RI Dept of Health, waging a war against your rights.

RI Dept of Health, waging a war against your rights.

There appears to be a war being waged across the U.S., aimed at our youngest and most vulnerable and also our health care and child-care workers, regarding mandatory vaccination. Now there is narrative starting to be put forward that unvaccinated adults are costing the economy billions of dollars a year. This is all based on the premise, one that is repeated as a mantra by those in the medical community, that vaccines are safe and effective and that the science is settled. But what if that premise is false?
I never really questioned vaccine safety and I thought I understood the reasoning of why vaccines worked. I had been in a pre-med curriculum in my undergraduate study and my children were vaccinated in the 1980s when they were young. I was a practicing R.N. for many years and I received a number of vaccines during that time and I administered many. I was injured by the hepatitis vaccine series in 1992-93, but no one was very interested in reporting or tracking that injury. I began studying vaccination in 2009 when I was out on a disability leave of absence.

There is an explosion of vaccine-related injuries occurring across our country. There is something very, very wrong happening to our children: Many are suffering from allergies, neurological and immune-system damage. In 1986, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was passed and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Board was formed by Congress at the behest of the vaccine manufacturers because they were being inundated with lawsuits from parents of children that had been injured by vaccines and this was seriously affecting their profit margins.

This legislation made the pharmaceutical companies and the administrators of the vaccines not liable for injuries. The onus was put on the parents of an injured children to present their case to this “Vaccine Court.” Many cases are not heard. The process can take years and many of these plaintiffs are not compensated. The taxpayer is the one that bears the financial burden of compensation for these injuries and not the pharmaceutical companies. One might ask, if there is no liability to the manufacturer or deliverer, what incentive is there to make safe vaccines backed by long trials with true control groups. and preferably ones that are a double-blind study? Since the inception of this compensation program, $3.6 billion has been awarded due to vaccine injury. Dr. Alvin Moss told West Virginia’s Senate Education Committee on March 18 that in 2016, $250 million was awarded to 800 individuals, or around $300,000 per individual.

In Rhode Island, children are required to have 19-22 vaccines in order to attend pre-kindergarten, child-care, or day care centers. There are four more added to attend kindergarten. Seventh graders have to have received all the aforementioned, another two, and now the HPV vaccine has been added to the schedule. The R.I. Department of Health has mandated the series of HPV vaccines even though the virus is not communicable in a classroom setting; this law became effective in July 2015. There is a religious exemption in place but many parents are not aware of it, and pediatricians and the schools are not forthcoming in disclosing this. There really is little informed consent.

The HPV vaccine, particularly Merck’s Gardasil, which was FDA approved in 2006, has proved to be very problematic here at home and worldwide. It has had a long history of controversy due to adverse side effects and some fatalities, and governmental policymakers have covered up and/or ignored the facts. As of January 2014, some 52 countries had included the HPV vaccine in their national vaccination programs, and since then over half have dropped out because of an array of debilitating medical conditions that have arisen since its introduction.

In the U.S., there have been 59,092 adverse reactions reported since Gardasil and Cervarix, the HPV vaccine that was formulated by GlaxcoSmithKline and approved by the FDA in 2009, have been introduced. Of these adverse events, there have been 1,727 reports of disability, 6,388 listed as serious events, 9,177 events where the individual has not recovered, and 315 deaths reported by February 2017 via the FDA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System data. It is also estimated by many doctors and researchers that less than 10 percent of vaccine injuries are ever reported to the FDA system. Reported in sanevax.org, the VAERS reports of Acute Disseminated Encephalomyletis have increased over 1,000 percent since the introduction of HPV vaccines, infertility rates increased 790 percent, reports of blindness increased 188 percent, and spontaneous abortions by 270 percent. Other reactions include seizures, strokes, heart problems, paralysis, speech problems, pancreatitis, sensory disorder, short term memory loss and debilitating pain. Dr. Bernard Dalbergue, a former Merck employee, predicts that Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all time and it will be shown to have wreaked havoc, “destroyed lives and even killed and only to have served no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturers.”

There are 100 types of human papillomavirus. Of these, 15 high-risk types are known to cause virtually all forms of cervical cancer. Two of these types (16 and 18) are believed to cause 70 percent of these cases and 30 percent of cervical cancers are caused by other strains. The Gardasil vaccine was formulated to provide protection to these two aforementioned high-risk strains and two low-risk strains (6 and 11). It was found that women were more susceptible to other strains of the HPV virus after receiving the Gardasil series.

Maybe, as Dr. Suzanne Humphries, an internist, nephrologist, researcher and renowned author says, “nature hates a vacuum,” so Merck formulated Gardasil 9, which was approved in December 2014. It supposedly provides protection against seven types of the high-risk strains. This FDA approval was granted without consultation with the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is responsible for studying and evaluating data concerning the safety, efficacy, and appropriate use of vaccines. The FDA bypassed this committee’s safety assessment because it found “no concerns or controversial issues” to the introduction of this new formulation.

