Action Alert; Federal HR 327

Action Alert; Federal HR 327

Hello Rhode Island health choice activists!

WE NEED YOUR HELP!  

********ACTION ALERT********

H.Res.327 outright denies Vaccine Injury and sets a dangerous precedent! It states: “there is no credible evidence to show that vaccines cause life-threatening or disabling diseases in healthy children or adults.”  https://www.congress.gov/…/115th-…/house-resolution/327/text

Both of our Rhode Island Congressmen are Co-Sponsors of the proposed H.Res.327!  Ask them to remove their names from this resolution!
Please follow this LINK to send a message to your congressman to oppose House Resolution 327 and tell them that vaccine injuries are REAL!  It takes just 30 seconds to fill out this form, please do it now!

Our rights are being won and lost through legislation. If we are to protect health choice, we must educate our legislatures. Please also call your congressman and ask him to remove his name from this resolution.  Be sure to remind him that manufacturing companies are shielded from liability for all vaccine injury https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546  If this is your first time contacting a legislator and you would like a well referenced guide, walk them through the uploaded PDF request to withdraw names from H.Res.327.  It is also much easier to talk to a congressman when you bring a friend!

 

Rep. Langevin, James R. [D-RI-2] – (401) 732-9400

Rep. Cicilline, David N. [D-RI-1] – 401-729-5600

Thank you for fighting for health choice!

Again, here is the link to send a message:  http://capwiz.com/a-champ/issues/alert/?alertid=78793626&queueid=%5Bcapwiz:queue_id%5D 

 

Health Choice Rhode Island

Rhode Islanders against mandated HPV vaccinations

Advertisements

A celebration of freedom

A celebration of freedom

Today is a celebration of freedom as Independence Day. Unfortunately our congress and state house do more on an annual basis to roll back our freedoms, then any war we send our troops to fight over seas.

Today let’s celebrate the freedom we do have and remember that we still fight for rights, and like our cause to reverse the HPV mandate in RI, it is only possible with many numbers of citizens coming together to create change. Share information with family and friends as you gather together. Remind others they have a religious exemption option, and that they too can assist in fighting the mandate. Hashtag #NOHPVmandateRI is also our website www.NOHPVmandateRI.com to be easy to remember and pass along.

Thank you for everything you have done or might do or will do today. Without each person’s efforts big and small, we wouldn’t be able to accomplish our goal.

Enjoy the day and celebrations!!!

4th

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.

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.

Public Comment Due TODAY Oct 14th

Public Comment Due TODAY Oct 14th

 

Traditionally, draconian procedures were intended for use during the outbreak of a deadly communicable disease such as small pox. The CDC, however, cites the outbreak of measles at Disneyland in 2015 as a reason why they need this authority. Remember there were about 150 cases of measles, no one died, there were a handful of hospitalizations and vaccines did not protect against the exotic strain of measles that caused the outbreak. They even cite chicken pox as a disease that could justify using these proposed powers.

The rules are written so broadly that they could be applied to anyone at anytime in the US. They apply to all international travelers, and if authorities believe you have a communicable disease and you may travel to another state they can enforce these rules. People can be held for 72 hours without access to a lawyer and failure to comply can be met with forced vaccination and other medical procedures. The new rules state “the individual’s consent shall not be considered a prerequisite to any exercise of any authority.” Compliance will also be enforced with fines of $100,000 or more, and prison sentences. The broad wording and powers that are being requested leave the door wide open for even vaccines for things such as HPV being included in the future. They are already using the word epidemic at some points when talking about HPV.

The rules also seek to enlist airlines and other travel-related companies as enforcers, requesting the reporting of passengers with rashes, coughs, diarrhea and other symptoms of illness for investigation by health authorities.

The CDC provides no justification why current authority is insufficient to deal with any anticipated public health threat. These rules will have the force of law, no action by Congress or the President is necessary.

The rules and the CDC’s justification for them can be read at the link below where the public can make comments until October 14. Please make comments here.

Please click on the link below to send an email to your members of Congress asking them to oppose the rules.
     And please call your two US Senators and your Representative in the House and let them know that you want them to oppose these rules. The senator’s contact information should be below.
Sen. Jack Reed, (202) 224-4642
 
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, (202) 224-2921

 



Thank you for supporting our efforts to keep fighting for you and to keep you informed.

www.NOHPVmandateRI.com
Join the online discussion too with us too.

Donate to help keep the fight strong and loud in RI www.gifts.nohpvmandateri.com

CDC rule change & RI DOH meeting

TODAY IS THE LAST DAY TO REGISTER TO VOTE IN RHODE ISLAND, and be able to vote on Nov 8th and make a change in your local government. vote.sos.ri.gov

CDC rule change to policy proposal allows you to be quarantined if traveling between states not just out of the country, and what defines ‘epidemic’ is not clearly stated. This leaves too much room for the government to force vaccinate and detain the public without having a serious real threat to millions of lives. The last day to submit your comment is FRIDAY OCT 14th. Sometimes it is easier to listen or watch an explaination of long documents then to fully read and try to digest. This youtube video is a discussion of this proposed rule

The proposal goes against almost all state constitutions, and is trying to be implemented under the radar without anyone realizing their rights are being taken. We strongly encourage you to write to your state senators and to write to all congressional reps in RI about this topic. Bring it to their attention and make sure they know enough people are watching and are not okay with the process by which a rule change can happen and to remove medical decision rights with vague guidelines. Most importantly write directly to the CDC and submit your public comment on this topic. This link will give a description and let you submit public comment. Please take the time to submit comment, whether it is two paragraphs or 7 paragraphs, make your thoughts known. Federalregister.gov/CDC

PDF version of the proposed rule and info, blog post copy of the proposed rule change.


THIS WEEK RI DOH will be meeting on Thursday Morning Oct 13th

The first VAC sub-committee meeting of the RI Vaccine Assessment
Council will be held on Thursday, October 13, 2016 from 8:00-9:30AM
at the RI Department of Health 3 Capitol Hill, Room 401, Providence,
RI 02908. The site states that the agenda will be posted soon as of Oct 3rd, but no agenda has been posted yet. Email Tricia.Washburn@health.ri.gov and ask for the agenda to the meeting. This is a major moment in this movement, we need to show up and show the RI DOH we do not appreciate their tactics for mandating vaccines. We know this is first thing in the morning, and can be difficult for many. We encourage you to bring children if you need to, show even if you can only show for 45minutes and not the whole meeting. Make your presence known. PLEASE SHARE THIS MESSAGE, let as many people know about this meeting and encourage as many people to show as possible.
Two very important actions this week to speak up against the ones trying to make your medical decisions for you. Write and show up this week.
Donate to help keep the fight strong and loud in RI www.gifts.nohpvmandateri.com