HPV is human papillomavirus. It is the most common viral sexually transmitted infection for both men and women. Some types of HPV are called “low risk”.

Those can infect the skin around the genitals and cause genital warts. Other types of HPV are called “high risk”. When those types infect internal genital areas they sometimes cause precancerous or cancerous changes on the cervix (opening to the uterus) or vagina. “High risk” HPV can also cause precancerous changes on the external genital areas (vulva).

How common is HPV?

HPV is very common. Most men and women who have had sex get HPV. Fortunately, many HPV infections go away on their own without causing any problems for theinfected person. Most infected people don’t even know they have had HPV.

Is HPV infection serious?

There are lots of different kinds of HPV, and most are not serious. Infection with a “low risk” virus can cause genital warts but will not produce major problems. However, sometimes “high risk” HPV infection can cause skin cells to grow abnormally. The growth may be precancerous and could eventually become a potentially serious problem, such as cancer of the cervix, vagina, vulva, or anus.

How did I get HPV?

You probably got HPV through skin-to-skin contact with an infected person during vaginal, oral, or anal sex. It is possible for a person to have HPV in skin cells and pass it on to another person even when no genital warts are present. Most people who have HPV do not have any signs of it and do not know they have it.

What about HPV and oral sex?

If a person performs oral sex on a partner with genital HPV, there is a small chance that his or her mouth can become infected. Wart-like lesions and precancers can develop in the mouth or throat. Untreated precancerous lesions in the mouth or throat can turn into cancer after a long time. If a person receives oral sex from a partner with HPV in his or her mouth, that person can possibly develop a genital HPV infection. Currently there is no screening test for oral HPV. Your healthcare provider or dentist can carefully examine your mouth to look for lesions, but it is unknown how helpful that will be in preventing HPV-related mouth or throat cancers.

What increases my chances of developing a genital HPV infection?

The more sexual partners you have, the greater your chances are of getting an HPV infection. Using condoms may reduce your chances of getting infected, but condoms do not always help because HPV can be present in areas not covered by the condom. Your immune system also determines whether you may develop a HPV infection when you are exposed. A healthy immune system keeps you from being sick. People with poorly functioning immune systems are more likely to get a HPV infection. Smoking tobacco weakens your immune system and increases your risk for getting HPV when exposed to the virus.

How long have I had HPV?

It is impossible to know exactly how long you have had HPV. If you have had more than one sexual partner in your lifetime, it is impossible to tell which partner gave you HPV. If you had sexual contact with an infected person, it usually takes a few weeks or months for genital warts to appear or for a Pap test to become abnormal. You may have had HPV for some time before it was discovered by a physical exam, abnormal Pap test, or HPV laboratory test.

How is HPV diagnosed?

HPV can be diagnosed in several ways.

• Sometimes the skin changes on external areas can be seen on physical exam.
• Many infected women first learn they have HPV when they have an abnormal Pap test.
• At times, a specific test for the HPV virus recognizes it in infected cells on the cervix. (This test is not useful on other parts of the body or in men.
• When HPV infection of the cervix or vagina or anus is suspected, your health care provider can use a colposcope to shine a light on and magnify the cervix and vaginal walls and/or the anus. Often a tiny piece of tissue (a biopsy) is taken and examined in a laboratory to check for changes produced by HPV

How is HPV treated?

Like all other virus infections, HPV infection cannot be cured with medication. Luckily, your body’s immune system can and usually does get rid of the infection and the skin changes it causes.

However, the abnormal skin growths (genital warts or precancerous changes) caused by HPV can be treated with medication or minor surgery. The type of treatment depends on the location, number, and kind of skin changes. If the virus has caused only slight abnormalities, then no treatment may be necessary at this time. Careful monitoring for future changes with self-examination, regular Pap tests, or possible colposcopy may be necessary. If more severe skin abnormalities are found, they often need to be treated.

There are many ways that your health care provider can treat abnormal areas. Some treatment can be done at home, and other types of treatment must be done in the clinic. Your health care provider will discuss these treatment options with you.

Will I still have HPV after treatment?

There is no cure for HPV. The goal of treatment is to remove the abnormal area that contains the virus without causing damage to the normal, healthy tissue surrounding the abnormal area. It is likely that a small amount of virus will remain after treatment. Often your body’s immune system can take care of the remaining virus.

How can I prevent spreading HPV to others?

You can reduce the chance that you will share your HPV infection with other people by having any abnormal skin or genital warts treated until they are gone. Using condoms during sexual intercourse and dental dams during oral sex may also help to reduce the spread of infection. However, condoms or dams may not always completely prevent the spread of HPV infection, because HPV may be in skin that is not protected by the condom or dam. Now that you know you have HPV, you should tell your current (and past) sexual partner(s), so that they can be examined and treated, if appropriate.

Will having HPV cause problems if I become pregnant?

Problems caused by HPV in pregnancy are unlikely. There is a very small chance that your baby could catch HPV from you. The baby could inhale HPV-infected cells from your birth canal during birth. Although it rarely happens, the baby’s vocal cords can become infected with the virus. This could cause breathing problems and would require treatment. Usually, women with HPV have regular vaginal deliveries. Only women who have very large genital warts that block the birth canal need a Cesarean section because of the HPV infection.

What should I do to take care of myself?

• You may want to check yourself for the development of new warts following treatment.
• If you discover new genital warts, have them treated as soon as possible.
• Having genital warts may mean that you are at a slightly greater risk for getting
• cervical cancer.
• Women should have regular Pap tests.
• If you smoke tobacco, stop!
• Try to keep your stress level low, get enough sleep, and eat a nutritionally
• balanced diet.
• If you are a woman between the ages of 9 and 26, ask your healthcare provider whether you should get the HPV vaccine. Even if you have already been infected with one type of HPV, the vaccine will prevent infection with other types.

How can I cope with HPV?

Be sure to get regular check-ups, including Pap tests. If you see genital skin changes, make an appointment with your health care provider for an exam. These feelings are normal. It is common for people with HPV to feel angry, upset, depressed or ashamed about their condition. Some women may also be concerned about the risk for cancer. Keep in mind that HPV can be managed and cervical cancer can almost always be prevented. Talk to your health care provider about your concerns. Keeping yourself healthy and not smoking can help boost you body’s natural defense system to fight the virus.

Copyright © 2003, 2008 ASCCP. All Rights Reserved.
These materials were developed by the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) Patient Education Committees and approved by the Board of Directors for use by patients.

While you may download, print and distribute these materials freely, they are copyrighted materials and all rights are owned by ASCCP. Therefore, they may not be changed, edited or altered in any way.

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

The Society of Gynecologic Oncologists (SGO) has published the first in a series of four papers on a variety of cervical cancer issues and topics that were the focus of its Forum “The Future Strategies for Cervical Cancer Prevention: What Do We Need to Do Now to Prepare,” held last September in Chicago, Illinois. The paper, entitled “The Impact of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination on Cervical Cancer Prevention Efforts,” is featured in the August, 2009 issue of Gynecologic Oncology. It includes data relevant to HPV natural history as well as excerpts from Forum discussions regarding the limits of current screening, the impact that eliminating HPV 16/18 through vaccination may have on rates of cervical precancer and cervical cancer screening, strategies to measure vaccine uptake and obstacles surrounding separate screening for vaccinated women.