If one looks at the 21-page vaccine insert in the Gardasil 9 package, it can be noted that Merck more than doubled the aluminum adjuvant to its formulation. Aluminum is a proven neurotoxin. There have been five more antigens added. These are big differences. Why was it given a carte blanche by the FDA? We also see on the insert that the rate of adverse events to the Gardasil 9 was 2.3 percent of those in the trial — information that was collated during a 48-month follow-up. The cervical cancer diagnosis rate in the U.S. is 7.9 per 100,000. You don’t have to be that astute to realize that a 2.3 percent rate of adverse events from Merck’s trial (death, disability, hospitalization, a congenital abnormality, a life threatening event) equates to 2,300/100,000. Also, the insert shows us that in Merck’s trial, the subset of women who received an injection of the Gardasil 9 within 30 days of becoming pregnant miscarried or had a stillborn at a rate of 27.4 percent.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics regarding infant mortality in 2006 list miscarriages and fetal deaths here in the U.S. as .605 percent. How is this vaccine considered safe? That is an alarming disparity! If doctors and patients and health departments were aware of these statistics, would this vaccine be a recommended course of action for protection against these strains of HPV? Keep in mind that Dr. Diane Harper, who was the lead researcher in Merck’s clinical trials for their Gardasil and GSK’s Cervarix, tells us that 95 percent of all HPVs are cleared spontaneously by the body’s immune system and of the 5 percent that progress, there is ample time to protect and treat pre-cancers and early stage cancers with regular gynecological checkups. The HPV vaccine prevents infection of those strains; it does not prevent cervical cancer. Harper also brings up a very valid point that there has been no data offered to show that Gardasil remains effective for more than five years.

There seems to be another inconvenient truth. If a woman has one of these HPV high-risk strains in her body when she receives the vaccine, she can get cervical cancer from the vaccine. Does it potentiate the existing HPV strain? I’d consider that a negative efficacy rate. Testing for HPV infection before administration of the vaccine is not cost effective. Also if someone has received the original Gardasil vaccine and completes the series with the new Gardasil 9 vaccine, the response rate is significantly reduced.

A truly independent agency is urgently required to undertake studies on the content of contaminating DNA and RNA, retroviruses and metal toxicants and other potential contaminants in the HPV vaccines.

No child or young person should have to suffer any assault to their health because they or their parent(s) trusted the medical community and our regulatory agencies. If a treatment or medicine or vaccine can result in injury or death, there must be informed consent. In regard to the HPV vaccine, Harper has said, “The decision to be vaccinated with this vaccine must be the woman’s or the parent(s) of the young person and not the physician’s or any board of health, as the vaccination contains personal risk that only that person or parent(s) can value.” Knowledge of the inherent risks needs to be shared, without prejudice, by the medical and academic communities, departments of health and child services, regulatory agencies and in independent forums. The insert in the vaccine package needs to be made public, not an abbreviated form the doctor might hand out to the patient or parent(s) if questioned or requested. Religious and philosophical exemptions must always be in place. When research findings and the public outcry threaten the immunization policy, when conflicts of interest and compromised regulatory agencies have been exposed, then those in position of power must react with integrity and courage. Rhode Islanders, it is time to get informed, speak out and let your elected representatives know your concerns. Many R.I. citizens are coming together via www.NOHPVmandateRI.com to fight against the HPV vaccine mandate.

.
Deborah H Jennings, R.N. Middletown

Advertisements

CDC Recommends Two HPV Shots for Younger Adolescents

CDC Recommends Two HPV Shots for Younger Adolescents

CDC now routinely recommends two doses of HPV vaccine for 11 or 12 year olds to prevent HPV cancers. This recommendation makes it easier for parents to protect their children by reducing the number of shots and trips to the doctor. HPV vaccination is an important cancer prevention tool and two doses of HPV vaccine will provide safe, effective and long-lasting protection when given at the recommended ages of 11 and 12 years. Some of the specifics of the recommendation include:

  • The first HPV vaccine dose is routinely recommended at 11-12 years old. The second dose of the vaccine should be administered 6 to 12 months after the first dose.
  • Teens and young adults who start the series at ages 15 through 26 years will continue to need three doses of HPV vaccine to protect against cancer-causing HPV infections.
  • Adolescents aged 9 through 14 years who have already received two doses of HPV vaccine less than 6 months apart, will require a third dose.
  • Three doses are recommended for people with weakened immune systems aged 9-26 years.

