drug company only has to prove that adverse events weren’t statistically significant in the vaccine group versus the placebo group. So using aluminium-containing placebos falsely inflates the adverse-event data of the “placebo” group, making the vaccine look relatively safe by comparison. Gardasil contains 225 mcg of aluminium. Neither Merck nor the U.S. FDA would answer my questions as to how much aluminium was used in the placebo. (Sanofi Pasteur MSD is marketing the vaccine in Europe and is a joint venture of French company Sanofi Pasteur and U.S. pharmaceutical company Merck.) Clinical trial investigators dismissed most of the 102 serious adverse events including 17 deaths that occurred in the clinical trials as unrelated to the study. But given the reactivity profile of aluminium, can we really say that for sure?

Those who received the vaccine reported even more serious adverse events such as gastroenteritis, appendicitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, asthma, bronchospasm and arthritis. In a never before done study, scientists recently found a link between aluminium in vaccines and symptoms associated with Parkinson’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, or Lou Gehrig’s disease) and Alzheimer’s. “This is suspicious,” neuroscientist Chris Shaw told the Georgia Straight, Canada’s largest urban weekly. “Either this [link] is known by industry and it was never made public, or industry was never made to do these studies by Health Canada. I’m not sure which is scarier.” Shaw said there could be 10,000 studies showing aluminium hydroxide is safe to be injected, but that he hasn’t been able to find one study that looked beyond the first few weeks of injection. The reason this is significant, according to Shaw, is that neurological damage can take years to manifest.

RA638 .I4665 2003eb Immunization safety review [electronic resource] : SV40 contamination of polio vaccine and cancer / Immunization Safety Review Committee, Board on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention ; Kathleen Stratton, Donna A. Alamario [i.e. Almario], and Marie C. c2003. [&nbsp;&nbsp;3&nbsp;&nbsp;] RA638 .I4667 2004eb Immunization safety review [electronic resource] : influenza vaccines and neurological complications / Immunization Safety Review Committee, Board on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention ; Kathleen Stratton ... [et al.], editors, Institute of Medicine c2004.

RA638 .L565 2005 Vaccine controversy : the history, use, and safety of vaccinations / Kurt Link. Link, Kurt, 1937- c2005. [&nbsp;&nbsp;7&nbsp;&nbsp;] RA638 .R5 Shots without guns; the story of vaccination. Riedman, Sarah Regal, 1902- [c1960]

RA638 .V33 1997*(ONLINE) Vaccine safety forum [computer file] : summaries of two workshops / Vaccine Safety Forum, Board on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Institute of Medicine. 1997.

The Vaccine Page provides access to up-to-the-minute news about vaccines and an annotated database of vaccine resources on the Internet. A word of caution: The news link above will take you to the latest published news items about vaccines. The Vaccine Page does not control the content of those news items, or of any commercial offerings you may encounter on those pages. We encourage you to validate any information you find there by contacting reputable, science-based sources—such as the members of the Allied Vaccine Group—for trustworthy information about vaccines and immunization. -The Editor &nbsp;