Read more about Society Of Gynecologic Oncologists Issues White Paper On HPV Vaccine’s Impact On Cervical Cancer Prevention

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

An Abnormal Pap Test

What is a Pap Test?

A Pap test (sometimes called a Pap smear) checks for changes in the cervix that could, over time, become cancer. During your recent Pap test, cells were taken from the surface of your cervix and inside its opening. These cells were sent to a pathologist, a doctor who specializes in finding abnormalities of cervical cells. The pathologist examined your cells under a microscope and noted their size, shape, color, and contents. Your cervical cells were not entirely normal.

Is having an abnormal Pap test serious?

Hearing that you have an abnormal Pap test may make you worry that you might have cervical cancer. The good news is that you probably do not. Cervical cancer is a relatively rare condition. Most abnormal Pap results are not cancer. It may be comforting to know that abnormal Pap test results are not uncommon. About 1 in every 20 Pap test results are considered abnormal.

What is abnormal about my Pap test cells?

There are many reasons why a Pap test may be interpreted as abnormal, most of which are not serious. Some of the most common causes of abnormal Pap smears are described below.

Atypical (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) or atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS)).

Atypical means that abnormalities were found in your cells. Pathologists are uncertain what these cells actually represent. So a woman with these results needs to have follow-up. Your clinician will determine which type of follow-up is best for you. Some women need a repeat Pap testing 6 months. Others may have an HPV test. In most cases, women will not be found to have a serious problem following further evaluation. However, a few women will actually have significant cervical disease that should be treated.

Dysplasia means that cells from an abnormal precancerous growth were found on the Pap smear.

Dysplasia describes the cells that are no longer normal but are not yet cancer.
There are many stages in the process of a normal cell becoming cancer. Dysplasia is call mild (low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or LGSIL) and moderate to severe (high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or HGSIL) depending on how abnormal the cells have become and the extent of tissue affected. In a small number of women, dysplasia may eventually develop into cancer, if not treated.

Cancer or carcinoma of the cervix may be detected by a Pap smear. In addition, Pap smears can also recognize cancer cells from other sites in the body (such as the uterus) that may have moved to the cervix.

How did this happen?

It is often hard to know what exactly caused you to have an abnormal Pap smear.
Because there are many types of abnormal Pap smears, the reason for abnormal changes on your cervix varies. The changes may result from a sexually transmitted infection (including human papilloma virus), lack of a hormone, intravaginal medication, contraceptives, irritation or a cancer-associated growth.

How long have the abnormal cells been on my cervix?

It is difficult to know how long the abnormal cells have been on your cervix. Abnormal cells caused by an infection may have been present for a just a brief time. In contrast, abnormal cells caused by dysplasia may have been present for much longer. Normal cells change very slowly to become precancerous cells, and it takes many years for precancerous cells to become cancer. Most abnormal cells never change into cancer.

Does an abnormal Pap smear mean that I won’t be able to have children?

An abnormal Pap smear can be caused by lots of different things, most of which have no effect on your fertility or ability to have children. It is extremely unlikely that your abnormal Pap smear or treatment for an abnormal Pap smear will prevent you from having children, unless it was reported as invasive cancer.

Does this mean that I could pass something to my partner?

Most causes of an abnormal Pap smear are not things that you could pass to your partner.
If your Pap smear report indicates that you may have a sexually transmitted infection,you could pass this infection to your partner. Many of these infections can be successfully treated with antibiotics or other medications.

How can I make sure my next Pap smear will be of good quality?

There are a few things that you can do to ensure that your next Pap smear is of good quality. Don’t use vaginal medications, douches, or tampons 2-3 days before your Pap smear. Also, avoid having sexual intercourse for 24 hours before your appointment. Don’t schedule your appointment during your period. Menstrual blood and vaginal medicines can make it difficult to see your cervical cells clearly.

What should I do now?

If your report found inflammation or infection, you may need to return to the clinic to be examined so that your healthcare provider can determine what is causing your abnormality. Sometimes you can be treated without another examination based on the abnormal Pap smear report.

If your Pap smear report indicated atypical cells, you may need a repeat Pap smear, a test for human papillomavirus or you may need an examination by colposcopy. Your healthcare provider will let you know what type of additional test may be best for you. If you are a postmenopausal woman not taking estrogen replacement treatment, you may be asked to take estrogen and return for another Pap smear in one month.

If dysplasia or a squamous intraepithelial lesion was found, the next step may involve taking a closer look at the cervix using a colposcope. A colposcope is like a microscope positioned outside the vagina that magnifies the cervix. A vinegar solution is applied to the cervix which turns abnormal tissue white. A white region contrasts with the rest of your cervix which is pink. By using a colposcope, we can find out the source of the abnormal cells that were seen on your Pap smear by taking a biopsy (a tiny sample of tissue). If your tests show only a mild abnormality, your health care provider may recommend close follow-up with Pap smears in within 6 months because often your body overcome mildly abnormal cells. For more severe abnormal cells, treatment to destroy the abnormal area is recommended. In the rare event that your Pap smear reported carcinoma, your health care provider will discuss further evaluation and treatment options with you.

Can I be cured?

Keep in mind that there may actually be nothing wrong with your cervix. Some infections can be treated with medication. If precancerous cells or cancer are on your cervix, there are a variety of treatments available to remove the abnormal cells, including freezing, burning, laser treatment, or surgical removal. If invasive cancer is found, more intensive therapy is needed.

What can I do to prevent having cervical cancer or precancerous changes in the future?

You can increase your chances of not having cervical cancer or precancerous changes in the future by protecting yourself against sexually transmitted infections, not smoking tobacco products, and by getting routine Pap smears.

A Pap smear is only useful in detecting and preventing cervical cancer or precancerous changes if you return for follow-up evaluation and treatment appointments, when necessary. Keep in mind that it is very likely that the cause of your abnormal Pap smear can be easily treated, if treatment is necessary. In addition, the earlier abnormalities are treated, the easier they are to treat.

These materials were developed by the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) Patient Education Committees and approved by the Board of Directors for use by patients.

While you may download, print and distribute these materials freely, they are copyrighted materials and all rights are owned by ASCCP. Therefore, they may not be changed, edited or altered in any way.

Copyright © 2003, 2008 ASCCP. All Rights Reserved.

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

LONDON (Reuters) – GlaxoSmithKline Plc’s Cervarix is the first product of its kind to show it protects against the five most common cervical cancer-causing viruses, Europe’s biggest drug company said in a statement on Tuesday.

A study, published in Tuesday’s issue of The Lancet, said that as well as protecting against the two most common virus types, the vaccine also provides protection against the next three most common cancer-causing virus types.

