© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
Please view this Gardasil Commercial. Does this preparation protect the young and naïve? Might this drug cause undetermined side effects? What might these be? Societal effects may be as daunting as physiological. You decide.
I share this information only to stimulate thought and discussion. I am baffled when a Governor acts against his own interests and supposed beliefs. Texas Governor Rick Perry is a conservative Christian. He avidly opposes abortion and strongly disagrees with policies that encourage the use of embryonic cells in stem-cell research. This Southern Governor considers the religious right his political base; he depends on their votes and continued support. Without these God-fearing persons residing in the Lone Star state, the Governor cannot function as he does.
Yet, Friday, Governor Perry seems to acted against the will of his people. He imposed a law that would mandate cervical cancer vaccines for very young girls. Sixth graders, ages eleven and twelve [11 and 12] would receive inoculations, protecting them against a sexually transmitted disease.
Perry chose to bypass the legislative branch and invoke an executive order. Thus, the Governor avoided voices that he knew would object to his action. His signing did not draw the attention a Bill going through Congress might have.
By employing an executive order, Perry sidestepped opposition from conservatives and parents' rights groups who fear such a requirement would condone premarital sex and interfere with the way Texans rear their children.The Texas Governor states there is no difference between a vaccine used to protect sexually active individuals from diseases transmitted through intercourse and a polio vaccine.Starting in September 2008, girls entering the sixth grade -- generally ages 11 and 12 -- will have to receive Gardasil, Merck & Co.'s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus.
In Illinois, the same practice is being proposed. Last week this procedure was recommended in a Senate Bill. If passed, eleven and twelve [11 and 12] year old schoolgirls would receive the required vaccination by the 2009 school year.
One might wonder why this is happening. As I often say, "I know nothing with certainty." I only offer what I do understand.
Mr. Perry’s action, praised by health advocates, caught many by surprise in a largely conservative state where sexual politics is often a battleground.Under this Texas program, girls and young women, between the ages of nine [9] and twenty-one [21] if eligible for public assistance would receive the injection for free.
The second-term Governor, recently re-elected explained, “Requiring young girls to get vaccinated before they come into contact with HPV is responsible health and fiscal policy that has the potential to significantly reduce cases of cervical cancer and mitigate future medical costs.”
Human Papillomavirus [HPV,] affects 20 million people nationally. One in four 15-to-24-year-olds is afflicted with this disease. Human Papillomavirus is the nation’s most common sexually transmitted malady. According to Governor Perry's statement, Texas has the second-highest number of women with cervical cancer. In the Lone Star State alone, there were nearly 400 deaths last year. Clearly, the Governor has reason for concern. Yet, other issues boggle the average Joe, or Jane's mind.
Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass state laws across the country mandating Gardasil for girls. It doubled its lobbying budget in Texas and has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group of female state legislators nationwide.I looked further for other sources of information. I discovered parents could opt out of the program. However, this is not the source of consolation for many.Perry has ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company's lobbyists in Texas is Perry's former chief of staff. His current chief of staff's mother-in-law is a state director for Women in Government.
Perry also received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign.Upon reading this I felt a need to know more. I thought Merck had been through enough. In Texas alone a jury ruled, Merck negligent.Texas allows parents to opt out of inoculations by filing an affidavit objecting to the vaccine on religious or philosophical reasons. Even with such provisions, however, conservative groups say such requirements interfere with parents' rights to make medical decisions for their children.
The federal government approved Gardasil in June, and a government advisory panel has recommended that all girls get the shots at 11 and 12, before they are likely to be sexually active.
The New Jersey-based drug company could generate billions in sales if Gardasil — at $360 for the three-shot regimen — were made mandatory across the country. Most insurance companies now cover the vaccine, which has been shown to have no serious side effects.
Merck spokeswoman Janet Skidmore would not say how much the company is spending on lobbyists or how much it has donated to Women in Government. Susan Crosby, the group's president, also declined to specify how much the drug company gave.
Jury: Merck negligentHowever, Merck did state their plans to appeal the decision. Still they may have problems in other states. In reading this, I conclude as Merck does, perhaps they are free to do as they have done before, stimulate profits at the expense of people.
Merck blamed for death in Vioxx suit; jury awards $253 million in damages. Drug giant to appeal.
August 22, 2005: 12:33 PM EDT
By Aaron Smith, CNN/Money staff writerNEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Merck has been held liable by a Texas jury in the first lawsuit involving its former blockbuster drug Vioxx, in a case that could have a profound effect on thousands of other cases filed against the company.
Plaintiff Carol Ernst has won her lawsuit in Texas Superior Court in Angleton, which blames Vioxx for the 2001 death of her husband, Robert Ernst, a 59-year-old marathon runner and Wal-Mart worker who was taking the arthritis painkiller at the time of his death. Ernst died of a heart attack.
