Letters to the Editor

RECURRING HPV

DEAR MERCURY—So, you guys left this discussion about
Gardasil, the cervical cancer “vaccine,” pretty much totally
misrepresented, with me being roasted by some crazy (and uninformed)
woman hoping my face rots off because I dared criticize big pharma by
pointing out the cover-ups and blatant dangers of this money maker/soft
kill weapon [“Vaccinated,” Letters, June 25]. So, it’s going
mainstream: Is CBS News mainstream enough? One of the lead researchers
(employed by Merck) just went public about the aggressive marketing,
unreported dangers, and deaths associated with Gardasil. People, this
hardly ever happens. One can only assume she could no longer sleep at
night. Please, for all your readers who might (frightening thought)
make medical decisions based on Mercury letters to the editor,
be so kind as to update this discussion as Gardasil comes crashing
down. It’s only fair to revisit. You ran the original article showering
praise on the insurance companies for allowing Gardasil shots [In Other
News, June 11]. Young women could be harmed by your un-researched sound
bytes. I know you don’t want that.

-Helen Hill

GARDEN OF EVIL

It is heartbreaking that some people are so vacant of mind and
spirit to destroy a garden [“Vandals in the Garden,” Last Supper, Aug
20]. We can’t look for rational answers because if it were rational,
they would not have vandalized the garden. As a gardener myself who
relies on my garden as food for the year I am sad when some vegetable
or other doesn’t make it. The purposeful destruction of such a positive
place leaves me beyond sad.

-posted by bonnie on portlandmercury.com

BACKHANDS

I, too, enjoy hearing how great this is some of the time, but not
all of the time, just in the parts when, often, it’s good, but not in
the parts when, at times, it’s bad [“WWII: The Remix,” Film, Aug 20,
reviewing Inglourious Basterds]. This is a wonderfully written
film review that’s a fantastic overview describing a movie. It’s not at
all redundant, or repetitive, or at all indicative of the IQ of someone
who may enjoy a [Quentin Tarantino] film. Also, “overall, this is a
hell of a picture, and parts of it are as great, if not better, than
anything else Tarantino’s done” may set a new standard for the term
“backhanded compliment.”

-posted by Ovidius on portlandmercury.com

TRAILING BEHIND

Long-time Mercury read[er], first-time commenter. Just
finally took the effort to sign up to let you know what a completely
terrible review this is [“WWII: The Remix,” Film, Aug 20]. The movie
didn’t look like the trailer, but trailers suck, so this movie was
pretty [good] because some parts were like the trailer, but some other
parts weren’t like the trailer, so maybe it would be better if they
were. But remember that trailers suck so maybe I shouldn’t have written
this review based on that but I did anyway. Well done.

-posted by nobody on portlandmercury.com

STUPID QUESTION

DEAR MERCURY: How could [Wm. Steven Humphrey] feature the
hypnosis question [“Today’s Burning Question Burning Up Questionland,”
blogtown.portlandmercury.com,
Aug 18]? Did he even read the whole question? It was rooted in a basic
misunderstanding about psychiatry/psychology. Dude, go back and read
the whole thing. I thought you, as a news rag, were inherently
pro-literacy. But then you go and promote a question that grossly
misspells “Freud.” Wowzer.

-Nestchick

“WOWZER,” NESTCHICK, thanks for calling attention to the smash hit
Questionland (questionland.portlandmercury.com),
where readers can ask and answer questions on any topic they want, as
well as rate questions and answers with a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down.”
Thumbs up on Nestchick’s two tickets to the Laurelhurst Theater and
lunch at No Fish! Go Fish!, where asking questions is the best way to
learn.

Dear Helen Hill,

I believe the time has come for rational debate so please allow me to
respond point by point to your letters:

1) You have placed the word vaccine in quotes. This usually implies
that the author doubts the validity or accuracy of that word. Are you
implying that Gardasil is not a vaccine for HPV? I hope this is not
the case, as there are many studies showing its effectiveness for
preventing HPV infection. To quote a 2007 meta analysis: “In summary,
our systematic review demonstrates that prophylactic HPV vaccination
is highly efficacious in preventing vaccine type-specific HPV
infection and precancerous cervical disease” (1). During the 1930’s
cervical cancer was the number one cancer killer of women. Thankfully
with the invention of annual screenings with Pap smears, it has
dropped to the 8th place. While it is important for all sexual active
women to get an annual pap screen, this is can only detect the virus
after infection and does not prevent infection. There are also many
women worldwide without access to healthcare and who can not get
annual screens. For those two facts alone, the HPV vaccine has a
relevant place in health care as it could save thousands of women from
dying of cervical cancer every year.