Glaxo said the additional efficacy could translate into approximately 11 to 16 percent extra protection against cervical cancer over and above the protection afforded by efficacy against the two most common types alone.

“This is really good news for primary prevention of cervical cancer as it indicates the vaccine could offer women additional protection … beyond what had at first been anticipated,” said Thomas Breuer, head of global clinical R&D at GSK Biologicals.  Click here for the full article published by Reuters.

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

American Chronicle

Christina England
June 2, 2009

Most teenagers especially young teenage girls like to look good and have the latest accessories, it is a fact and one that is being taken full advantage of by certain health authorities to meet vaccination targets. Free beauty treatments and free IPODS and other goodies in prize draws are being offered to young girls if they have the HPV vaccines. However, is it morally correct to coerce youngsters into conforming?

At present the HPV vaccination programme is being questioned by many Governments as to it’s safety and some countries have even withdrawn from the programme altogether.

Singapore have held back, from giving young girls the HPV vaccine. Dr Balaji Sadasivan, their Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and former Health Minister said :-

“We do not know if the vaccine will confer long-term immunity or would immunity wane after some years,” he said. “We do not know if other types of HPV will become dominant after we contain the current strains of HPV.

Since HPV is a common virus spread through sexual contact, he also said a mass vaccination programme could send a message that teenage sex was condoned.”

In New Zealand the HPV vaccination has been refused by many schools with New Zealand’s Ministry of Health saying that 78 schools – five per cent of the total – had chosen not to take part in the programme.

Spain recalled a batch of Gardasil after girls became sick and Ireland also closed ranks and for various reasons decided not to vaccinate it’s youngsters with the HPV vaccine.

With Germany rethinking and Scotland and the UK also being urged to look into the vaccine very carefully, it is very worrying indeed to know that some of our girls are being encouraged to have this controversial vaccine, by being offered incentives.

Diane Harper who worked in the vaccine trials for both Cervarix and Gardasil seems to indicate that these vaccinations are experimental, saying in one report the following about Gardasil:- “Another gray area is the duration. It appears to remain effective for at least five years, but we have no idea how long it will last in the real world. And that could mean that girls vaccinated at 11 or 12 actually lose protection when they’ll need it most – but it’s impossible to know that until after large numbers of vaccinated girls contract the virus” and in another interview she described the cervical cancer vaccination scheme in Scotland as an ‘experiment’.

In a report in Fiji they also indicate that the Gardasil vaccine is experimental and ask if their youngsters were being used as ‘Guinea Pigs’.

In an email from a father in Canada today, I received a link to a letter that he had written to the ‘Regional Immunization Leader’. In this letter he had asked very clearly if his children were being asked to be ‘lab rats’, after they had received marketing material on Gardasil from their school. He gave evidence showing that Gardasil was still in the ‘experimental stages’ and how despite this thousands of children had been vaccinated with Gardasil many of them now showing signs of serious adverse reactions.

With this many countries opposed and worried about using these vaccines and with children dying and falling seriously ill worldwide, is it not time to ask ourselves if this is, all one big experiment and if it is, then why are our children and parents not being asked to sign for their agreed participation? Do we want our children to be used as ‘lab rats’ after all look what happens to them?

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

UK health officials have wrongly assumed the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine can prevent 70 per cent of cases of cervical cancer and press reports show “German experts said the assumptions simply did not stand up to scrutiny, and that women remained at risk“: Experts Cast Doubt on Claim for ‘Wonder’ Cancer Jabs Sunday Express 31 May 2009: Cervical cancer jabs cast into doubt after experts question effectiveness

Scotland On Sunday 10th May 2009.

The HPV vaccine can have serious adverse effects with high levels of reported adverse reactions.  Death and debilitating illness have been claimed but officials do not acknowledge an association.

Germany’s Robert Koch Institute, which makes recommendations on the public funding of vaccines, is reviewing its programme after 13 experts called for a reassessment of its HPV vaccination programme and an end to “misleading information” about the effectiveness of the jab.  A spokeswoman said: “Because of the public discussion and some new reports and new statements from the 13 professors, the committee will publish a statement within the next few weeks.”

Dawn Primarolo MP for Bristol South since 1987

The UK’s New Labour Government has been aggressively pursuing the HPV vaccine programme in schools out of sight of parental control.  Some consent forms reportedly have no decline option.   There are anecdotal reports of young girls being cross-examined in school corridors by health officials on parental consent issues. British Health Minister Dawn Primarolo is closely associated with the pursuit of the policy.

The Sunday Express reports Professor Martina Doren, of the Charitie Hospital in Berlin:

“What concerns us is that the two manufacturers of the vaccine aren’t always using facts. They claim that a lot of high-risk strains of cancer-causing virus are protected against but equally there are others that are not. If protection is not more than 20 per cent then that is an awful lot of money to be spending, particularly as the vaccines have quite serious side-effects.”

A spokesman for GlaxoSmithKline, which makes Cervarix, was unable to provide figures on cases of pre-cancerous cells in women who have taken the vaccine, compared with those who have not.

Scottish Conservative health spokeswoman Mary Scanlon said:

“Given this new research, it is now incumbent on the Scottish Government and the chief medical officer to review the vaccination programme to ensure that it lives up to the expectations of preventing cervical cancer.”

The HPV vaccine programme is based on recommendations of the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. This highlights questions over the competence of the UK’s JCVI to make recommendations on UK vaccination programmes and the competence of medical professionals in general to express opinions on scientific matters.

The JCVI has a documented history of recklessness over vaccination policy and a needle-happy reputation along with concerns about financial and other conflicts of interest: Secret British MMR Vaccine Files Forced Open By Legal Action but from April 1 this year has been given in unfettered control of UK Government vaccination policy for England: UK Government Hands Drug Industry Control of Childhood Vaccination.  And as the British Medical Journal confirms Doctors are not scientists: Doctors are not scientists — Smith 328 (7454): BMJ.

If the vaccine is not effective, then its adverse effects cannot be justified but in the UK we see no official comment on the vaccine’s risk profile.  This highlights how public safety issues fail to be addressed as a result of  what some claim is a quasi-religious belief created by the drug industry in the importance of vaccines and the fear medical professionals have of making public criticisms on safety grounds.

The push for mass vaccination is driven by the commercial interest of the drug industry in moving to new business models.  Financial markets have known for 20 years and more the pharmaceutical industry’s blockbuster patented drugs business model would eventualy fail

The Bill Gates’ Microsoft type business model is one of the emerging replacements – almost everyone has Windows software on their PC – almost everyone will be vax’ed.  Gates quickly became a multi-billionaire.  With vastly more people to vaccinate than computers requiring software the lure of money for the pharmaceutical industry is substantial.

Alongside the expansion of vaccination programmes the childhood prevalence of lifetime conditions like asthma, allergies, autism, diabetes and others requiring further medications have increased substantially.