The verdict held Merck liable for the death. Jurors voted 10-2 in favor of Ernst.
The jury awarded more than $250 million in total damages -- $24 million to Carol Ernst for mental anguish and loss of companionship, and $229 million in punitive damages. Ernst's Houston-based lawyer, Mark Lanier, said the punitive-damages figure was based on "the money Merck made and saved by putting off their product label changes."
Lanier had been seeking $40.4 million in damages, and after the verdict, Lanier said that he expected the punitive-damages award to be reduced according to Texas law.
"Justice is a beautiful thing, isn't it?" Lanier told reporters following the verdict.
N.J. court revives Vioxx lawsuitI continued to consider the case of the schoolgirls. "Women in Government" the organization associated with Governor Rick Perry's Chief of Staff's mother-in-law, at first blush seems to be a well meaning group.
Ruling reinstates lawsuit that aims to force Merck to fund medical monitoring program for past Vioxx users.
January 17 2007: 5:39 PM ESTCHICAGO (Reuters) -- A New Jersey appeals court has revived a lawsuit that sought to force drugmaker Merck & Co. Inc. to fund a medical monitoring program for patients who took the painkiller Vioxx.
The state appellate court ruled on Tuesday that N.J. Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee's decision to dismiss the lawsuit was premature and failed to give the plaintiffs the opportunity to prove legally accepted claims.
The appeals court said in a 26-page opinion that it was not expressing an opinion on the ultimate viability of the lawsuit.
Plaintiffs in the case sought a court-administered medical screening program, funded by Merck (Charts) that would provide medical and diagnostic tests for each member of the class to detect potential heart problems arising from exposure to Vioxx.
"There is no medical science supporting the plaintiffs' position that they need to be monitored for cardiovascular conditions two years after Vioxx was voluntarily taken off the market," Merck attorney Ted Mayer said in an e-mailed statement.
Mayer said Merck is considering its options, including asking the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case.
"Almost every court in the country has rejected class action treatment of medical monitoring claims because each plaintiff's claim needs to be evaluated individually," he said.
Deutsche Bank analyst Barbara Ryan said the ruling just means the case has been sent back to the lower court for a ruling.
If Merck is required to fund a medical monitoring program, Ryan said she doubted many former Vioxx users would take advantage of it because of the inconvenience and the low risk of suffering a heart attack if they had taken Vioxx only briefly.
Women In Government is a national 501(c)(3), non-profit, bi-partisan organization of women state legislators providing leadership opportunities, networking, expert forums, and educational resources to address and resolve complex public policy issues.Why might they work in tandem with Merck to vaccinate young girls? I searched page after page hoping to better understand the motivation of this foundation. Some say, follow the money. Thus, I did. The list of "sponsors" revealed much and confused me more. Some of their associates I hold in high regard. I am indifferent to others. Merck was once honored in my family. My grandfather, a pharmacist, recalls Merck was originally a distributor of fine chemicals. Initially, they engaged in important medical research. Now, I do not know. Please peruse and ponder. Please tell me what you think.Women In Government leads the nation with a bold, courageous, and passionate vision that empowers and mobilizes all women legislators to effect sound policy.
Current SponsorsI will verbalize no assessment though I am interested in yours. Please share your thoughts on this story. Do elementary schoolgirls need a required vaccine, protecting them against sexually transmitted diseases? Might Governor Perry have proposed the possibility and asked for a dialogue. Will his constituents be pleased and is he concerned? If Rick Perry is demonstrating compassion, whom might it be for?2 Red Hens
3M Pharmaceuticals
Abbott
Adeza Biomedical
AEP-SWEPCO
Allergan, Inc.
Altria Corporate Services, Inc.
Alzheimer’s Association
American Diabetes Association
Amgen
Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.
The Annie E. Casey Foundation
Arkansas Electric Cooperatives, Inc.
Astellas Pharma US, Inc.
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
Bayer HealthCare
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont
Bobby Hogue & Associates
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Bose Treacy Associates
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation
Catalis
C-Change
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association
Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Foundation
CVS/pharmacy
DaimlerChrysler
Digene Corporation
Digital Healthcare, Inc.
Discovery Health Channel
Duke Energy
Edison Electric Institute
Electronic Data Systems
Eli Lilly and Company
Entergy Arkansas
Exxon Mobil
Glaxo Smith Kline
Highland Campus Health Group
Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc.
Ice Miller LLP
Indiana Health Care Association
Indiana Ophthalmology Association
Indiana State Chiropractic Association
Indiana State Medical Association
Indiana Statewide Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives
Insight Communications
Johnson & Johnson
KWK Management Group, LLC
Lumina Foundation for Education
Managed Health Services
McDonald’s
Merck & Company, Inc.
