Group items tagged

Shots In The Dark by Barbara Loe Fisher   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.  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.  Mass vaccination has dramatically suppressed childhood diseases. In Canada, recorded diphtheria cases dropped from 9,000 in 1924 to two to five by 1994.  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.   Yet the universal use of vaccines as a worthy goal that prevents needless suffering and that benefits all mankind has begun to be challenged.   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 & Sullivan, projected that the worldwide human vaccine market will increase from $2.9 billion to more than $7 billion by the year 2001.   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.   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, 

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.   An ancient philosophical dispute goes modern   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?  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?   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. 

[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.] 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.]   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.

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<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 : 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; vulval intraepithelial neoplasia ; vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia ; external genital warts ; 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.

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.

He defines CFS as an epidemic illness, one which occurs primarily in the late summer and fall. It is typified by an acute onset of symptoms which vary from malaise to severe non-stop headaches and body pains now known in the US as fibromyalgia or myalgias. It is also accompanied by muscle weakness which develop alongside the pain symptoms and changes in brain function. The change in brain function is in several areas with one, a measurable decrease in the expected IQ, and, two, major cognitive losses that is, loss of sensory abilities to define one’s environment. which is very traumatic for the patients. Physicians have found very few physical modalities of the disease to help them to further diagnose the disease. The disease process, he adds, very much resembles poliomyelitis in its incubation period. Prior to 1962, before polio immunization became generalized. epidemics of CFS like disease occurred concurrently with polio epidemics. A lot of people at that time felt that there may be a type of poliomyelitis-type injury without the paralytic dysfunction. "My supposed expertise with hep B immunisation. And I say "supposed" because we know almost nothing….We know very little about hep B disease. We have no statistics in Canada, serious statistics. We don’t know, for instance, how many children in Canada die of it every year. There are no statistics. We don’t know who the people who fall ill with hep B are. Are they Haitian immigrants? Are they people who have just arrived from China? There are no government statistics on this information…. Why are we, in a time of major economic, medical and financial difficulty, spending literally a billion dollars, because that is what it would cost to immunise everybody in Canada against hepatitis B, for something in which we have the lowest risk in the world, for which we have no statistics, and for which there is no serious investigation on the side effects? I would not for a minute say not to take hep B immunisation if you work in a hospital dealing with blood products….We have to know what we are doing in medicine before we go and immunise tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of children…Because if they develop brain dysfunction after hep B immunisation when they’re in kindergarten, who in the world will know the reason if they fail grades one, two, three and four? Was it because they were stupid, not motivated, not intellectually able, or on drugs? Who is going to know if it is that or if they were brain dysfunctions due to immunisations that, we know, occur to minor degrees in many types of immunisations? I did have a chance to spend a couple of evenings with the man in charge of getting the American soldiers ready for the Gulf (in Baton Rouge). He was in charge of anti-chemical, anti-germ warfare. He told me that many of the Gulf War Syndrom people were hospitalised immediately after massive immunisations and never got to the Gulf. I have never seen that written up. It is very interesting to note that hep B immunisation was only given to those people sent to the Gulf who were mediacl personnel, because they did not feel there was a risk for the regular soldier. Now, if the American government did not feel it was a risk to people in combat, it makes us wonder why we are giving it to our children today. We looked at hep B immunisation in Quebec province because one nurse phoned us saying she had CFS after having hep B immunization.....About a month later the same nurse called again, she now had 5 other nurses in the area who had fallen ill with CFS-like symptoms after the vaccine, all were unable to return to work. I told her to phone the maker, Merck. She told me she did and they said the 6 nurses were the only persons in the whole world that had ever had a serious side effect and therefore there couldn't possibly be a link. And, they told her that she was the only person who had ever phoned....she said that when her doctor phoned, he too was told he was the only person in the world that had ever called, and when each of the doctors of the other nurses called in, each was told the same thing. I also called Merck...and they said.."Oh Dr Hyde, you are the only doctor in all of Canada that has ever contacted us with such a complaint."