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

All around the world concerns are mounting about the effectiveness and the safety of the HPV vaccines. Whilst many of our Governments refuse to listen to public concern and ignore the ever increasing numbers of children who have had adverse reactions to the Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines, in Germany their concerns are at last being looked at and examined carefully.

The Robert Koch Institute in Germany which makes recommendations on the public funding of vaccines, is reviewing its vaccination programme after 13 experts called for a reassessment of its HPV vaccination programme and an end to “misleading information” about the effectiveness of the jab.

Scotland on Sunday reported a few weeks ago – A spokeswoman for the Robert Koch Institute said its vaccination committee was reviewing the situation, adding: “Because of the public discussion and some new reports and new statements from the 13 professors, the committee will publish a statement within the next few weeks.”

Scotland to, is seriously looking into it’s vaccination policy as regards the vaccine Cervarix due to the concerns of the papers written by the German Scientists as H. Sandra Chevalier-Batik reports

“SCOTLAND´S multimillion-pound cervical cancer vaccination programme was thrown into doubt last night after senior public health experts warned it might not be as effective as initially hoped. Government advisers in Germany are reviewing the program there after leading scientists said the jab was failing to live up to expectations on the number of cervical cancer cases it might prevent.

Now critics say Scottish health advisers, who gave the go-ahead for a £64 million immunization program involving thousands of schoolgirls, should review the evidence as well. The HPV vaccine protects against two strains of the human papilloma virus, which are responsible for most cases of cervical cancer. About 100 Scottish women die of the sexually transmitted disease every year.”

In the past few weeks professionals and concerned mothers from the USA, UK and Holland have come together and decided to write to these 13 scientists outlining their concerns. These concerned individuals have each come into contact with the victims of these vaccines and armed with newly revealed evidence they decided to email these scientists direct. They have drawn up papers which they have sent to these scientists backed up with their evidence and statistics showing that their concerns are indeed warranted. These papers were then sent to 700 professionals worldwide.The professionals who received them are from the medical profession, scientists, Governments , Journalists and many more. They are being put up on websites all over the world. Last night Cynthia Janak one of the authors of the USA paper sent an email to the other authors which said:-

“I just received an email from an oncologist and he agreed that the safety has not truly been proven because of the documents we have presented.”

Professionals in general have said the papers were well presented and extremely well written.

This morning this was quoted in an email to one the authors of the UK paper Freda Birrell.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

—Margaret Mead, US anthropologist & popularizer of anthropology (1901 – 1978)

Profitable Harm is one of the many sites that now have a copy of these documents .

To understand how HPV vaccines and other vaccines cause brain damage, listen to the radio programme on Monday 1st June 2009 6-7 pm MST and hear the answer to the question ‘Do Vaccines Cause Brain Damage?’ Tune into KRFC FM 88.9 to listen to the audio streamed programme where Dr Andrew Moulden the leader of the Canadian Action Party will be explaining the subject of Neurological Vaccine Damage to Leslie Botha from Holy Hormones, Honey – The Greatest Story Ever Told who is safe vaccine advocate and researcher and radio producer, Cynthia Janak a Journalist who campaigns for Gardasil and Cervarix victims on her website Only The Truth and and who writes for Renew America and Dr Judi Gurstung

According to Dr Moulden, micro-vascular strokes from vaccinations cause Autism, ADHD, Sudden Infant Death, (SIDS), Gardasil & Anthrax (Gulf War Syndrome) adverse reactions, specific learning disabilities, seizures and more. To find out about all this and more tune in.

All Governments and anyone daring to proclaim that vaccines are safe should listen to what he says because this man is very very powerful indeed. In a news article just released, called Vaccines used in children causing brain damage he explained how with the use of before and after photographs of children he can prove 100% that children have had brain damage from the MMR.

This evidence was used in the Ben Zeller case. Ben Zeller, says his son, Ben, was a normal 11-month-old when he received the MMR.

Within days, he had a seizure. The seizure was so severe that it left Ben with permanent brain damage.

Mr Zeller had always believed that Ben’s fit was a reaction to the MMR. Ben was a healthy and happy child into everything After the vaccine he was left with severe brain damage.

Zeller was one of the first to prove his case in the Federal Vaccine Court. Last July, the court ruled his son would not have experienced the seizure if it weren’t for the MMR vaccine.

Dr Moulden said “We have thousands of cases and we can show all vaccines are causing the exact same problem,”

The above article quotes :-

“Moulden is spending the next week in South Florida interviewing families like the Zeller’s.

Moulden has gathered more than five thousand images of children’s faces taken before and after the MMR vaccine to help prove his case.The photos highlight children’s eyes turning in and out as well as the corner of their mouth dropping.

“These are classic signs of a stroke and clearly a direct result of vaccines,” Moulden said.

Still, many doctors and Health Departments say shots are not only safe but needed.”

Obviously the Ben Zeller case and Dr Moulden’s brilliant research and factual evidence that vaccines can cause brain damage have not yet reached the UK Government because Dawn Primarolo the UK Health Minister is so convinced or as some say ‘brainwashed’ that vaccines are 100% safe that she is breaking the promises made by the UK Government and via the JCVI is moving towards making vaccines compulsory in UK for all citizens including children. The Child Health Safety website reported the full story .

All in all the evidence that vaccines do cause some children to have severe reactions is mounting and Governments who collude with the drug companies and crooked committees who have members who sit in meetings discussing serious adverse reactions, including cot death and then go into courts as expert witnesses and say mothers have killed their children and adverse reactions to vaccines could not have played a part in their child’s death and other members who have links to drug companies should take note. The public are not thick and through the Internet now have access to the truth.

Reprinted from the American Chronicle

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

In late August 2007, Cathy Gulli produced an article for the Canadian Magazine, MACLEANS. The article was called,  “Our girls are not guinea pigs” and posed a critical question to her readers, “Is an upcoming mass inoculation of a generation unnecessary and potentially dangerous?”

Gulli’s article noted that in almost every instance when adverse effects have been reported in both the US and Australia, the response of medical authorities and government officials is the same: bad reactions are rare. When they do occur, there’s no evidence that Gardasil was the cause.  Critics of the fast track deployment of the HPV-vaccine say the real issue is that no one really knows, medically speaking, just how dangerous this vaccine could be. Abby Lippman, an epidemiologist at McGill University aired her concerns about the speed with which Gardasil has been adopted in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. “We’re making guesses that it’s going to last long, that [we're immunizing] the right age [of girls], and that it’s effective. We don’t have a solid basis for this thought.”

I reviewed Gulli’s article a few weeks ago when researching an HPV-vaccine paper for colleagues in the EU, Canada and Australia.  Sadly, seventeen months later. the issues raised in the article still stand unresolved:

Concerns that not enough 9 to 15-year-old girls were studied during clinical trials for Gardasil;
“Approximately 1,200 were enrolled, and according to a June report by the Canadian Women’s Health Network, only 100 of them were age nine, and that limited group was only followed for 18 months. “Clearly, this is a very weak information base on which to construct a policy of mass vaccinations for all girls aged nine to 13, as per the National Advisory Committee on Immunization’s recommendations,” the CWHN report summarized.”
Questions as to long term effectiveness of Gardasil;
“Given the longest that clinical trial participants who received the vaccine were tracked was for five years. “If we’re talking about vaccinating nine-year-old girls we want protection for 20 or 30 years,” concedes Laura Koutsky, an epidemiologist at the University of Washington who helped Merck design the clinical trials and oversaw them for Gardasil. “Can we infer protection out to that period? We don’t know. But we have evidence that suggests it’s likely.”