Michigan Association of Health Plans
Mullenix & Associates
National Hemophilia Foundation
National Life Group
Nellie Mae Education Foundation
Novartis Pharmaceuticals
Novo Nordisk, Inc.
Ohio Hospital Association
Pepco Holdings, Inc.
Pfizer, Inc.
PhRMA
Procter & Gamble
Rifkin, Livingston, Levitan & Silver, LLC
Roche Diagnostics Corporation
Sanofi Aventis
Schering-Plough Corporation
Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
State Farm Insurance
Third Wave Technologies, Inc.
Verizon Communications
Wal-Mart
Ward Health Strategies
WellPoint, Inc.
Wholesale Beer Distributors of Arkansas, Inc.
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals
Is the Illinois State Senate seeking inoculations for the innocent because they wish to be benevolent?
Why drives Merck and the Women in Government. Are their visions disparate? Please share your thoughts me. What motivates any of us? This question is not rhetorical. I really wish to understand.
References for Reflection . . .
The Facts About GARDASIL
1) GARDASIL is a vaccine for 4 strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV), two strains that are strongly associated (and probably cause) genital warts and two strains that are typically associated (and may cause) cervical cancer. About 90% of people with genital warts show exposure to one of the two HPV strains strongly suspected to cause genital warts. About 70% of women with cervical cancer show exposure to one of the other two HPV strains that the vaccine is designed to confer resistance to.
2) HPV is a sexually communicable (not an infectious) virus. When you consider all strains of HPV, over 70% of sexually active males and females have been exposed. A condom helps a lot (70% less likely to get it), but has not been shown to stop transmission in all cases (only one study of 82 college girls who self-reported about condom use has been done). For the vast majority of women, exposure to HPV strains (even the four “bad ones” protected for in GARDASIL) results in no known health complications of any kind.
3) Cervical cancer is not a deadly nor prevalent cancer in the US or any other first world nation. Cervical cancer rates have declined sharply over the last 30 years and are still declining. Cervical cancer accounts for less than 1% of of all female cancer cases and deaths in the US. Cervical cancer is typically very treatable and the prognosis for a healthy outcome is good. The typical exceptions to this case are old women, women who are already unhealthy and women who don’t get pap smears until after the cancer has existed for many years.
4) Merck’s clinical studies for GARDASIL were problematic in several ways. Only 20,541 women were used (half got the “placebo”) and their health was followed up for only four years at maximum and typically 1-3 years only. More critically, only 1,121 of these subjects were less than 16. The younger subjects were only followed up for a maximum of 18 months. Furthermore, less than 10% of these subjects received true placebo injections. The others were given injections containing an aluminum salt adjuvant (vaccine enhancer) that is also a component of GARDASIL. This is scientifically preposterous, especially when you consider that similar alum adjuvants are suspected to be responsible for Gulf War disease and other possible vaccination related complications.
5) Both the “placebo” groups and the vaccination groups reported a myriad of short term and medium term health problems over the course of their evaluations. The majority of both groups reported minor health complications near the injection site or near the time of the injection. Among the vaccination group, reports of such complications were slightly higher. The small sample that was given a real placebo reported far fewer complications — as in less than half. Furthermore, most if not all longer term complications were written off as not being potentially vaccine caused for all subjects.
6) Because the pool of test subjects was so small and the rates of cervical cancer are so low, NOT A SINGLE CONTROL SUBJECT ACTUALLY CONTRACTED CERVICAL CANCER IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM — MUCH LESS DIED OF IT. Instead, this vaccine’s supposed efficacy is based on the fact that the vaccinated group ended up with far fewer cases (5 vs. about 200) of genital warts and “precancerous lesions” (dysplasias) than the alum injected “control” subjects.
7) Because the tests included just four years of follow up at most, the long term effects and efficacy of this vaccine are completely unknown for anyone. All but the shortest term effects are completely unknown for little girls. Considering the tiny size of youngster study, the data about the shortest terms side effects for girls are also dubious.
8) GARDASIL is the most expensive vaccine ever marketed. It requires three vaccinations at $120 a pop for a total price tag of $360. It is expected to be Merck’s biggest cash cow of this and the next decade.
These are simply the facts of the situation as presented by Merck and the FDA.
Posted by: stickdog | Sunday, February 04, 2007 at 06:08 AM
Dear stickdog . . .
I greatly appreciate your sharing this information. Your mention of the source is equally interesting. If you would, please offer a link. I feel certain many would want to validate the reference for themselves.
I invite you to share the same analysis at my newer website, BeThink.org. The actual article can be accessed through this link. Texas Mandates STD Vaccination for Elementary Age Schoolgirls
The structure of that site allows for a broader discussion. I welcome the conversation your comment might generate. Too much goes unsaid too often.
We as a people let laws stand simply because they were introduced by executive order. Rick Perry and George Bush may not perceive dialogue as a benefit. I do.
