In case you were wondering, this is not the same swine flu of three-plus decades ago, according to MSNBC. If you had that vaccine – or even your annual flu shot just months ago – you should not consider yourself immune. Check the MSNBC story for for more FAQs on the swine flu. 

Video & screenshot, Fandome Dude

Post from: Blisstree

Swine Flu PSA – 1970s Revisited?

White Lies: A Tale of Babies, Vaccines, and Deception

Despite the obvious negative light in which this book paints mandatory vaccines, Honenberger is not explicitly anti-vaccine. She’s pro-education for parents.

In a prepared interview that accompanied the book, she said,

Vaccines save lives and keep babies healthy so they can grow to their full potential. But there are risks in everything and babies can’t make decisions to protect themselves. Parents need to educate themselves about the risks. Because the government and the manufacturers knew the risks, they made dertain promises. In White Lies, the mother of an injured baby has to fight to get the government to honor those promises.

My point in White Lies is that if the government and the manufacturers ask you to assume those risks for the greater good, and if your child suffers as a result of the known risk, then you ought to be able to rely on their promises to help you.

In light of the current autism epidemic in the US and the growing link between autism and childhood vaccines, Honenberger believes that parent education about vaccines is more critical now than ever before. Honenberger advises parents to keep medical records and and carefully track any changes they see in their children following standard vaccines. “Ask questions before the vaccine, not after,” she says.

Beautifully and compellingly written, White Lies tells the story of what happens when a parent’s worst nightmare becomes her reality. Pick it up today at your local library, or order it from Amazon.com. And always, always make well-researched, educated health decisions for yourself and your family.

Contents © Copyright 2007 Kristen King

Post from: Blisstree

Book Review–White Lies: A Tale of Babies, Vaccines, and Deception

In “How Should We Counsel Women About HPV Testing?” on Medscape, Susan J. Wysocki, RNC, NP, FAANP,
President and CEO, National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health, recommends covering the following points when talking with patients about HPV testing and results:

• Cervical cancer is preventable and caused by high-risk types of HPV
• Most women will have an HPV infection at some point in their life
• The virus is usually cleared by an immune response
• Persistent HPV infection by high-risk types is the factor that increases the risk for cervical cancer
• Infection with HPV is common but cervical cancer is rare
• When an HPV test is positive, it does not mean that the virus is new or that a partner has been unfaithful
• HPV can persist in the cells for decades so a positive test does not necessarily indicate a new infection.

Providing this information for patients empowers them to make an educated decision about their care rather than a decision out of fear or social pressure.

And on the more scholarly end of things, the article “The natural history of cervical HPV infection: unresolved issues” from Nature Reviews Cancer takes a long, hard look at the virus through the lens of critical science. The article’s a bit of a heavy read, but it’s worth a shot — and the abstract sums up the main points nicely:

The identification of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types as a necessary cause of cervical cancer offers the prospect of effective primary prevention and the possibility of improving the efficiency of cervical screening programmes. However, for these opportunities to be realized, a more complete understanding of the natural history of HPV infection, and its relationship to the development of epithelial abnormalities of the cervix, is required. We discuss areas of uncertainty, and their possible effect on disease prevention strategies.

Contents © Copyright 2007 Kristen King

Post from: Blisstree

Patient Counseling and the History of HPV

Earlier this week, Gardiner Harris and Janet Roberts reported in “Doctors’ Ties to Drug Makers Are Put on Close View,”

In dozens of interviews, most doctors said that these payments [from pharmaceutical companies] had no effect on their care of patients.

…

There is nothing illegal about doctors’ accepting money for marketing talks, and professional organizations have largely ignored the issue.

But research shows that doctors who have close relationships with drug makers tend to prescribe more, newer and pricier drugs — whether or not they are in the best interests of patients.

“When honest human beings have a vested stake in seeing the world in a particular way, they’re incapable of objectivity and independence,” said Max H. Bazerman, a professor at Harvard Business School. “A doctor who represents a pharmaceutical company will tend to see the data in a slightly more positive light and as a result will overprescribe that company’s drugs.”

Although Congress is making moves toward excluding those with a financial stake in related companies from voting on a drug’s approval or denial, “A Cleaner Food and Drug Administration” suggests that they need to go much, much further:

Congress needs to confront another worrisome source of industry’s influence: the $300 million in annual fees paid by pharmaceutical manufacturers that help finance the approval process and regulation of drugs. Critics have long complained that these user fees distort the agency’s objectivity and make for a too cozy atmosphere between the industry and its regulators.

The Bush administration, unfortunately, is seeking to increase reliance on user fees. That’s the wrong direction to go. To ensure that the public’s interests are its only concern, the F.D.A. should be supported entirely by public funds.

I tend to agree that this is an area for major concern, and we’ve seen the debate heat up very recently both here (in this post and this one) and at Weary Parent regarding the recently mandated HPV vaccine Gardasil, marketed by Merck.

What do you think?

Contents © Copyright 2007 Kristen King

Post from: Blisstree

FDA, Doctors Need to Stop Rubbing Elbows With the Pharma Industry

The debate has also carried over to Angela’s Herpes Simplex Help blog, where she and I are having a side discussion in which we both keep repeating ourselves with increasing degrees of urgency. Truly, we’re brilliant.

The folks who’ve thrown their two cents out there have had a heck of a lot to say. But the thing that blows my mind is that so few people have weighed in on this issue! We’re talking about women’s health here. We’re talking about your health, my health, your daughter’s/sister’s/cousin’s/best friend’s health. We’re talking about the health of women who haven’t yet been born. Educate yourself. Get informed, and speak up. This affects all of us, and now is no time to be shy.

Contents © Copyright 2007 Kristen King

Post from: Blisstree

The Vaccination Controversy Continues

The requirement will take effect in September of next year, and will require that all girls be vaccinated before they enter sixth grade. According to Merck, the vaccine can be administered to girls beginning at age 9, and it’s given as a series of three shots. Says Merck:

GARDASIL is given as 3 injections over 6 months and can cause pain, swelling, itching, and redness at the injection site, fever, nausea, and dizziness. Only a doctor or healthcare professional can decide if GARDASIL is right for you or your daughter.

And just in case you missed it, let’s just emphasize the last sentence in that little explanation:

Only a doctor or healthcare professional can decide if GARDASIL is right for you or your daughter.

Hmm, that’s interesting. Also interesting is that it was approved by the FDA less than a year ago, and clinical trials of Gardasil haven’t been long enough to determine either potential long term side effects or how long it remains effective.

As you can probably tell, I’m not entirely comfortable with the idea that a state government is mandating a that a brand new drug be administered to every school-age girl in the state (or else!). I’m not sure which would be more irresponsible, not mandating a potentially life-saving vaccination, or mandating a vaccination that hasn’t been in the marketplace long enough to determine whether it’s really (a) safe and (b) effective over the long term.

And I’m not the only blogger with these concerns. Check out what the ladies of the ESC have to say about it.

What do you think?

Contents © Copyright 2007 Kristen King

Post from: Blisstree

Texas Mandates HPV Vaccine