The list of issues Gulli’s raised those many months ago is still pertinent today. The advocates of the Gardasil solution still refer to critics as medical Luddites. That does not alter the fact that we Luddites are still waiting for answers to questions posed over two years ago. We are still asking, “Why have governmental entities but HPV-vaccine on a hurry-up deployment track?”

According to the Canadian Women’s Health Network, most women who don’t smoke, eat well and have a healthy immune system will clear the virus without any treatment. And the Public Health Agency of Canada has said that more than 80 per cent of HPV infections acquired at an early age were gone within a year and a half. Even better, after a woman has fought off a strain, she has almost no chance of contracting it again.

I have included a copy of Cathy Gilli’s article below.  The issued raised are still germane to the Gardasil discussion today.

Our girls are not guinea pigs

The morning after Emily Cunningham got a shot of Gardasil, the new vaccine that protects against four strains of the human papilloma virus(HPV)that can cause cervical cancer and genital warts, she woke up with a headache, and neck and back pain. By 9 p.m. that evening in April, she had a fever so high “you could feel the heat rising from her a foot away,” according to her mother, Laurie. She was delirious during the night, and the following day couldn’t walk without assistance. Bedridden for nearly a week, the 18-year-old from Wyoming missed school, and took Tylenol every four hours. “If Emily had been the only one to get sick we would have said she must have had something else [like the flu],” explained Laurie, “but we know of three other students to have reactions, that is why we are concerned.”

Emily’s story is only one of 1,637 complaints involving Gardasil, filed as of May to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System(VAERS), a national surveillance database sponsored by the Food and Drug Administration(FDA)and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC)in the United States. One could discount what happened to Emily because she had a flu shot that same day, but other really bad reactions have been reported, including seizures, paralysis — and worst of all, three deaths, including one girl who “died of a blood clot three hours after getting the Gardasil vaccine,” reads one complaint. Elsewhere in the world there have been reports of similar reactions. In Melbourne, Australia, where a national HPV vaccination program started in April, 26 girls reportedly fainted and were mildly paralyzed after getting one shot each.

In almost every instance, the response of medical authorities and government officials is the same: bad reactions are rare. When they do occur, there’s no evidence that Gardasil was the cause. Arguably, both points could be true. Some say the problem, however, is that no one really knows, medically speaking, just how dangerous this vaccine could be. “Usually at this stage in the life span of a vaccine we would not have this kind of action,” Maclean’s has heard from Abby Lippman, an epidemiologist at McGill University who recently aired her concerns about the speed with which Gardasil has been adopted in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. “We’re making guesses that it’s going to last long, that [we're immunizing] the right age [of girls], and that it’s effective. We don’t have a solid basis for this thought.”

And yet, nearly every province in Canada has, in recent weeks, put forth some plan to implement an HPV vaccination program that will see the mass inoculation of an entire generation of girls — some as soon as this September — with no serious acknowledgement of the potential health risks they might face. While everyone debates the moral and political consequences of endorsing Gardasil, the fundamental, essential medical and scientific debate remains untouched. So, in a few weeks, when thousands of girls concerned about Facebook and who will be in their class this year — not HPV — go back to school, many will become part of the biggest Canadian science experiment in decades. They will be the guinea pigs.

To find out the worst case scenario when it comes to Gardasil, one need only hear the stories of parents whose children have become ill or died after receiving the vaccine. Recently, one angry father from Chicago phoned up John Driscoll, an attorney at the law firm Brown & Crouppen in St. Louis, Mo. Shortly after receiving Gardasil, his daughter was diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome, an autoimmune disease. It starts with tingling sensations in the legs, which then travel to the upper body, and finally become so intense in the muscles they paralyze, though often they diminish over time. “He believes it was linked,” says Driscoll, and wants to sue Merck & Co., Inc., the U.S. pharmaceutical company that manufactures Gardasil. This will be the first such lawsuit, but Driscoll, who believes the vaccine was rushed to market, predicts that, “unfortunately, we’ll get more and more calls about this in the future.”

In fact, Guillain-Barré syndrome is one of the more serious adverse reactions noted in the hundreds of complaints filed to VAERS. “When you go to your doctor’s office, the list of symptoms is very short: dizziness, fainting. But there’s a whole laundry list of potentially serious side effects,” says Dee Grothe, an investigator at the Washington-based watchdog organization Judicial Watch, which filed freedom of information requests to access details about negative reactions relating to Gardasil. “This is information that everybody receiving the shot should know,” she says.

Merck Frosst Canada Ltd., which is the Canadian manufacturer of the vaccine, sees no proof that Gardasil is responsible for the illnesses or deaths. “There is a relationship between Gardasil and these events, but there’s no cause and effect,” says Sheila Murphy, manager of public affairs for Merck Frosst. Similarly, the FDA and CDC have said there’s no likely connection(they claim the two deaths from blood clots were caused by birth control pills taken at the time of immunization, and the third death was due to heart inflammation brought on by the flu). But some skeptics find these explanations ambiguous and suspicious. “I’m not a doctor, but when I read this information, to me, that is a clear indication that there may have been a problem,” says Grothe.

It’s obvious that even in the best-case scenario, many believe there is still not enough known about the HPV vaccine to warrant mass inoculation programs. For starters, there are concerns that not enough nine- to 15-year-old girls were studied during clinical trials for Gardasil. Approximately 1,200 were enrolled, and according to a June report by the Canadian Women’s Health Network, only 100 of them were age nine, and that limited group was only followed for 18 months. “Clearly, this is a very weak information base on which to construct a policy of mass vaccinations for all girls aged nine to 13, as per the National Advisory Committee on Immunization’s recommendations,” the CWHN report summarized.

The CWHN also worries about the long-term effectiveness of Gardasil, given the longest that clinical trial participants who received the vaccine were tracked was for five years. “If we’re talking about vaccinating nine-year-old girls we want protection for 20 or 30 years,” concedes Laura Koutsky, an epidemiologist at the University of Washington who helped Merck design the clinical trials and oversaw them for Gardasil. “Can we infer protection out to that period? We don’t know. But we have evidence that suggests it’s likely.”

Inference, though, is not the scientific evidence some expect. Analysis beyond clinical trials is critical to ensuring public safety, warns Lippman. “What happens in the real world can be very different from what happens in the clinical research world,” where girls are in a controlled environment, and get health examinations frequently to gauge any problems. “The real world is where we find out what really happens when you let a vaccine loose on a population.”