 

 

 

Here is the updated RI DOH website

screenshot_2016-12-04-13-22-37-1

 

 

Here is the press release put out by the CDC

Press Release

For Immediate Release

Wednesday October 19, 2016

CDC recommends only two HPV shots for younger adolescents

Fewer shots offer more incentive to prevent HPV cancers

CDC today recommended that 11- to 12-year-olds receive two doses of HPV vaccine at least six months apart rather than the previously recommended three doses to protect against cancers caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) infections. Teens and young adults who start the series later, at ages 15 through 26 years, will continue to need three doses of HPV vaccine to protect against cancer-causing HPV infection.

“Safe, effective, and long-lasting protection against HPV cancers with two visits instead of three means more Americans will be protected from cancer,” said CDC Director Tom Frieden, M.D., M.P.H. “This recommendation will make it simpler for parents to get their children protected in time.”

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted today to recommend a 2-dose HPV vaccine schedule for young adolescents. ACIP is a panel of experts that advises the CDC on vaccine recommendations in the United States. CDC Director Frieden approved the committee’s recommendations shortly after the vote.  ACIP recommendations approved by the CDC Director become agency guidelines on the date published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

CDC and ACIP made this recommendation after a thorough review of studies over several meetings. CDC and ACIP reviewed data from clinical trials showing two doses of HPV vaccine in younger adolescents (aged 9-14 years) produced an immune response similar or higher than the response in young adults (aged 16-26 years) who received three doses.

Generally, preteens receive HPV vaccine at the same time as whooping cough and meningitis vaccines. Two doses of HPV vaccine given at least six months apart at ages 11 and 12 years will provide safe, effective, and long-lasting protection against HPV cancers. Adolescents ages 13-14 are also able to receive HPV vaccination on the new 2-dose schedule.

CDC will provide guidance to parents, healthcare professionals, and insurers on the change in recommendation. On October 7, 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved adding a 2-dose schedule for 9-valent HPV vaccine (Gardasil® 9) for adolescents ages 9 through 14 years. CDC encourages clinicians to begin implementing the 2-dose schedule in their practice to protect their preteen patients from HPV cancers.

ACIP, CDC, FDA and partners monitor vaccines in use in the U.S. year-round. These updated recommendations are an example of using the latest available evidence to provide the best possible protection against serious diseases.

#GivingTuesday

6173528

Rhode Islanders against mandated HPV vaccinations has had multiple great accomplishments during 2016. We have a couple legislators in both the senate and the house prepared to sponsor and co-sponsor bills for the 2017 session. We need you to help us keep the momentum and the success pushing forward. This #GivingTuesday give support to winning the fight against the HPV mandate in RI. Give to the campaign today. We will win this together, united. Stand Up – Unite – Win the Fight. Donate today.

donate-now-heart-speech-bubble_138893771

Your support and continued generosity is greatly appreciated.

#NOHPVmandateRI Team Leads
401.406.2647
NOHPVmandateRI.com


PS; Help us spread awareness ask three friends or family to give today also Click Here

Parents Would* Support School HPV Vaccine Requirements if Offered Opt-Out

Most Parents Would Support School HPV Vaccine Requirements if
Offered Opt-Out Provisions
By Carrie Printz
Researchers recently found that parents are more likely to support laws that would make the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine mandatory for school entry if their state offered
opt-out provisions. However, the researchers added that such provisions may weaken the impact of these mandates. The study, published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, was led by William Calo, PhD, JD, a postdoctoral research associate in the department of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

1
He and his colleagues conducted a web-based survey of 1501 parents between November 2014 and January 2015. Respondents had to have at least 1 child aged 11 to 17 years living primarily in their household. The survey asked parents about this statement: “Some states are trying to pass laws that would require all 11- and 12-year olds to get the HPV vaccine before they are allowed to start 6th grade.” Overall, 21% of participants agreed that such laws were a good idea, 54% disagreed, and 25% said they neither agreed nor disagreed.
Dr. Calo says that the latter group may benefit from public education regarding HPV vaccination and, as they learn about the benefits of vaccination, be more likely to support school- entry requirements. The respondents who disagreed that the laws were a good
idea were presented with a follow-up statement: “Is it okay to have these laws only if parents can opt out when they want to?” When this provision was added, approximately 57% of respondents agreed that school-entry requirements were a good idea whereas 21% disagreed.
Among other findings:
• Nearly one-third of respondents believed that the vaccine was being promoted to make money for drug companies.

• Approximately 40% believed that the vaccine was effective in preventing cervical cancer.
Dr. Calo notes that changing some of those perceptions would help to improve HPV vaccination rates along with legislating school-entry requirements. He adds that any opt-
out provisions also have the potential to weaken the overall effectiveness of HPV vaccination if large numbers of families opt out. As a result, such an option also should include an educational component to encourage patients to carefully consider their decision, he says. States should consider school-entry requirements for HPV vaccination after implementing other approaches, such as centralizing vaccination reminders in state health departments, focusing on HPV vaccination during quality improvement visits to providers, and training physicians to use announcements to introduce vaccination, Dr. Calo notes.

