Spain Questions the Wisdom of HPV Vaccinations

[SaneVax: The recent death of a 13 year-old girl after her second injection has prompted citizens of Spain to voice their concerns about the wisdom of their country’s HPV vaccination program. The fact that the young girl received the second injection despite having a severe asthmatic response requiring hospitalization after the first injection raises additional questions. Are government health authorities providing  adequate information about possible side effects? The citizens of Spain want to know. Will the European Parliament provide answers to the questions posed, or simply public relation sound bites?]

Dods EU Alert

Source: European Parliament Register 
Date published: October 22 2012
Please note the question will be answered within 8 weeks.

Question for written answer E-009047/2012 to the Commission Rule 117 Andres Perello Rodriguez (S&D)
Subject: Adverse reactions to the vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV)
In 2007, the Spanish Ministry of Health approved the vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV) for inclusion in the public health system. It recommended that it be administered, and it contributed to the funding of the vaccine so that it could be offered free of charge to all 14-year-old girls.

Many adverse reactions experienced after receiving the vaccine had already been seen in other countries which had previously begun administering it. A large section of the health community questioned the decision, while expressing doubts in relation to capacity and effectiveness, as well as the high price of the vaccine. Despite this, the Spanish health authorities have carried out a systematic vaccination campaign, failing to mention any risk related to administering the vaccine. The health authorities have been strongly insisting that the vaccine is safe, despite it being new to the market; neither the patient information leaflet nor the information campaigns mention the possible adverse reactions, such as the risk for patients who are prone to metal poisoning. They have also not informed the girls or their parents about alternatives to this vaccine, the prevalence of the virus, or its link to cancer.
In Spain there have been 750 reported cases of adverse reactions to the vaccine, some of which were very serious, such as the recent death of a 13-year-old girl in Gijón from an asthma attack related to the vaccine.
Is the Commission aware of the reported cases of adverse reactions to the vaccine against human papillomavirus?
Has the Commission carried out any research into the causes of these adverse reactions?
Is the Commission certain that national governments are providing adequate information to European Union citizens about the possible adverse reactions to the vaccine?
Considering the number of cases reported, can the Commission explain the causes and effects of these adverse reactions?

Comments

  1. Sandy Lunoe says:

    This is yet one more tragic case after Gardasil.
    What would the results have been if Merck had not used their own exclusion criteria in clinical trials?

    Typically for these trials, the vaccine was tested on handpicked groups who were least likely to present serious adverse events. They were certainly not representative of the groups who have been, or will be vaccinated.

    Merck’s exclusion criteria:
    1) Allergies to any component of the vaccine
    2) History of a severe allergic reaction
    3) Known history of any allergies to food or medicine
    4) Immunocompromised, Immunodeficient or has an autoimmune condition
    5) History of any condition, therapy, lab abnormality or other circumstance such that it is not in the best interest of the participant to participate
    6) Clinically significant disease or clinically significant findings during the screening medical history or physical examination that, in the investigator’s opinion, would compromise the outcome of this study.
    7) Have a weakened immune system or other immune problems

    It is utterly irresponsible and unethical to test this or any other vaccine on an extremely “filtered”, handpicked group; to then pronounce the vaccine as safe – and for it then to be released onto the market to be administered to enormous numbers of recipients where many present the conditions which were omitted from the clinical trials.

    This is yet one more reason why the safety of vaccines should be questioned.

Speak Your Mind

*


*

Current ye@r *