This same nurse....(had) amassed 20 or 30 names of individuals, all post hep B immunisation cases...We received close to 120 calls from nurses and health care workers in the Quebec area with problems...many were severely disabled." Dr Hyde. Dr Hyde mentioned that the investigation into the hep B vaccine raised after his efforts was funded, organised and run by a pharmaceutical company. He was not invited. "Nor was Dr. Phaneuf who has over 100 cases of post-hepatitis B immunisation in Quebec…Nobody who had ever published a paper on post-hepatitis immunisation adverse reaction was invited (to the Toronto conference on hepatitis B). So it was a very one sided meeting." All paid for by Merck. When he asked the government for a copy of the research they said they had completed using the list of hepatitis B "victims" he had provided, he was told that it had been destroyed for lack of space! Reproduced with permission of Here’s The Key Inc, CP309, Waterloo, Qc JOE 2NO, Canada. Tel: 001 450 297 2533. Fax: 001 450 297 4140 Selected extracts taken from The Trial of the Medical Mafia by Jochim Schafer ISBN 2921783029. Available from: Whale Books, UK. Tel: 01981 240 125. To reach Guylaine Lanctot, M.D. Tel: 001 514 297 4128. Fax: 001 514 297 4140 [Vaccination]  [CFS/ME & vaccines]  [Dr Lanctot]

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]

AHRP's stated rationale for objecting to a policy mandating Merck's HPV vaccine in 11 year old girls [Link] is validated by an internationally recognized expert in the field who tested the vaccine in clinical trials.Dr. Diane M. Harper, a lead researcher in the development of the human papilloma virus vaccine, who says giving the drug to 11-year-old girls "is a great big public health experiment." Dr. Harper, 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, said: "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." All of her trials have been with subjects ages 15 to 25. "This vaccine has not been tested in little girls for efficacy. At 11, these girls don't get cervical cancer - they won't know for 25 years if they will get cervical cancer."

She believes the ideal way of administering the new vaccine is to offer it to women ages 18 and up. At the time of their first inoculation, they should be tested for the presence of HPV in their system. If the test comes back negative, then schedule the follow-up series of the three-part shots.

But if it comes back positive? "Then we don't know squat, because medically we don't know how to respond to that," Harper said.

Let me first look with you at monism, and then let me do an extended comparison between monism and Christianity.  First, let's look at monism together.  Monism believes the following five things:  Monism, m-o-n-i-s-m, which really just means "oneism"; it believes that all is one.  Monism believes, first, that all is one.  That's the first point of monism.  Monism believes that all is one.  Have you heard Elton John sing, "The Circle of Life" from The Lion King?  Welcome to monism.  All is one.  What's the key point in the story of The Lion King?    It's when the young lion prince looks up and realizes the stars are his father.  See, it's all connected.  It's all part of the circle of life.  He's part of this great river of being.  There are no distinctions.  We're all part of this tremendous circle of life.  You get a taste of monism in Star Wars too, though.  Do you remember when Obi-Won Kenobi, and this is way, way long ago, folks, long before "Attack of the Clones," this is all the way back in the first Star Wars movie in 1976.   Obi-Won Kenobi explains to young Luke Skywalker that there's a force that pervades the universe, and we're all a part of it.  Monism. In contrast, Christianity believes in a Creator/creature distinction.  God created this reality: He is not part of this reality.  This reality did not emanate out of Him.  He is distinct from it.  He spoke it into being.  He is Lord over it--over against monism that sees the divine suffused through created reality in you, in me, in the pews that you're sitting on, in the rocks, in the stones, in the trees, in the wind, in the ocean, in the air.

And then, of course, there's the battle over the traditional view of male/female role relationships: the husband as spiritual leader, the man in the role of protector, all male elders and ministers.  And over against this we find the women's movement, the feminist movement.  We see things like issues regarding women in combat and women's ordination in the churches challenging these traditional views of male/female role relationships.  But behind this set of issues...and these issues I want to suggest to you are bellwether issues.  Pick up Geoffrey Satinover's book, The Politics of Truth, his book on homosexuality, a Baker publication.  He does a good job of showing how this cluster of issues around defining sexuality and marriage and family is the bellwether issue of our culture.  The way this issue goes will let you know how the totality of the culture is going to go over the next 25 to 50 years. 

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.