#NOHPVmandateRI comments;

Why does any parent feel it is okay to mandate something that has no impact on a school classroom just because there is an opt out?
No it is not. We should not let the government think they can put more regulations and laws upon our bodies and our children’s bodies. This vaccine has nothing to do with public health policy. It is not transmitted in a casual school or work environment.

HPV Vaccines: Betrayal of the Public Trust?

HPV Vaccines: Betrayal of the Public Trust?

In 2013 multiple news articles reported 44% of American parents refusing Gardasil or Cervarix for their children. Between 2008 and 2010, the percentage of parents concerned about the safety of these two vaccines nearly quadrupled. As of 2010, only 32% of eligible girls were vaccinated against HPV. What is wrong with this picture?

Excerpts from national news sources, March 18-22, 2013:

  • USA Today The percentage of parents who say they won’t have their teen daughters vaccinated against the human papillomavirus increases, even though physicians increasingly recommend the vaccinations. Concerns about safety and side effects for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine have increased among parents: 16% cited these fears as the main reason they did not have their daughters vaccinated in 2010, up from 5% in 2008…
  • Medpage Today Parents increasingly say they are worried about the safety of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine and don’t intend to vaccinate their teen daughters… But there is no similar pattern for two other vaccines aimed at adolescents…
  • CNN Health Concerns of mothers and fathers about the safety of the HPV vaccine grew each year, from 4.5% in 2008 to 16.4% in 2010… The number of parents who said they would not vaccinate their children for HPV increased from 38.9% in 2008 to 43.9% in 2010. The main concern was safety.
  • CBS News One of the main reasons parents said they didn’t want their children vaccinated against HPV was because of safety concerns.
  • Bloomberg The number of girls who received either injection (Gardasil or Cervarix) rose to about one-third in 2010 from 16 percent in 2008…
  • FiercePharma A growing share of U.S. parents say they won’t vaccinate their daughters… And that leaves Merck’s Gardasil and GSK’s Cervarix with a shrinking market.
  • The New York Timessuggesting, the need for interventions beyond clinical recommendations like possibly ‘state and federally designed social marketing campaigns.’… Without brushing aside the need to address safety concerns, the increasing rates of HPV vaccine refusal suggest that widespread vaccination will require more than marketing campaigns. Medical professionals need to look for ways to tell a better story to parents and teens about HPV, vaccination and cancer. (emphasis added)

Taxpayer funded social marketing campaigns? Look for ways to ‘tell a better story’ to parents? Who are these people kidding? What happened to investigative journalism? What happened to fact-finding? What happened to fair and balanced journalism?

Has no one considered the possibility that the 43.9% of parents refusing this particular vaccine might have some valid concerns? When will people realize there is a huge difference between ‘increasingly concerned about the safety’ and ‘increasingly aware of the potential risks’? After all, this would not be the first time a prescription medication approved by the FDA as ‘safe and effective’ turned out to be nothing of the sort. Will HPV vaccines be next?

HPV vaccination programs worldwide are based on two assumptions. First, HPV vaccines will prevent cervical cancer and save lives. Second, HPV vaccines will pose no risk of serious side effects. Therefore, it would make sense to vaccinate as many pre-adolescent girls as possible to reduce the worldwide burden of cervical cancer. What happens if both of these assumptions are not based on factual evidence?[1]

Medical Consumers Want to Know:

  1. Since HPV vaccines have never been shown to prevent cervical cancer, why are they being promoted as cervical cancer vaccines?1
  2. Since the majority of HPV infections and a great proportion of abnormal lesions associated with cervical cancer development clear spontaneously without medical treatment, how can these factors be used as ‘end-points’ during clinical trials to reliably predict the number of cervical cancer cases that could be prevented by HPV vaccines?1
  3. How can the clinical trials make an accurate estimate of the risk associated with HPV-vaccines if they are methodologically biased to produce false negatives?1
  4. Why are HPV vaccines marketed so aggressively in developed countries, when 85.5% of annual cervical cancer cases and 87.9% of annual cervical cancer deaths occur in developing countries?[2]
  5. How can passive adverse event monitoring systems (voluntary reporting with no penalty for failure to report), such as those used by most vaccine surveillance systems world-wide, allow the medical regulatory agencies to make accurate estimates on the real frequency of HPV-vaccine related adverse reactions?
  6. How can accurate estimates of the real frequency of HPV-vaccine related adverse reactions be made if appropriate follow-up and thorough investigations of suspected vaccine reactions are not conducted?