A study in the May issue of the New England Journal of Medicine speaks to how real world situations such as “imperfect compliance”(such as not receiving all three doses of Gardasil), and a girl’s previous exposure to HPV, could take Gardasil’s 70 per cent protection against precancerous lesions(which lead to cervical cancer)down to a staggering 17 per cent. “That’s one more reason we should be slowing down,” says Hans Krueger, a health care consultant who has advised the B.C. Cancer Agency, among other organizations, on Gardasil. “This suggests to me we just don’t know enough.”

What’s more, there is some debate over just how many shots girls aged nine to 13 actually need — either the recommended three doses, or just two — which would cut costs(a triple shot costs $404). A collaborative research project, which will involve about 800 girls, to look into this is getting under way next week in B.C., Quebec and Nova Scotia. The latter province, for now at least, is going ahead with its three-dose plan for Grade 7 girls this September.

Nova Scotia is not the only province to put forth plans for mass immunization in recent weeks. Ontario announced it will give Gardasil to Grade 8 girls beginning in September. Newfoundland will administer the shot to Grade 6 girls, as will Prince Edward Island. Meanwhile, British Columbia and Quebec are expected to launch their programs at some point next year.

All this comes just as Merck’s competitor GlaxoSmithKline(GSK)is seeking Health Canada’s approval to market another HPV vaccine called Cervarix(already available in Australia, and heading towards approval in Europe). GSK claims that Cervarix’s edge is an adjuvant that, it claims, creates a stronger and longer-lasting immune response compared to the conventional aluminum-based adjuvants. And while Gardasil focuses on two strains(16 and 18)that account for 70 per cent of cervical cancer cases and two others that cause genital warts, Cervarix protects against four HPV strains responsible for 80 per cent of cervical cancers(types 16, 18, 31 and 45).

Canada’s widespread adoption of the HPV vaccine in some ways makes the country a guinea pig for Gardasil on an international scale, says Diane M. Harper, a lead researcher in the development of the HPV vaccine, and a professor at Dartmouth Medical School in New Hampshire who has worked with Merck and GSK. While developing nations where cervical cancer rates are high could stand to benefit the most from Gardasil, they aren’t “going to readily adopt a vaccine unless they feel comfortable that other countries have adopted the vaccine and done well and seen success with it. That’s the history of how the world has gone in health care.”

Merck has explicitly stated that Gardasil does not offer total protection against cervical cancer. And so the question remains, in the absence of HPV 16 and 18, what’s to stop other resistant strains of the virus from evolving into something more aggressive? “We’re making educated guesses of what we think will happen to the virus in the future based on what we know of the virus right now,” says Koutsky. A super-strain of HPV is unlikely to occur, she continues, because the papilloma genome does not evolve at a rapid pace. “But it’s true we don’t know,” she says.

One possibility is that other strains, which cause the remaining 30 per cent of cervical cancers, may become more prevalent. “If you knock off two big tough drug dealers who control 70 per cent of the market and take them to jail, the other guys will quickly fill the void,” says Andrew Lynk, a Sydney, N.S.-based pediatrician. “We’ve seen that also in the vaccination world.”

In the June report published by the Canadian Women’s Health Network, medical experts point to a cautionary tale in Alaska, where native children were inoculated en masse against a strain of pneumococcal pneumonia. A follow-up study found that, since the vaccinations in 2004, “the invasive pneumococcal disease rate caused by non-vaccine serotypes [had] increased 140 per cent compared with the pre-vaccine period.” Studies like this one, the CWHN warns, demand that the medical community, the government and the public consider “how Gardasil, or any other HPV vaccine, might alter the natural history of HPV infections — and whether other HPV strains might move in to occupy the vacated niche — before engaging in a massive vaccination program.”

Knowing about the potential dangers of Gardasil, one wonders if the recommendation for mass inoculation in so many provinces is even necessary. The HPV vaccine has been sold by Merck and its proponents as a tool for ending cervical cancer. But a quick look at statistics shows that the risk of developing this disease, let alone dying from it, is very low — in Canada, 1,350 women were diagnosed and 390 died last year, making cervical cancer the 11th-most common cancer in women here, and the 13th-most common cause of cancer-related death.

In fact, Canada has among the lowest incidences of cervical cancer in the world. But hype around Gardasil has created a false sense of urgency about the need for the vaccine, according to cautious observers such as Lippman. “If there was an epidemic and people were dropping dead on the street corner, you’d want to do something,” she says. But “we have the luxury to reflect, think and act wisely. Then we can put our foot into the street and cross. [Right now] I’m the yellow light mode.”

When HPV strains, of which there are up to 200, do cause infections, they are usually slow to grow, which makes identifying them through Pap smears relatively easy. In a statement published in the February issue of the Canada Communicable Disease Report, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization explained that “In general … the vast majority of precancerous lesions, which progress slowly, can easily be detected and treated.” Even when the HPV infection is caused by one of the cervical-cancer-causing strains, reports the Canadian Women’s Health Network, it takes about a decade for the disease to develop — long enough for women to get their Pap test done(annually, and then every three years after smears come back clear twice in a row).

Despite these promising outcomes, cervical cancer is being turned into a new millennium polio, according to Dr. Sharon Moalem, author of Survival of the Sickest, and a neurogeneticist and evolutionary biologist at New York’s Mount Sinai School of Medicine. “The problem that I’ve seen is many of the advocates for [Gardasil] say everyone should be vaccinated, but this is not polio and a lot of people can have HPV and not every variant of HPV causes cancer as far as we know.”

In fact, most people will wind up with HPV at some point in their lives and fight it off without ever even knowing they were exposed to the virus, which is primarily transmitted through skin contact with genitalia. According to the Canadian Women’s Health Network, most women who don’t smoke, eat well and have a healthy immune system will clear the virus without any treatment. And the Public Health Agency of Canada has said that more than 80 per cent of HPV infections acquired at an early age were gone within a year and a half. Even better, after a woman has fought off a strain, she has almost no chance of contracting it again.

HPV is so common that even infants and children have been found with infections, suggesting that the virus isn’t just transmitted sexually, says Krueger. While there is no conclusive literature explaining how else it might be contracted, some have suggested that newborns could acquire HPV while in their mother’s vaginal tract. However it happens, Gardasil critics point to these puzzling cases as another reason why the vaccine — which is only preventive, and won’t have any effect on those who already have HPV — shouldn’t be given to all girls. “These data do warn against assuming too quickly the lack of exposure to HPV in even young girls in developing vaccination programs and policies,” states the CWHN.

Even for the limited number of women who do wind up contracting the HPV strains that could lead to cervical cancer, some say current screening methods — Pap smears — are effective and safe ways of preventing the disease. About 79 per cent of Canadian women between the ages of 18 and 69 have had a Pap in the last three years, and according to the the immunization advisory committee, this has “led to dramatic reductions in invasive cancer in the developed world.”