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. <

Today's News Today's News This Issue Letters to the Editor Writers Eminent Domain Reform To Be Introduced in U.S.House of Representatives Property Owners Still Left Unprotected from Federally Funded Abuses Two Years After Kelo By The Castle Coalition Arlington, Va. - July 12, Representatives Maxine Waters (D-CA) and F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) introduced the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2007 to stop taxpayer funding of eminent domain abuse. This bipartisan bill would counter the effects of the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which allows governments to use eminent domain to seize private property on behalf of private developers in hopes of increasing tax revenue. The Act would deny for two fiscal years economic development funds to state and local governments that use eminent domain for private development. In 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005, by a vote of 376 to 38. The bill was co-sponsored by representatives from across the political and ideological spectrum, including Representatives Waters, Sensenbrenner, John Conyers Jr. (D-MI), and Henry Bonilla (R-TX). Despite unprecedented bipartisan political and public support, the bill languished in the Senate Judiciary Committee and ultimately died. "Federal protections from eminent domain abuse are long overdue," said Bert Gall, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which argued the Kelo case on behalf of the homeowners. IJ and the Castle Coalition - a nationwide grassroots organization of property owners and activists dedicated to stopping eminent domain abuse - have led the fight to reform state and federal eminent domain laws. "Even though the vast majority of Americans oppose the abuse of eminent domain for private development, the federal government still funds that abuse." June 23 marked the two-year anniversary of the Kelo decision. In every poll since that ruling, the public is overwhelmingly against eminent domain for private use. Forty-two states have passed eminent domain reforms reining in the Kelo decision, including 10 states where voters passed ballot measures by wide margins in last year's elections. But many of those reforms

CDC backpedals on vaccination recommendations Healthcare workers oblivious to their participation in mass medical experimentation COEUR D'ALENE -- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Immunization Update for Sept. 14, broadcast via satelite to public health institutions all over the nation, was an installment of the periodic program which served two specific functions: It served notice that influenza vaccine will be late and in short supply this year and it cleverly backpedaled on several aspects of previous CDC vaccination recommendations because too many people have died or become permanently damaged as a result. The CDC must have known it would have to play hardball with health professionals to overcome recent failings with regard to vaccination policy: Mercury-based preservative thimerosal has been banned from vaccines amid claims that it may be harmful and news that the oral polio has been responsible for spreading the disease rather than preventing it and contains the carcinogenic monkey virus SV-40. To compel audience participation and compliance, the CDC urged the health professionals in the audience to fill out the form to receive continuing education credit for watching the program and fill out the evaluation form and send them both in to the CDC. For their trouble, the CDC promised to mail them a collectible “Star Wars” pro-vaccination poster. The ruse apparently worked as the 25 women and one man in attendance accepted the explanations from program host CDC National Immunization Program Director Dr. William Atkinson for vaccination policies that may have been responsible for the injuries and deaths of thousands of people in over the last 30 years. Promise of a “collectible” poster from the 70s also helped these healthcare professionals to accept the new recommendations without questioning whether or not they might be lethal as well. Pneumococcus vaccine

Hepititis B There is a new, two-dose, thimerosal-free hep B vaccine manufactured by Merck and Smith/Kline. The CDC recommends that all infants be vaccinated against hep B before leaving the hospital. “Infants have been our emphasis over the last few years,” explained Atkinson. Hep B is primarily spread through intravenous drug use and promiscuous sex. For the CDC to recommend that all infants receive hep B vaccine must be because the federal agency expects babies to start sharing needles and engaging in promiscuous sex immediately upon leaving the hospital or the CDC believes it is safer, for the sake of the children, to assume that all mothers are intravenous drug abusers with multiple sex partners. The American Association of Pediatricians (AAP) recommended that hep B vaccine be delayed until six months of age due to thimerosal content. But, since thimersal has been removed, the AAP recommends that infants begin receiving the shots by no later than two months.

Polio vaccine “Today may be the last day we talk about polio vaccine,” Atkinson said. The CDC no longer recommends the administration of the oral polio vaccine (OPV) since it has been proven the vaccine causes outbreaks of the disease and contains the carcinogenic SV-40 monkey virus. Atkinson did mention OPV may be used in the event that parents refuse to have their child injected with the third and fourth doses of Inactivated Polio Vaccine, or if the child is traveling to a country where polio may be present within 4 weeks -- but that will be only until the end of this year as supplies of OPV will run out and they will not be replaced. Atkinson promised that in a few more years polio will be wiped out forever and will not be part of the recommended vaccination regimen. “The end of polio disease is in sight,” he said and added that China was just certified “polio free” this year. Historical references to 200 years of polio eradication efforts show that polio has never been controlled through vaccination. The definition of the disease just changes to become paralytic meningitis based upon the vaccination status of the individual.