The FDA granted Merck’s HPV vaccine, Gardasil, fast track approval in June of 2006, despite the fact that this HPV vaccine failed to meet the FDA criteria for fast track approval.[3] FDA approval of GSK’s HPV vaccine, Cervarix, followed shortly after in January 2007.

According to The New York Times, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended adding HPV vaccines to the immunization schedule in the U.S. despite the fact that 64% of the advisory committee members had potential conflicts of interest which were either never disclosed or left unresolved at the time they voted. 3% of the members actually voted on matters they had been barred from considering by ethics officers. News like this certainly does little to enhance the level of public trust.

Is it possible for the FDA to objectively monitor the safety and efficacy of HPV vaccines? One has to wonder since Congress tightened the rules on outside consulting after similarly undisclosed conflicts of interest were discovered within advisory committees at the FDA.

As if this is not enough, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, via the National Institutes of Health, Office of Technology Transfer receives royalties on each HPV vaccine sold worldwide. This happens because technologies used in the production of HPV vaccines were developed at NIH and subsequently patented by them. For three of the last five years, HPV vaccines based on recombinant papillomavirus capsid proteins have ranked #1 based on royalties from product sales.[4]

Marketing Gardasil to the public under these circumstances is a typical case of unconstrained government self-dealing. The major patent holder (National Cancer Institute/NCI), the regulator (FDA) and the vaccination policy maker (CDC) are all divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). These self-dealings typically benefit some administrators, not the government or tax payers.  For example, Dr. Julie Gerberding, as the Director of the CDC, approved the use of Gardasil for cervical cancer prevention as a public health policy is now the president of Merck’s Vaccine division promoting the sales of Gardasil.

How much revenue is generated for the NIH from international sales of HPV vaccines? In November 2010, Dr. Eric Suba submitted a Freedom of Information Request to the Office of Government Information Services to discover the amount. It seems the financial details of the partnership between the NIH, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline are exempt from disclosure. (Read the response received here.) Apparently, transparency in government does not apply to the top 20 revenue producing patent(s) developed at taxpayer expense. Why is the public not allowed to share in celebrating the success of products they financed?

Three Strikes for Gardasil?

  1. September 2011: Recombinant HPV DNA L1 gene DNA fragments, possibly attached to the aluminum adjuvant, were discovered in 100% of Gardasil samples tested. There was no subsequent investigation. The FDA simply declared the ‘expected’ presence of residual DNA is not a safety factor. No documentation was provided. The fact that HPV vaccines were approved by governments worldwide based on manufacturers’ assertions that the vaccines contained ‘no viral DNA’ was completely ignored.[5], [6] The possibility of recombinant HPV DNA fragments being attached to aluminum adjuvant particles was also ignored.
  2. August 2012: One of the antigens used in Gardasil was discovered in central nervous system samples from two girls who died after being vaccinated with Gardasil. No cause of death was identified upon autopsy in either case.[7] HPV-16 L1 gene DNA fragments of vaccine origin apparently attached to aluminum adjuvant particles were also discovered in post mortem blood and spleen samples of a girl who died 6 months after Gardasil injections.[8], [9]
  3. February 2013: It was discovered that the naked HPV 16 L1 gene fragments bound to aluminum particles by ligand exchange in Gardasil have acquired a non-B conformation. This conformational change may have stabilized the HPV 16 gene fragments in Gardasil preventing their normal enzymatic degradation in vaccine recipients.[10], [11] Non-B DNA conformations and their relationship to diseases has been studied since the 1960’s. Based on current scientific knowledge, the human genetic consequences of these non-B DNA structures are approximately 20 neurological diseases, approximately 50 genomic disorders and several psychiatric diseases.[12], [13] The impact of injected foreign non-B DNA on human health is totally unknown. 

Why have none of these discoveries sparked a single investigation in any country? Why is no one concerned when genetically modified viral DNA fragments are found in vaccines that are reported to have no viral DNA? Why is no one worried about those viral DNA fragments being attached to aluminum (a known toxin) possibly creating a new chemical compound of unknown toxicity? Why are no red flags raised when those viral DNA fragments attached to aluminum acquire a non-B conformation – something known to be associated with multiple debilitating diseases? Anyone with an ounce of common sense should demand to know why those charged with approval, recommendation and safety monitoring of these vaccines appear to be utterly unconcerned about the future health implications of any one of these discoveries, much less all three of them.

What kind of ‘expert’ advice is being given to YOUR government health officials?

Israel’s Advisory Committee on Infectious Diseases and Inoculations held a teleconference on 30 January 2013, to discuss the proposed introduction of HPV vaccines into the country’s school inoculation program among other issues. The official transcript of that meeting, dated 11 February 2013, provides some interesting insights for medical consumers who question HPV vaccine safety.