Why It’s Important to Monitor Vaccine Safety John Iskander, MD, MPH, acting director, Immunization Safety Office, and Robert T. Chen, MD, MA, blood safety specialist, Epidemiology Branch, NCHHSTP, wrote a chapter in the new book Infectious Disease Surveillance to explain why it is important to monitor vaccine safety. Rare Reactions. The most important reason is to detect rare reactions. Although vaccines are tested extensively before they are licensed for use in the United States, not enough people are included in the tests to detect reactions that happen only rarely. If serious reactions are found when the vaccine is in widespread use, the vaccine may be withdrawn. Higher Risk Groups. Vaccine safety monitoring also makes sure new vaccines are safe for groups such as the elderly, those with chronic medical conditions, and pregnant women. Vaccine trials may deliberately exclude members of these groups. Public Confidence in Vaccines. Monitoring vaccine safety also helps to maintain public confidence needed to keep enough people vaccinated to prevent disease outbreaks. How We Know If Vaccines Are Safe Vaccine safety cannot be measured directly. Instead, it is estimated by the number of "adverse events" reported. An adverse event is "... a medical incident that takes place after an immunization ... and is believed to be caused by the immunization."1 Adverse events include— True reactions to the vaccine. Events that would have occurred even if the person had not been vaccinated (unrelated coincidences). Reactions related to mistakes in vaccine preparation, handling, or administration. Events that cannot be related directly to the vaccine; their cause is unknown. A formal scientific study usually is required to distinguish between coincidences and true reactions. It is rarely possible to say for sure whether a vaccine caused a specific adverse event. Almost all national immunization programs have a system for reporting adverse events. The United States Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)2 and the Canadian Adverse Events Following Immunization Surveillance System (CAEFISS)* are examples. People who report a vaccine reaction to VAERS or CAEFISS are asked if the reaction led to hospitalization, life-threatening illness, disability, or death. These events are classified as "serious," and are often subject to further study that yields important information. For example, reports to CAEFISS identified a common illness among people who received flu vaccines from one Canadian manufacturer in one season.3 Equally important, such systems have supported the safety of new vaccines such as the new meningococcal B and C vaccines in New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Other monitoring programs include the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) project, the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Network, and the Brighton Collaboration. The VSD project is a collaboration between CDC's Immunization Safety Office and eight large managed care organizations that allows for planned vaccine safety studies as well as quick investigation of possible issues. The CISA Network of six medical research centers conducts clinical research on vaccine-associated health risks, and the Brighton Collaboration develops standard case definitions for problems following immunization as well as guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation. Vaccine safety monitoring becomes more important with new vaccines, expanded vaccine recommendations, and new global immunization initiatives. Reporting systems like VAERS will continue to be used to monitor adverse events, so vaccines can continue to be held to very high standards of safety.

Shots In The Dark by Barbara Loe Fisher&nbsp;&nbsp; The worldwide acceptance of mass vaccination to suppress infectious childhood diseases once fiercely resisted is one of the most successful public relations stories in the history of medicine. As a result, epidemics of smallpox, which once swept through 18th- and 19th-century port cities such as Halifax, New York, and Boston without warning and cut down entire families, are now dry facts relegated to medical books. Images of children struggling through whooping cough, walking down the street coughing spasmodically, and stopping at curbs to spit up sticky mucus are only fading memories for grandparents alive to talk about what their parents told them.&nbsp; Baby boomers and their parents still remember lining up in school in 1955 for polio vaccinations, with the hope that this magic bullet would keep them out of the dreaded iron lung.&nbsp; Mass vaccination has dramatically suppressed childhood diseases. In Canada, recorded diphtheria cases dropped from 9,000 in 1924 to two to five by 1994.&nbsp; When measles vaccination began in the United States between 1963 and 1965, doctors reported more than 400,000 cases annually; by 1995, that number had dwindled to 309. Cases of tetanus are almost unheard of in North America and Europe.&nbsp;&nbsp; Yet the universal use of vaccines as a worthy goal that prevents needless suffering and that benefits all mankind has begun to be challenged.&nbsp;&nbsp; The voices of critics are heard in the living rooms of families whose children have been injured or have died from reactions to routine childhood vaccinations, and in courtrooms, where parents are suing vaccine makers and challenging mandatory vaccination laws. In the U.S. Congress, legislators who have heard them have set up a vaccine injury compensation program. At scientific conferences and in the pages of prestigious medical journals, researchers and physicians are risking their careers by discussing vaccine side effects.