2) I am neither crazy nor uninformed. I have an interest in my sexual
health and have read numerous articles (both mainstream, blog, and
peer reviewed) and have attended seminars on the HPV vaccine.

3) I did not wish for your face to rot off. I clearly stated that you
should be attacked by zombies. Please do not confuse my fondness for
the undead with necrotizing fasciitis. Furthermore, I do not actually
wish you any ill will, the statement was merely hyperbole. We all
know that the Mercury is more likely to publish letters that are
inflammatory and sensationalized. I was merely trying to increase my
chances of getting published because I feel this in an important
health issue for young women.

4) In your recent letter, you bring up mainstream media reporting as a
positive, but in your previous letter you accuse the Mercury of
“swallowing the mainstream media brainwash corporate news”. It seems
you only approve of mainstream media if they are favoring your side of
the issue. As it is, I take most of the mainstream media news with a
grain of salt, especially when it comes to matters of science and
medicine. I would recommend getting health information from these
sources: your doctor, PubMed, the Mayo Clinic online, WebMD (usually
good, but occasionally they let wacky articles through), the CDC
website, and also try these blogs for a general understanding of how
to approach questions in medicine: the Science Based Medicine blog,
the Respectful Insolence blog.

5) Yes, Garasil was aggressively marketed. This does not address its
safety or efficacy.

6) To address your statement about CBS and the “unreported dangers,
and deaths associated with Gardasil”. I searched and could not find
the report to which you are referring. Please give a reference. I
did find a CBS news piece by Sharyl Attkisson entitled “New Worries
About Gardasil Safety”. This piece represents, what I consider, an
irresponsible reporting of the news. It starts with a human interest
anecdote and then goes on to quote the National Vaccine Information
Center. As sad as that first case is, there is nothing to show that
the vaccine caused that reaction and the NVIC is a known
anti-vaccination organization that promotes lies (like the completely
discredited idea that the MMR vaccine causes autism). I find it
disappointing that a mainstream news network would give them airtime,
but this goes back to why I don’t generally get medical advice from
the mainstream news.

7) As for the dangers associated with the vaccine, they are low: 0.2%
in one study and those included: “In the vaccine group, serious
adverse events included rhinitis, vertigo, and tension headache. In
the placebo group, serious adverse events included gastroenteritis,
pulmonary tuberculosis, gastrointestinal tuberculosis, anaemia,
pyelonephritis (two cases), ectopic pregnancy, and hepatitis.” (2) A
recent AAFP news article says the same, with the vast majority of side
effects being non-serious (pain and redness at the injection site,
dizziness, nausea, and headache) and the only unusual side effect as
fainting. As for the deaths: “Six percent of adverse events were
regarded as serious, including 32 deaths. The agencies said, however,
that no common pattern suggested the deaths were caused by the
vaccine. In cases where autopsy results, medical records or death
certificates were available, the cause of death often could be
attributed to other factors, such as diabetes, viral illness, drug use
and heart failure.” (3) What that means is that the deaths were most
likely not caused by the vaccine and that the time of death was
coincidental with the injection. I think it is also worth pointing
out that tens of millions of doses of this vaccine have been
administered and based on the large number of recipients, some will be
expected to die randomly due to chance, just like those who did not
receive the vaccine.

8) In your first letter you state that “There are numerous harmless
treatments and avoidance behavior for cervical cancer” but you don’t
list any. I assume that by avoidance behavior you mean abstinence,
but a recent review of abstinence education shows how ineffective it
is at preventing sexual behavior and may increase the risk of
pregnancy and STD’s (5). As for treatments, they are listed as for
noninvasive cancer: Cone biopsy, Laser surgery, Loop electrosurgical
excision procedure (LEEP), Cryosurgery, and Hysterectomy. For invasive
cancers the treatments are: surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy (5).
Personally, I’d rather a vaccine induced fainting spell then any of
those treatments.

9) You also state that I am upset because you “dared criticize big
pharma by pointing out the cover-ups and blatant dangers of this money
maker/soft kill weapon”, but you never did this. You have yet to
present any evidence stating your case that Merck is selling a soft
kill weapon (whatever that means). In your next letter, please do so
in a coherent manner. I think it is also relevant to point out that
neither Merck nor GlaxoSmithKline created this vaccine. It was a
combined effort of University of Rochester in New York, Georgetown
University in Washington, D.C., and Queensland University in Brisbane,
Australia and the National Cancer Institute all of whom I highly doubt
are involved in the creation of “soft kill weapons”.