Ron Dagan, MD, is Professor of Pediatrics and Infectious Diseases at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and Director of the Pediatric Infectious Disease Unit at the Soroka University Medical Center, also in Beer-Sheva. An active researcher and international lecturer, Dr. Dagan’s work focuses on new conjugate vaccines. His expert advice to Israel’s Advisory Committee regarding potential HPV vaccine implementation is as follows (translation provided-emphasis added):

We are dealing with injections, some of which given in 3 [separate] doses, which are delivered to teenage girls. Many side effects are to be expected. During the week following the vaccine delivery of the injections many serious events which are not related/linked to the vaccination are expected: fainting, deaths and convulsions/fits. This needs to be taken into account. Even if it is not rational, if these events happen in class they may damage the general perception/status of the vaccinations. This is happening all over the world all the time. We have already dealt with a similar issue in relation to the delivery of MMR with TD and Polio and we have accepted the nurse’s proposal to split these between grades 1 and 2. The nurses are suitable to make recommendations to the committee in relation to this issue. In relation to the side effects, we need to be prepared in advance and not simply react after the fact. I propose we consult with the English representatives as to how they’ve gone about this. We must prepare for the delivery of the new vaccine. The nurses need to know they are going about this in the way they are most comfortable with (/have the most control over/familiarity with).

If this is an example of the expert advice vaccination programs are based on, it’s no wonder medical consumers are questioning HPV vaccine safety, efficacy and need. Many side effects are to be expected? Fainting, deaths, convulsions and fits occurring during the week following vaccination – yet not related to the vaccine? Preparing in advance for side effects? Consulting with other countries to see how they handled the problem? Are countries around the world being offered similar expert advice?

So, what will it take to solve the HPV vaccine uptake problem?

Parental concerns about HPV vaccine safety are not going to go away in response to social media campaigns. Teaching medical professionals to ‘tell a better story’ is not going to make parents change their mind about Gardasil, Cervarix, or any future HPV vaccine. Platitudes and unsubstantiated reassurances are no longer sufficient.

The time has come for government health authorities to make HPV vaccine manufacturers prove their claims or pull their products from the market. Medical consumers want scientifically proven facts – Safe, Affordable, Necessary and Effective – nothing less is acceptable.


The above article is from SaneVax.org and was written in 2013. This information is still valid and a reminder is in order for the current fight for our rights around the country and in RI about the HPV vaccine. #InformedConsent is essential and very important points are not being disclosed.

Since this article was published, last month there was a change in the dosing scheduled suggestions by the CDC. Where children under age 15 only need to receive two doses vs three doses. More specific details also apply.

Now on Nov 18th the CDC will hold a training to teach health care workers how to encourage the HPV vaccine and how to understand the new dosing recommendations by the CDC from Oct 2016.

Share this blog post with your legislator and schedule a time to sit down and speak with them.

Who opposes HPV mandate?

Who opposes HPV mandate?

Who is in support of reversing the mandate of the HPV vaccine?

Below is a chart of legislators in RI and their stated position in regards to the mandate. We hope you will use this in your voting decisions and be sure to support the candidates that support our efforts. The loudest voice you have with the General Assembly is with your vote, use it.

YES = Fully supports reversing the mandate and keeping the choice private with the family. Yes, vote for these candidates

NO = Legislators that do not support reversing the mandate

*Legislators that have indicated they support choice and parental rights but have not stated they support reversing the mandate.