Today, vaccinations are big business. In 1995, an international high-technology research firm, Frost &amp; Sullivan, projected that the worldwide human vaccine market will increase from $2.9 billion to more than $7 billion by the year 2001.&nbsp;&nbsp; Public health officials in every country assist the industry�s growth, often by force of laws that ensure citizens use about a dozen different viral and bacterial vaccines, including ones to suppress even generally mild childhood diseases such as chicken pox. Traditional public health measures, improving sanitation, nutrition, living conditions, health education, and access to affordable medical care, especially in underprivileged populations often take a backseat to achieving a 100 per cent vaccination rate.&nbsp;&nbsp; Most medical doctors consider vaccines their single most important tool in protecting public health. Few would question the profound importance of vaccines to public health, wrote Richard B. Johnston, Jr., MD, medical director of the March of Dimes and chairman of the Institute of Medicine Vaccine Safety Committee, in a 1994 National Academy of Sciences report,&nbsp;

Adverse Events Associated with Vaccines Not only have deaths from the most common childhood infections been almost eliminated, but also so have the devastating morbidities of diseases like measles, paralytic polio, and congenital rubella. This revolution has . . . led to major savings in medical costs and gains in work productivity, as well as to reductions in deaths and suffering.&nbsp;&nbsp; An ancient philosophical dispute goes modern&nbsp;&nbsp; The whole idea of man versus nature can be traced back to the origins of western medicine more than 2,000 years ago. In a four-volume book series Divided Legacy: A History of Schism in Medical Thought by medical historian Harris L. Coulter, PhD, the centuries-old war between empiricism and rationalism in medicine is revealed as a contest between two competing health philosophies. Is each individual governed by a vital force that, through unique reactions to external stimuli, is capable of participating in the healing process, as empiricists, including Hippocrates, have maintained?&nbsp; Or are all human organisms simply a series of complex chemical reactions governed by the laws of physics, chemistry, and mechanics, as rationalists, including Louis Pasteur, have maintained?&nbsp;&nbsp; Empiricists accept the existence of viruses and bacteria as part of nature and illness as part of the life process. They consider fevers, diarrhea, and runny noses good, not bad, and do not suppress them with chemically based drugs that might interfere with the body�s natural ability to harness the immune system to participate in the healing process. They stress that each individual is unique and that individualized therapeutic techniques can stimulate the body to restore health. Empiricists dislike the one-size-fits-all mass vaccination approach.&nbsp;

Vaccination is the administration of antigenic material (the Vaccine) to produce immunity to a disease. Vaccines can prevent or ameliorate the effects of infection by a pathogen. It is considered to be the most effective and cost effective method of preventing infectious diseases. The material administrated can either be live, but weakened forms of pathogens such as bacteria or viruses, killed or inactivated forms of these pathogens, or purified material such as proteins. Smallpox was the first disease people tried to prevent by purposely inoculating themselves with other types of infections; smallpox inoculation was started in India or China before 200 BC.[1] In 1718, Lady Mary Wortley Montague reported that the Turks have a habit of deliberately inoculating themselves with fluid taken from mild cases of smallpox and she inoculated her own children.[2]Before Edward Jenner tested the possibility of using the cowpox vaccine as an immunisation for smallpox in humans in 1796 for the first time, at least six people had done the same several years earlier: a person whose identity is unknown, England, (about 1771), Mrs. Sevel, Germany (about 1772), Mr. Jensen, Germany (about 1770), Benjamin Jesty, England, in 1774, Mrs. Rendall, England (about 1782) and Peter Plett, Germany, in 1791.[3] In 1796 Edward Jenner inoculated using cowpox (a mild relative of the deadly smallpox virus). Pasteur and others built on this.[1] The term vaccination was first used by Edward Jenner an English physician 22 years later, in 1796. Louis Pasteur further adapted in his pioneering work in microbiology. Vaccination (Latin: vacca—cow) is so named because the first vaccine was derived from a virus affecting cows—the relatively benign cowpox virus—which provides a degree of immunity to smallpox, a contagious and deadly disease. In common speech, 'vaccination' and 'immunization' generally have the same colloquial meaning. This distinguishes it from inoculation which uses unweakened live pathogens, although in common usage either is used to refer to an immunization. The word "vaccination" was originally used specifically to describe the injection of smallpox vaccine.[4] Vaccination efforts have been met with some controversy since their inception, on ethical, political, medical safety, religious, and other grounds. Early success and compulsion brought widespread acceptance and mass vaccination campaigns were undertaken which are credited with greatly reducing the incidence of many diseases in numerous geographic regions. The eradication of smallpox, which was last seen in a natural case in 1977, is considered the most evident success of vaccination. Contents