"Marijuana unlocks the ability of my mind to think in new and creative ways, takes me to new heights of ecstasy in the appreciation of music and art, and provides a catalyst for the exploration and deepening of my relationships with others. When marijuana prohibition is ended and the experience of marijuana becomes more free and open, I believe that our culture and society will benefit more from the creative ways of thinking and the more intimate ways of interacting with others that are encouraged by the use of marijuana."

I personally use marijuana for a number of reasons. Marijuana unlocks and opens up parts of my mind and psychology that I otherwise would not be aware of, and encourages me to think in new and untested ways. Sensory stimulation, in the form of music, food, sex, and the like, becomes more vivid and pleasurable. The combination of new patterns of thought with more vivid sensory stimulation leads to an enhanced appreciation of art. I sometimes get high and spend my time simply enjoying the experience of listening to music or browsing a collection of artistic works.

After all, richer people could be living there and paying more taxes

The argument of utilizing marijuana as a herbal remedy and naturopathic solution for sufferers of various serious and often chronic illnesses has overshadowed the previously dominant picture of marijuana as a drug primarily used for recreational highs. Recent organizations who picture marijuana with medicinal properties that should be supported and advocate legal access to marijuana include. AIDS Action Council American Academy of Family Physicians American Bar Association American Public Health Association California Medical Association California Legislative Council for Older Americans California Pharmacists Association California Society of Addiction Medicine Consumer Reports magazine Lymphoma Foundation of America Multiple Sclerosis California Action Network National Association of People With AIDS New England Journal of Medicine Plus state Nurses Associations like California, New York and Virginia The public's picture of marijuana has been greatly influenced as evidenced by ballot initiatives that have received a majority of votes in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington state. The picture of marijuana is now a changing and improved landscape that holds much promise with growing public as well as professional support.

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

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.

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

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.

WASHINGTON, DC, October 5, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, yesterday released new documents obtained from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, detailing a total of as many as eleven deaths related to Merck's HPV vaccine Gardasil.&nbsp; Those deaths resulted between June 8, 2006 - when the vaccine received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) - and August 2007 when the latest data was available. The adverse reports coming from the HPV vaccine are increasing daily at an alarming rate.&nbsp; A LifeSiteNews.com report which scanned a publicly available database of adverse affects coming from the HPV vaccine found 3,137 adverse effects reported on September 28, 2007.&nbsp; Today the US Government's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) lists 3,779 adverse effects.&nbsp; 52 of the cases were deemed "life threatening" and 119 required hospitalization. In one case highlighted by Judicial Watch a 17 year old girl who was vaccinated in June 2007 died the very day she was vaccinated.&nbsp; According to the report, she "was vaccinated with a first dose of Gardasil…During the evening of the same day, the patient was found unconscious (lifeless) by the mother. Resuscitation was performed by the emergency physician but was unsuccessful.&nbsp; The patient subsequently died." Other serious reported side effects associated with Gardasil include paralysis, Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and seizures.&nbsp; Says one report: "Initial and follow-up information has been received from a physician concerning an "otherwise healthy" 13 year old female who was vaccinated with her first and second doses of Gardasil.&nbsp; Subsequently, the patient experienced…paralysis from the chest down, lesions of the optic nerve…At the time of the report, the patient had not recovered." "In light of this information, it is disturbing that state and local governments might mandate in any way this vaccine for young girls," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.&nbsp; "These adverse reaction reports suggest the vaccine not only causes serious side effects, but might even be fatal." The toll from the HPV vaccine may be greater still.&nbsp; Judicial Watch filed its request on August 20, 2007, and received the adverse event reports from the FDA on September, 13 2007, in what the agency described as a "partial response." On October 3, 2007, Judicial Watch filed a new lawsuit against the FDA for its failure to fully respond to Judicial Watch's FOIA request as required by law.