Avoided= avoided giving a direct answer of opposing or supporting the mandate

xx = Sponsored bills in last session to support our cause

<> = co-signed on bills last session to support our cause

EDITH H AJELLO Democrat 01
RAYMOND M MATHIEU Independent 01
CHRISTOPHER R BLAZEJEWSKI Democrat 02
MARK G TEOLI Republican 02
MOIRA JAYNE WALSH Democrat 03
J. AARON REGUNBERG Democrat 04
ROLAND JOSEPH LAVALLEE Republican 05  YES
MARCIA RANGLIN-VASSELL Democrat 05
RAYMOND A HULL Democrat 06
DANIEL P MCKIERNAN Democrat 07  YES
GRANT A VANECK Independent 07  YES
JOHN JOSEPH LOMBARDI Democrat 08
ANASTASIA P WILLIAMS Democrat 09
SCOTT A SLATER Democrat 10
GRACE DIAZ Democrat 11
JOSEPH S ALMEIDA Democrat 12
LUIS ANTONIO VARGAS Independent 12  YES
RAMON A PEREZ Democrat 13
CHARLENE LIMA Democrat 14
STEVEN FRIAS Republican 15
NICHOLAS A MATTIELLO Democrat 15  NO
PATRICK E VALLIER Independent 15
ROBERT B LANCIA Republican 16  YES
CHRISTOPHER T MILLEA Democrat 16
ROBERT B JACQUARD Democrat 17
ARTHUR HANDY Democrat 18
DAVID D MASTRIANO Independent 19  YES
JOSEPH MCNAMARA Democrat 19
DAVID A BENNETT Democrat 20
DANIEL ELLIOTT Independent 20  YES
ANDREW C KNUTTON Independent 21
MICHAEL W PENTA Republican 21
MICHAEL L UNDERWOOD Independent 21  YES
CAMILLE F VELLA WILKINSON Democrat 21
ELIZABETH K SMITH Independent 22
JOSEPH J SOLOMON JR Democrat 22
K JOSEPH SHEKARCHI Democrat 23  YES  <>
STACIA HUYLER Republican 24
EVAN P SHANLEY Democrat 24
JARED R NUNES Democrat 25
VINCENT MARZULLO Independent 26
PATRICIA L MORGAN Republican 26  YES  <>
ANTHONY J PAOLINO Democrat 26
MARK E BOURGET Independent 27
PATRICIA A SERPA Democrat 27  YES
RYAN M HALL Democrat 28
ROBERT A NARDOLILLO Republican 28  YES  <>
SHERRY ROBERTS Republican 29  YES  xx  <>
LISA P TOMASSO Democrat 29
ANTONIO GIARRUSSO Republican 30
JULIE A CASIMIRO Democrat 31
MICHAEL PAUL MARFEO Republican 31
ROBERT E CRAVEN SR Democrat 32
MARK S ZACCARIA Republican 32  YES
DOUGLAS J BUONANNO Independent 33
CAROL HAGAN MCENTEE Democrat 33
TERESA TANZI Democrat 34
KATHLEEN A FOGARTY Democrat 35
BRUCE K WAIDLER Independent 35
BLAKE A. FILIPPI Independent 36  YES  <>
SAMUEL A AZZINARO Democrat 37
MICHAEL JAMES GEARY Independent 38
BRIAN PATRICK KENNEDY Democrat 38
JUSTIN PRICE Republican 39  YES  xx  <>
LARRY VALENCIA Democrat 39
JOSEPH D CARDILLO Democrat 40
MICHAEL W CHIPPENDALE Republican 40  YES  <>
MICHAEL J MARCELLO Democrat 41  YES
ROBERT J QUATTROCCHI Republican 41  Avoided
STEPHEN R UCCI Democrat 42
DEBORAH A FELLELA Democrat 43
KARIN N GORMAN Independent 43
GREGORY J COSTANTINO Democrat 44
MIA A ACKERMAN Democrat 45
RONALD ROSSI Republican 45
PAUL W SANTORO Independent 45
BRADLEY J COLLINS Independent 46
JOHN J CULLEN Independent 46
PAUL J DIDOMENICO Independent 46
JEREMIAH T OGRADY Democrat 46  YES
CALE P KEABLE Democrat 47
DAVID J PLACE Republican 47
BRIAN C NEWBERRY Republican 48
MICHAEL A MORIN Democrat 49
STEPHEN M CASEY Democrat 50
ROBERT D PHILLIPS Democrat 51
LISA M CANNON Republican 52
ALEX D MARSZALKOWSKI Democrat 52
STEPHANIE L WESTGATE Republican 53
THOMAS J WINFIELD Democrat 53
WILLIAM W O’BRIEN Democrat 54
ARTHUR J CORVESE Democrat 55
SHELBY MALDONADO Democrat 56
JAMES N MCLAUGHLIN Democrat 57
CARLOS EDUARDO TOBON Democrat 58
JONATHAN VALLECILLA Independent 58
LORI J BARDEN Independent 59
JEAN PHILIPPE BARROS Democrat 59
ANDREW E MAGUIRE Independent 59
DAVID A COUGHLIN JR Democrat 60
RAYMOND H JOHNSTON JR Democrat 61  Avoided
JAMES W OBENCHAIN Independent 61
MARY DUFFY MESSIER Democrat 62
CHRISTOPHER J HOLLAND Republican 63
KATHERINE S KAZARIAN Democrat 63
HELDER J CUNHA Democrat 64
GREGG AMORE Democrat 65
JOY S HEARN Democrat 66  YES
DARYL GOULD LIBERTARIAN 67  YES
JASON KNIGHT Democrat 67
WILLIAM JAMES HUNT JR LIBERTARIAN 68  YES
KENNETH A MARSHALL Democrat 68
ANTONIO F AVILA Republican 69
ANALEE A BERRETTO LIBERTARIAN 69  YES
SUSAN R DONOVAN Democrat 69
JOHN G EDWARDS Democrat 70
DENNIS M CANARIO Democrat 71
JUSTIN W LACROIX Republican 71  YES
LINDA DILL FINN Democrat 72
KENNETH J MENDONCA Republican 72
MARVIN L ABNEY Democrat 73
DEBORAH L RUGGIERO Democrat 74
REBECCA SCHIFF Republican 74
LAUREN H CARSON Democrat 75  Avoided
MICHAEL WARREN SMITH Independent 75