Recommendations and Guidelines: Guide to Contraindications to Vaccinations This guide is designed to help immunization providers determine what common symptoms and conditions should contraindicate vaccination and which ones should not. It supersedes the 2000 Guide to Contraindications to Childhood Vaccination and, unlike that and previous Guides, contains information on all licensed U.S. vaccines, not just pediatric vaccines: Anthrax | BCG | DTaP | DT | Influenza (Flu) | Hepatitis A (HA) | Hepatitis B (HB) Japanese Encephalitis | MMR | Pneumococcal Conjugate (PCV) | Pneumococcal Polysaccharide (PPV) | Polio (IPV) | Rabies | Tb | Typhoid | Vaccinia (routine non-emergency use)* | Varicella | Yellow Fever (YF) Printer-friendly version of Contraindications and Vaccinations guide Print version contains: Checklist of Selected Conditions (for quick navigation) Symptom or Condition chart Appendix A: Summary of Contents of Vaccines Licensed in the U.S. Appendix B: Suggested Intervals Between Administration of Antibody-Containing Products for Different Indications and Measles-Containing Vaccine and Varricella Vaccine Feedback Related resources: Recommended Childhood &amp; Adolescent Immunization Schedule Contraindications to Vaccines Chart MMWR, General Recommendations on Immunizations (Feb. 8, 2002, Vol. 51, RR02, pages 1-35)

Pro-abortion - TodayThe pro-abortion agenda has matured from back alley abortions, to abortion on demand in all 50 states up to 24-25 weeks after fertilization, and even to the point of allowing partial birth abortions. Pro-abortion advocates believe in the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. There are even laws now dictating abortion rights of teenagers and their parents. Is the law on the side of pro-abortion, or isn't it?

Pro-abortion - The ProblemPro-abortion - Is the verdict really in? Abortion is legal in all 50 states. On the other hand, murder is illegal in all 50 states. Herein lies the problem -- How can we say it is against the law to kill and allow the abortion rate of 1 in 4 pregnancies to continue? When does the origin of life begin? Were we created at conception, knit together in our mother's womb right from the beginning? Or is it the air in our lungs that changes our status from a fetus to a life? Of course, the pro-abortion position must advocate that life doesn't begin until some time late in the gestation process. However, God's position has always been that we are each a unique individual created by Him for a special purpose from the moment of conception. Recent discoveries in biochemistry confirm what the Bible has declared for centuries, that each of us is "fearfully and wonderfully made." From the moment the sperm miraculously fertilizes the egg, God begins the process of creating our inmost being and knits us together in our mother's womb (Psalm 139:13-14).

Owens and author Diana Baumrind analyzed data gathered from 100 middle-class white families from 1968 to 1980. The children and parents were interviewed, tested and observed on three occasions by two teams of psychologists when the children were 4, 9 and 14. The study found the majority of families disciplined their preschool children by using mild to moderate spanking. The results showed no negative effects on cognitive, social or behavioral skills of those youngsters and found no difference between them and the 4 percent of children who were not physically disciplined. The study found that 4 percent to 7 percent of parents fell into the "red zone" by disciplining their children frequently and impulsively, by such means as verbal punishment, using a paddle, hitting their children in the face or torso or throwing and shaking them. Those children were found to be not as adjusted socially and more likely to have behavioral problems or experience anxiety or depression, Owens said. She acknowledged that the children studied were from an earlier generation and the results could be different if the same research were done on today's youngsters. A study released last August found that avoiding corporal punishment altogether increases the probability of the child being well-behaved and well-adjusted. Murray Straus, co-director of the University of New Hampshire Family Research Laboratory, said spanking could backfire and push a youngster into delinquency.