I would like again to point out that I think Merck is driven by money,
has been known to be involved in cover ups (Vioxx), and deceptive
marketing practices (Elsevier Journal Scandal), but your response to
the Mercury’s article was beyond reason and against the
recommendations of mainstream medical science. At this point, most
physicians seem to believe that the HPV vaccine should not be required
and left as a personal choice to the patient, but this is mostly due
to a cost vs risk vs benefit scenario. With insurance companies
covering the vaccine, I believe that many more doctors will recommend
the vaccine to their patients and that this will lead to decreased
rates of cervical cancer and its complications, including death.

1) Rambout L, Hopkins L, Hutton B, Fergusson D. Prophylactic
vaccination against human papillomavirus infection and disease in
women: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. CMAJ. 2007
Aug 28;177(5):469-79.
2) Muñoz N, Manalastas R Jr, Pitisuttithum P, Tresukosol D, Monsonego
J, Ault K, Clavel C, Luna J, Myers E, Hood S, Bautista O, Bryan J,
Taddeo FJ, Esser MT, Vuocolo S, Haupt RM, Barr E, Saah A. Safety,
immunogenicity, and efficacy of quadrivalent human papillomavirus
(types 6, 11, 16, 18) recombinant vaccine in women aged 24-45 years: a
randomised, double-blind trial. Lancet. 2009 Jun 6;373(9679):1949-57.
3) CDC, FDA Study Reinforces Safety, Efficacy of Gardasil”Agencies
Found Vast Majority of Adverse Events Not Serious. David Mitchell.
AAFP 9/2/2009 http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/publica…
4) THE CONTENT OF FEDERALLY FUNDED ABSTINENCE-ONLY EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
— MINORITY STAFF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION. DECEMBER 2004.
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20041…
5) Mayo clinic. Cervical cancer treatments.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cervical-…

-Lauriel

2 replies on “Letters to the Editor”

Lauriel says:

September 4, 2009 1:05 pm at 1:05 pm

Dear Helen Hill,

I believe the time has come for rational debate so please allow me to
respond point by point to your letters:

1) You have placed the word vaccine in quotes. This usually implies
that the author doubts the validity or accuracy of that word. Are you
implying that Gardasil is not a vaccine for HPV? I hope this is not
the case, as there are many studies showing its effectiveness for
preventing HPV infection. To quote a 2007 meta analysis: “In summary,
our systematic review demonstrates that prophylactic HPV vaccination
is highly efficacious in preventing vaccine type-specific HPV
infection and precancerous cervical disease” (1). During the 1930’s
cervical cancer was the number one cancer killer of women. Thankfully
with the invention of annual screenings with Pap smears, it has
dropped to the 8th place. While it is important for all sexual active
women to get an annual pap screen, this is can only detect the virus
after infection and does not prevent infection. There are also many
women worldwide without access to healthcare and who can not get
annual screens. For those two facts alone, the HPV vaccine has a
relevant place in health care as it could save thousands of women from
dying of cervical cancer every year.

2) I am neither crazy nor uninformed. I have an interest in my sexual
health and have read numerous articles (both mainstream, blog, and
peer reviewed) and have attended seminars on the HPV vaccine.

3) I did not wish for your face to rot off. I clearly stated that you
should be attacked by zombies. Please do not confuse my fondness for
the undead with necrotizing fasciitis. Furthermore, I do not actually
wish you any ill will, the statement was merely hyperbole. We all
know that the Mercury is more likely to publish letters that are
inflammatory and sensationalized. I was merely trying to increase my
chances of getting published because I feel this in an important
health issue for young women.

4) In your recent letter, you bring up mainstream media reporting as a
positive, but in your previous letter you accuse the Mercury of
“swallowing the mainstream media brainwash corporate news”. It seems
you only approve of mainstream media if they are favoring your side of
the issue. As it is, I take most of the mainstream media news with a
grain of salt, especially when it comes to matters of science and
medicine. I would recommend getting health information from these
sources: your doctor, PubMed, the Mayo Clinic online, WebMD (usually
good, but occasionally they let wacky articles through), the CDC
website, and also try these blogs for a general understanding of how
to approach questions in medicine: the Science Based Medicine blog,
the Respectful Insolence blog.

5) Yes, Garasil was aggressively marketed. This does not address its
safety or efficacy.

6) To address your statement about CBS and the “unreported dangers,
and deaths associated with Gardasil”. I searched and could not find
the report to which you are referring. Please give a reference. I
did find a CBS news piece by Sharyl Attkisson entitled “New Worries
About Gardasil Safety”. This piece represents, what I consider, an
irresponsible reporting of the news. It starts with a human interest
anecdote and then goes on to quote the National Vaccine Information
Center. As sad as that first case is, there is nothing to show that
the vaccine caused that reaction and the NVIC is a known
anti-vaccination organization that promotes lies (like the completely
discredited idea that the MMR vaccine causes autism). I find it
disappointing that a mainstream news network would give them airtime,
but this goes back to why I don’t generally get medical advice from
the mainstream news.