Senators

JEFFREY ORLANDO CAMINERO Republican 01
MARYELLEN GOODWIN Democrat 01
ANA B QUEZADA Democrat 02
GAYLE L GOLDIN Democrat 03 NO
DOMINICK J RUGGERIO Democrat 04
PAUL V JABOUR Democrat 05  <> YES
RUSSELL C HRYZAN Independent 06
HAROLD M METTS Democrat 06
FRANK A CICCONE III Democrat 07
JAMES E DOYLE II Democrat 08 YES
ADAM J SATCHELL Democrat 09 YES
WALTER S FELAG JR Democrat 10
JARROD E HAZARD Independent 10
JOHN A PAGLIARINI JR Republican 11
JAMES ARTHUR SEVENEY Democrat 11
LOUIS P DIPALMA Democrat 12
AMY E VERI Republican 12 YES
M TERESA PAIVA-WEED Democrat 13
SAV REBECCHI Independent 13
DANIEL DAPONTE Democrat 14
DONNA M NESSELBUSH Democrat 15
ELIZABETH A CROWLEY Democrat 16 Avoided
THOMAS J PAOLINO Republican 17
JINA N PETRARCA-KARAMPETSOS Democrat 17
WILLIAM J CONLEY JR Democrat 18
BILLY J CHARETTE Republican 19
RYAN W PEARSON Democrat 19 NO
ROGER A PICARD Democrat 20 Avoided
NICHOLAS D KETTLE Republican 21  <> YES
MARGAUX S MORISSEAU Democrat 21
STEPHEN R ARCHAMBAULT Democrat 22
BRENT ANDREW BARROWS Republican 22
PAUL W FOGARTY Democrat 23
STEPHEN N RAWSON Republican 23
MARC A COTE Democrat 24
FRANK LOMBARDO III Democrat 25
LOUIS VINAGRO JR Independent 25
FRANK S LOMBARDI Democrat 26  <> YES
HANNA M GALLO Democrat 27 NO
JONATHAN J KEITH Republican 27 YES
JOSHUA MILLER Democrat 28 NO
RONALD A LOPARTO Independent 29
MICHAEL J MCCAFFREY Democrat 29
JEANINE CALKIN Democrat 30
ERIN LYNCH PRATA Democrat 31
CYNTHIA ARMOUR COYNE Democrat 32 NO
JAMES A KAZOUNIS Republican 32
SCOTT R COPLEY Independent 33
LEONIDAS P RAPTAKIS Democrat 33  xx  <> YES
CATHERINE COOL RUMSEY Democrat 34
ELAINE J MORGAN Republican 34  xx  <> YES
MARK W GEE Republican 35 *
JAMES C SHEEHAN Democrat 36
SVEN P SODERBERG Independent 37 YES
V SUSAN SOSNOWSKI Democrat 37 NO
DENNIS L ALGIERE Republican 38

*J. Keith, also attended and spoke at the senate hearing for bills in 2016

To read some quotes direct from the legislators check out our Facebook page.

Not sure what district number you are?  Go to vote.sos.ri.gov and enter your info to find out.

 

RI DOH Advisory Committee Meeting

RI DOH Advisory Committee Meeting

RI Dept of Health is holding one of their two meetings they hold twice a year for the vaccine advisory committee. This committee is where it was discussed to bring the HPV vaccine into the mandated school schedule. It was also discussed in these meetings in the past to remove the religious exemption. It is a public meeting that everyone thought they could trust the Dept of Health to manage on their own. They have more then proven that someone needs to be listening, and reporting on their tactics.

RHODE ISLAND VACCINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2016 7:30 – 8:30 AM

LOCATION:  RI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ROOM 401

If you have a way to make it to the office and attend the meeting it will be an important time to show how many have eyes on them now. We understand the time of day is difficult and not easy for many. Please share this message with others too, even if you yourself are not able to attend. One of the topics planned on being discussed at this meeting is resistance to getting vaccinated. Now is the time to express why you want the ability and right to deny a vaccine and not have it mandated to attend school, with the HPVirus you can not spread it in the classroom.

Agenda for Nov 4th meeting.

Next week is the general election, keep an eye out for an email about what candidates support our mission. If you have an email or statement from a candidate on their position please forward to changehpvmandateri@gmail.com.

Speaker of the House N Mattiello just went on record this morning stating that he does not feel any vaccine related decisions are a legislative issue and it should be only held within the RI Dept of Health. District 15 is that district and S Frias is his opposition. Though we do not know Frias position on our mission, we do know that Mattiello has the ability to make getting legislation through on the house side very difficult. We strongly encourage you to vote against Mattiello on this topic.