Further proof of the test’s effectiveness is found in the fact that the majority of women who do wind up with cervical cancer — 60 per cent — were either unscreened or underscreened, meaning they didn’t get their Pap at all, or didn’t get it on schedule, according to the advisory committee. As such, the current push for young girls to be immunized largely ignores the group of women most affected: immigrants, refugees, Aboriginals, the disabled, poor and those living in remote regions(the rate of infection among Inuit women in Nunavut is 86 per cent). Realizing this, some have called on the federal government to reallocate the $300 million it put up for HPV vaccination programs in March toward targeting high-risk populations. “Maybe the money would be better spent hiring nurses who would set up mobile clinics and go out to the First Nations or immigrant neighbourhoods,” says Nova Scotia pediatrician Lynk.

Even if HPV vaccination programs continue to expand, the public needs to understand that young women can still develop HPV infection and cervical cancer after being immunized, say experts. Paps will be a critical complement to Gardasil, insists the immunization advisory committee. “Women who have been vaccinated will still be susceptible to other [high-risk] HPV types. Even if those types are less prevalent than HPV 16 or 18, these women should still expect to take part in the currently recommended cervical cancer screening programs.”

Harper, the HPV researcher at Dartmouth, tells of a yet unpublished study showing that, even if every female aged 12 to 26 is vaccinated, if they don’t go for Pap tests thereafter the rate of cervical cancer will actually go up compared to pre-immunization rates. “So there is significant danger in people feeling this vaccine offers them a force field protection,” says Harper, “and that could actually rebound back to us because there are other HPV types out there and they’re not going to stop causing cancer just because we’ve given a vaccine.”

All these questions and caveats highlight just how little medical and scientific evidence exists to make the case against mass inoculation a no-brainer. “The medical, scientific community has to sit down and say, what are really the costs and benefits here?” says Moalem. “It’s been turned into a public health issue and everyone’s trying to spin it their own way and most cancer doctors will tell parents, why would you risk having your child get cervical cancer if I can give you a vaccine to prevent it? But they don’t know what the long-term costs are.”

Her strong recommendation is for parents to talk to their children about HPV as a sexually transmitted virus, and its link to cervical cancer, among other illnesses. “It’s much easier as a parent to get your child to have a vaccine than to sit down and have a conversation and say, using condoms can reduce HPV exposure, therefore that reduces cervical cancer. I’ll just give you a shot, then we don’t have to talk about it,” she says. Moalem believes the original marketing of Gardasil as the vaccine against cervical cancer has been misleading. “That’s not what this is. This is a vaccine against a sexually transmitted disease. I think that’s what people should be very clear on. That really would change the frame of the debate.”

Until more medical and scientific analysis illuminates just what Gardasil will do to young girls, Krueger is wary. “We have a virus here that has so many different types and affects so many body systems that it’s just very complex. The fact that we have a vaccine against HPV types that cause cervical cancer is a medical breakthrough,” he says, but then adds, “My girls will not be vaccinated. That’s not just because of deaths or adverse effects, it’s because of all these unknowns.”

With Lianne George and John Intini

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

This article was originally Posted by Dave Parks  in the Birmingham News on March 30, 2009.  Knowing that I follow the HPV-vaccine issue, a  friend forwarded the article to me. I usually follow the economic issues around Merck’s HPV vaccine, Gardasil, so I was fascinated by what a low cost entry into the HPV-Vaccine market might mean to both the fight against cervical cancer in low-resourse countries and to Merck’s bottom line. Stay tuned…

UAB will conduct clinical trials for a new, less expensive and more effective HPV vac­cine that could revolutionize the worldwide fight against cervical cancer, researchers say.

The University of Alabama at Birmingham is expected to start trials late this year or early next year for the vaccine, which was de­veloped at Johns Hopkins University and is being produced in India.

If successful, the vaccine’s impact on cer­vical cancer could be enormous.

“You’d wipe it off the face of the Earth, like smallpox,” said Dr. Edward E. Partridge, di­rector of the UAB Comprehensive Cancer Center.

The World Health Organization estimates that cervical cancer kills 286,000 women a year, primarily in undeveloped nations where medical screening and treatment are unavail­able.

“Cervical cancer worldwide is the second leading cancer killer of women,” said Par­tridge, who has spent decades building cervi­cal cancer prevention programs in impov­erished areas of Alabama and Mississippi.

In addition to addressing a huge health problem in the developing world, this vac­cine could save billions of dollars a year in medical expenses for the U.S. by eliminating the enormous cost of screening for cervical cancer and treating early stages of the dis­ease.

The only existing vaccine for human papil­lomavirus, Gardasil, is effective against two HPV types, which cause about 70 percent of all cervical cancer. There are 13 additional HPV types that cause the other 30 percent of cervical cancer. Thus, women getting Garda­sil must continue with screening through Pap tests.

Moreover, Gardasil is expensive, costing about $120 a shot, with three required for full vaccination.

In development

Richard B.S. Roden, a researcher at Johns Hopkins who was trained at the National Cancer Institute, has spent a decade develop­ing the new vaccine. He said it will protect against a wider range of HPV types than Gar­dasil and can be produced for perhaps less than $1 a dose.

The difference is in the design, Roden said.

Gardasil contains what are essentially empty HPV viruses, or capsids. These capsids trick the immune system into thinking the body has been invaded by HPV. The result is at least seven years of immunity from the HPV types included in the vaccine, Roden said.

Aimee Holland, a nurse practitioner at UAB Student Health Services, prepares a syringe filled with Gardasil, a vaccine that protects women from HPV infections. It takes three shots of the vaccine to stimulate immunity against types of HPV that cause cervical cancer and genital warts.

The new vaccine is based on a common protein found in many HPV types. Animal studies have shown that this protein also triggers an immune response, but against all 15 HPV types known to cause cervical cancer, Roden said.

And it would be inexpensive to make, given a much simpler manufacturing pro­cess. Roden has already contracted with Shantha Biotechnics Ltd. of India, a company known for making inexpensive vaccines dis­tributed by the World Health Organization. Shantha is now producing the initial batches of vaccine for clinical trials in Birmingham.

“The animal data is very supportive that it will work,” Roden said. “My biggest concern is how long the protection will last.”

The clinical trials should provide that in­formation, he said. “We’ll just have to wait and see.”

Birmingham trials
Dr. Warner K. Huh, a gynecologic oncolog­ist at UAB who worked on the Gardasil vac­cine trials, will lead the new clinical trials.

Huh said the new vaccine will go through toxicology trials before being tested on peo­ple in Alabama.

The Gardasil trials have provided a kind of road map for these new trials, he said. As with Gardasil, researchers will be able to quickly gauge the new vaccine’s effectiveness by measuring antibodies in blood.

At best, a new vaccine could be available in five years; at worst, it could take 15, Huh said.

Young women coming into UAB Student Health Services are met with marketing materials for Gardasil, including this pamphlet with a built-in MP3 player.

Huh said UAB will be the only testing site anywhere for the vaccine. The medical center is one of the busiest in the nation when it comes to providing care to patients with cer­vical cancers and pre-cancerous conditions, he said.