Vienna, Virginia - The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), the nation's leading vaccine safety and informed consent advocacy organization, is urging state legislatures to investigate the safety and cost of mandating Merck's HPV vaccine (GARDASIL) for all pre-adolescent girls before introducing legislation amending state vaccine laws. In an analysis of reports made to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) since the CDC's July 2006 universal use recommendation for all young girls, NVIC found reports of loss of consciousness, seizures, joint pain and Guillain-Barre Syndrome. In a separate evaluation of costs for young girls being vaccinated in private pediatrician offices, NVIC discovered that parents living in the Washington, D.C. area will be paying between $500 and $900 to have their daughters receive three doses of GARDASIL. "GARDASIL safety appears to have been studied in fewer than 2,000 girls aged 9 to 15 years and it is unclear how long they were followed up. [1] VAERS is now receiving reports of loss of consciousness, seizures, arthritis and other neurological problems in young girls who have received the shot," said NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher. "At the same time, parents who take their daughters to private pediatricians are going to be shocked to find that they will be paying two to three times the widely publicized $360 cost for the three-dose series. The cost is going to break the pocketbooks of parents and break the banks of both insurance companies and taxpayers, when the reality is that almost all cases of HPV-associated cervical cancer can be prevented with annual pap screening of girls who are sexually active." Between July 2006 and January 2007, there have been 82 reports of adverse events filed with VAERS following receipt of GARDASIL by girls and boys ranging in age from 11 to 27 years. Reaction reports have come from 21 states, including Virginia and the District of Columbia. All but three of the reports were for adverse events which occurred within one week of vaccination and more than 60 percent occurred within 24 hours of vaccination. "The most frequent serious health events after GARDASIL shots are neurological symptoms," said NVIC Health Policy Analyst Vicky Debold, RN, Ph.D. "These young girls are experiencing severe headaches, dizziness, temporary loss of vision, slurred speech, fainting, involuntary contraction of limbs (seizures), muscle weakness, tingling and numbness in the hands and feet and joint pain. Some of the girls have lost consciousness during what appears to be seizures." Debold added "The manufacturer product insert should include mention of syncopal episodes, seizures and Guillain-Barre Syndrome so doctors and parents are aware these vaccine adverse responses have been associated with the vaccine."

HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the U.S. and most persons naturally clear the infection from the body without symptoms. [3] However, many years of chronic HPV infection is associated with a higher risk of pre-cancerous changes in the cervix that can lead to cancer unless diagnosed and treated promptly. High risk factors for chronic HPV infection include smoking, long-term use of oral contraceptives and co-infection with HIV, herpes and chlamydia. [4] There has been a more than 70 percent drop in cervical cancer deaths in American women since the 1950's due to routine pap smears and nearly all cervical cancers can be prevented with regular pap smear screening and treatment. [5]

Health Information Chat now or call 1-888-644-6226 Monday – Friday 8:30 – 5:00 ET ASK your patients. TELL your providers. TALK about CAM. Most Popular Health Topics Acupuncture Arthritis Black Cohosh Cancer Chelation Chiropractic Dietary Supplements Depression Echinacea Ephedra Ginkgo Ginseng Glucosamine Homeopathy Herbs at a Glance Meditation Menopause St. John's Wort All diseases and conditions All treatments and therapies Información de salud en español More at Other Organizations MEDLINEplus: Alternative Medicine (National Library of Medicine) MEDLINEplus: Herbs and Supplements (National Library of Medicine) DIRLINE — directory of health organizations and research resources (National Library of Medicine) NIH Office of Dietary Supplements NCI Office of Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine All links to other government agencies Understanding CAM What Is CAM? Biologically Based Practices Energy Medicine Manipulative and Body-Based Practices Mind-Body Medicine Whole Medical Systems Statistics on CAM Use Understanding Dietary and Herbal Supplements Be an Informed Consumer Are You Considering Using CAM? Selecting a CAM Practitioner CAM Use and Children Paying for CAM Treatment 10 Things To Know About Evaluating Medical Resources on the Web Time to Talk — Tell your doctor about your use of CAM