7) As for the dangers associated with the vaccine, they are low: 0.2%
in one study and those included: “In the vaccine group, serious
adverse events included rhinitis, vertigo, and tension headache. In
the placebo group, serious adverse events included gastroenteritis,
pulmonary tuberculosis, gastrointestinal tuberculosis, anaemia,
pyelonephritis (two cases), ectopic pregnancy, and hepatitis.” (2) A
recent AAFP news article says the same, with the vast majority of side
effects being non-serious (pain and redness at the injection site,
dizziness, nausea, and headache) and the only unusual side effect as
fainting. As for the deaths: “Six percent of adverse events were
regarded as serious, including 32 deaths. The agencies said, however,
that no common pattern suggested the deaths were caused by the
vaccine. In cases where autopsy results, medical records or death
certificates were available, the cause of death often could be
attributed to other factors, such as diabetes, viral illness, drug use
and heart failure.” (3) What that means is that the deaths were most
likely not caused by the vaccine and that the time of death was
coincidental with the injection. I think it is also worth pointing
out that tens of millions of doses of this vaccine have been
administered and based on the large number of recipients, some will be
expected to die randomly due to chance, just like those who did not
receive the vaccine.

8) In your first letter you state that “There are numerous harmless
treatments and avoidance behavior for cervical cancer” but you don’t
list any. I assume that by avoidance behavior you mean abstinence,
but a recent review of abstinence education shows how ineffective it
is at preventing sexual behavior and may increase the risk of
pregnancy and STD’s (5). As for treatments, they are listed as for
noninvasive cancer: Cone biopsy, Laser surgery, Loop electrosurgical
excision procedure (LEEP), Cryosurgery, and Hysterectomy. For invasive
cancers the treatments are: surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy (5).
Personally, I’d rather a vaccine induced fainting spell then any of
those treatments.

9) You also state that I am upset because you “dared criticize big
pharma by pointing out the cover-ups and blatant dangers of this money
maker/soft kill weapon”, but you never did this. You have yet to
present any evidence stating your case that Merck is selling a soft
kill weapon (whatever that means). In your next letter, please do so
in a coherent manner. I think it is also relevant to point out that
neither Merck nor GlaxoSmithKline created this vaccine. It was a
combined effort of University of Rochester in New York, Georgetown
University in Washington, D.C., and Queensland University in Brisbane,
Australia and the National Cancer Institute all of whom I highly doubt
are involved in the creation of “soft kill weapons”.

I would like again to point out that I think Merck is driven by money,
has been known to be involved in cover ups (Vioxx), and deceptive
marketing practices (Elsevier Journal Scandal), but your response to
the Mercury’s article was beyond reason and against the
recommendations of mainstream medical science. At this point, most
physicians seem to believe that the HPV vaccine should not be required
and left as a personal choice to the patient, but this is mostly due
to a cost vs risk vs benefit scenario. With insurance companies
covering the vaccine, I believe that many more doctors will recommend
the vaccine to their patients and that this will lead to decreased
rates of cervical cancer and its complications, including death.

1) Rambout L, Hopkins L, Hutton B, Fergusson D. Prophylactic
vaccination against human papillomavirus infection and disease in
women: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. CMAJ. 2007
Aug 28;177(5):469-79.
2) Muñoz N, Manalastas R Jr, Pitisuttithum P, Tresukosol D, Monsonego
J, Ault K, Clavel C, Luna J, Myers E, Hood S, Bautista O, Bryan J,
Taddeo FJ, Esser MT, Vuocolo S, Haupt RM, Barr E, Saah A. Safety,
immunogenicity, and efficacy of quadrivalent human papillomavirus
(types 6, 11, 16, 18) recombinant vaccine in women aged 24-45 years: a
randomised, double-blind trial. Lancet. 2009 Jun 6;373(9679):1949-57.
3) CDC, FDA Study Reinforces Safety, Efficacy of Gardasil”Agencies
Found Vast Majority of Adverse Events Not Serious. David Mitchell.
AAFP 9/2/2009 http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/publica…
4) THE CONTENT OF FEDERALLY FUNDED ABSTINENCE-ONLY EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
— MINORITY STAFF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION. DECEMBER 2004.
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20041…
5) Mayo clinic. Cervical cancer treatments.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cervical-…

-Lauriel
STDnoob says:

February 8, 2010 8:05 pm at 8:05 pm

Thanks for the information..It was very helpful!

Comments are closed.

2 replies on “Letters to the Editor”

Just Can't Get Enough?