UAB serves rural, poverty-stricken areas with many minorities. People living in these areas are at higher risk for cervical cancer than most Americans, Huh said.

People living in poverty seldom get Pap smears. Thus, they don’t get medical proce­dures to halt the progression of abnormal conditions toward cancer.

And, the region has high rates of smoking, something that contributes greatly to cervical cancer when combined with HPV infection.

“There’s a third factor,” Huh said. “Afri­can-American women have a higher procliv­ity for developing these lesions … We’re not sure why.”

As a result, UAB has contact with large numbers of patients who need cervical can­cer prevention services, screening and care, and are willing to participate in clinical trials.

“All these patients get referred to us, and we’ve almost become a clinical and research clearing house,” Huh said. “There was one point in our clinic here that 75 percent of our patients were enrolled in a clinical trial. We’re talking about 1,500 patients. It’s one of the top three largest trials ever at UAB in terms of enrollment.”

About 50 patients will be involved in the first trial, designed to test the vaccine’s safety. The second trial will concentrate on dosing, and if a third trial is warranted, it will likely involve many medical centers.

“If we can prove that the vaccine is effec­tive in Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials, where it goes after that is actually going to be amaz­ing,” Huh said.

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

Good. We want reader engagement, even reader ‘enragement’.

Most of all we want you burning up the resource documents provided, building your personal knowledge base, the private touch stone you consult before you agree to a new medicine, procedure or operation.

Based on recent comments to my Blog, I counted the number of entries I had posted concerning cervical cancer; thus far, 97 Inconvenient Woman Blogs have dealt with some aspect of this disease.

The sources for these articles are varied. I have taken information concerning cervical cancer from the Centers for Disease Control, Cancer Prevention and Control (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Women’s Health (http://www.womenshealth.gov), the American Cancer Society, Cancer Research Foundation of America, American Society of Clinical Oncology, National Cancer Institute, WebMD, WrongDiagnosis.com, New England Journal Of Medicine, JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, transcripts from the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) including articles and OPED pieces written by  health care professionals, medical journalists, Pharma Industry pundits, critics and true believers.

I have always considered IconicWoman.com and my Blog, An Inconvenient Woman as an aggregator of women’s health information and issues. The Iconic Woman Project was initiated to disseminate health-related information that effects women and girls not regularly reported or analyzed by the mainstream press. My goal is to identify information of interest, poses questions and provide source documentation for my readers to pursue your own research and the resources to help you take action.

The Inconvenient Woman article archive offers transformative, educational information to improve your relationship with your body and yourself; and provides articles that will help readers expand your current perspective, and encourage you to take a more proactive stance concerning your health. The purpose of Iconic Woman is to Activate more Inconvenient Women. Women who ask questions, demand answers, verify answers with an independent source, make informed decisions and pro-actively participate in their personal health and well-being. Education and the willingness to ask questions and demand answers is a start. It is imperative that women be proactive in all aspects of our wellness.

The following description  of  “What Causes Cervical Cancer” is reprinted with permission from Health Information Publications.

What Causes Cervical Cancer?

We don’t know exactly what causes cervical cancer, but certain risk factors are believed to have an effect. Medical history and lifestyle – especially sexual habits – play a role in a woman’s chances of developing cervical cancer.

The most significant risk factors are:

• Human papillomavirus (HPV)
• Sexual history

Various other risk factors have also been identified.

Human Papilloma Virus (HPV)

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a virus that can infect:

• The genital tract
• The external genitals
• The area around the anus

HPV has nothing to do with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. There are 46 genetic types of HPV, but not all are dangerous. Only certain types of HPV, which can be transmitted from one person to another during sexual contact, increase the risk of cell dysplasia (abnormal cell growth) and/or progression to cervical cancer.

The HPV types that produce genital warts (lesions that are raised and bumpy, or flat and almost impossible to see) are different from those that cause cervical cancer. However, women who have a history of genital warts have almost twice the risk of an abnormal Pap smear as other women.

Sexual History

A woman has a higher-than-average risk of developing cervical if she:

• Has had multiple sexual partners
• Began having sexual relations before the age of 18
• Has a partner who has had sexual contact with a woman with cervical cancer

Other Risk Factors

It is probable that other factors contribute to cervical cancer, such as:

• Poverty. Women who are poor may not have access to medical services that detect and treat precancerous cervical conditions. When such women develop cervical cancer, the disease usually remains undiagnosed and untreated until it has spread to other parts of the body. Women who are poor are often undernourished, and poor nutrition can also increase cervical cancer risk.
• Pap test history. Not having regular Pap tests increases the chance of unrecognized cervical cancer. Between 60% and 80% of women with newly diagnosed cervical cancer have not had a Pap test in at least five years.
• Tobacco use. Women who smoke are about twice as likely to develop cervical cancer as women who do not. The more a woman smokes – and the longer she has been smoking – the greater the risk.
• Eating habits. A diet that doesn’t include ample amounts of fruits and vegetables can increase a woman’s risk of developing cervical cancer.
• Weakened immune system. A woman whose immune system is weakened has a higher-than-average risk of developing cervical lesions that can become cancerous. This includes women who are HIV-positive (infected with the virus that causes AIDS). It also includes women who have received organ transplants and must take drugs to suppress the immune system so that the body won’t reject the new organ.For more detailed information about AIDS, go to AIDS And Women.

• Hormonal medications. Some experts suggest that hormones in oral contraceptives (birth control pills) can make women more susceptible to Human papillomavirus (HPV). At least one study has indicated that taking birth control pills significantly increases a woman’s risk of developing HPV-related genital warts. Other research suggests that using oral contraceptives for five years or longer slightly elevates a woman’s risk of developing cervical cancer, especially if she began taking the Pill before the age of 25.
• Diethylstilberstrol (DES). A rare type of cervical cancer has been diagnosed in a small number of women whose mothers took diethylstilbestrol (DES), a medicine that was once used to prevent miscarriage.
• Douching. Because douching may destroy natural antiviral agents normally present in the vagina, women who douche every week are more apt to develop cervical cancer than women who do not.
• Chemical exposure. Women who work on farms or in the manufacturing industry may be exposed to chemicals that can increase their risk of cervical cancer.

Women with a weakened immune system due to the virus that causes AIDS are more likely to develop cervical cancer:

• Cervical cancer is very common in women who are positive for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
• Cervical cancer is sometimes the disease that first suggests a diagnosis of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)
• HIV can compound the effects of Human papillomavirus (HPV), causing cervical changes to progress more rapidly into cervical cancer than they otherwise might.

Reprinted with permission from Health Information Publication. All Text and images in this post are protected by Copyright © 2002-2005 Health Information Publications. The information provided on this Web site has been developed exclusively by and for Health Information Publications and ehealthMD and may not be copied without written permission. The information provided is for general information only and is not intended to replace the advice of your health-care provider. This is original material developed by Health Information Publications, Copyright © 1990-2005

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.