"Much unhappiness has come into the world because of bewilderment and things left unsaid."
~ Fedor Dostoevsky
Posted by: Betsy L. Angert | Sunday, February 04, 2007 at 12:33 PM
My source is Merck and the FDA:
http://www.fda.gov/cber/label/hpvmer060806LB.htm
Also see:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E06E7DF163FF93BA25754C0A9609C8B63
and
http://www.straight.com/article/vaccines-show-sinister-side
http://journals.humanapress.com/index.php?option=com_opbookdetails&task=articledetails&category=humanajournals&article_code=NMM:9:1:83
Posted by: stickdog | Sunday, February 04, 2007 at 05:27 PM
Click my url for the NY Times article that got cut off in my last post.
Posted by: stickdog | Sunday, February 04, 2007 at 05:29 PM
Click my name (url) for the science journal link that got cut off two posts ago.
Posted by: stickdog | Sunday, February 04, 2007 at 05:33 PM
Dear stickdog . . .
I thank you so much for sharing such excellent resources.
The New York Times article is superior!!!! I wish I had seen that earlier. I am offering snippets of this report for easy access. I think this exposé is beyond worthy!
The science journal link did not reveal information on this subject, or I totally missed it.Posted by: Betsy L. Angert | Sunday, February 04, 2007 at 08:43 PM
The science journal is about the dangers of the aluminum salt injection that was used as the "placebo control" in Merck's fraudulent study. This science study on mice given aluminum injections is the discussed in the straight.com article as an unpublished study, but it has since been peer reviewed and published. Aluminum salts are also in GARDASIL and many other vaccines. They are suspected of causing Gulf War disease.
There are two sides to every discussion, of course. This vaccine does appear to confer some benefits. If I were a sexually active woman who disliked condoms and liked to have multiple sex partners who had not yet been exposed to any of the four strains of HPV that this vaccine protects against, I just might sign myself up.
But that’s not the same thing as making this vaccine MANDATORY for a preteen population it was not rigorously tested on a scant 8 months after its initial rush job FDA approval.
Aside from all the known risks of all vaccines, the unknown risks of this three shot regimen for preteens along with their other vaccine load, and the unknown long term risks of this vaccine for all populations, we have to look at cost vs. benefit.
7861 of the placebo subjects contracted 83 cases of HPV 6-, 11-, 16-, 18-related dysplasias during the testing period compared compared to 4 cases among the 7858 subjects who were given GARDASIL. That’s after counting out every subject with any prior exposure to these strains. This includes 42 of the less serious HPV 6-, 11- related low grade dysplasias.
Merck has published no data for how many non-HPV 6-, 11-, 16-, 18-related dysplasias were contracted by these subjects over these periods, but some practitioners have commented that they expect the vaccine to protect against 40%-50% of all dysplasias.
In terms of every possible kind of dysplasia for which this vaccine confers protection, Merck’s own clinical evidence suggests that this vaccine saved about 10 patients out of each 1000 injected from the painful process of having these dysplasias treated (over the entire course of follow ups which ranged from 18 months to 4 years). Note that the populations for these studies were not preteens but women at the height of their sexual activity. Further note that since the vaccine uses virus-like particles (a new vaccine technology) and is only about five years in testing now, there is no guarantee that it has any long term efficacy.
Of course, the pre-teen population is so less sexually active (and when active, so much less likely to be active with a previously contaminated partner) that I think it would be conservative to estimate that preteens are 5 times less likely to contract HPV dysplasias than the 16 to 26 year olds who were tested by Merck. So instead of saving 10 women per 1000 from painful treatments for HPV dysplasias, this vaccine would save perhaps 2 girls per 1000 from these procedures among the much younger population that Merck and Merck’s politicians are targeting for mandatory vaccination.
Do we really want to pursue a public policy that costs $360,000 to vaccinate every 1000 girls while exposing each and every one of these thousand girls to the known adverse short term and largely unknown long terms side effects of three injections of a new vaccine just to save two of the more sexually active of these kids from having to have their dysplasias treated conventionally? What kind of a risk and cost vs. benefit trade off is that?
Note that nowhere are we discussing actual incidences of cervical cancer because there is no clinical evidence whatsoever that GARDASIL reduces cervical cancer rates, and even if we place our hope in the the fact that it might, cervical cancer is simply not a meaningful health risk for any girl in the target vaccination population who is getting an annual pap smear.
Posted by: stickdog | Monday, February 05, 2007 at 04:25 AM
Dear stickdog . . .
I do not know how or why you began your research. I only trust that it is incredible and I greatly appreciate all the information you share.
I thank you so much for presenting all that you have here at BeThink. You certainly have stimulated a need for further thought and reflection.
This issue is obviously far more involved than a governor's executive order, and the effects it might have on the lives of young girls!
Posted by: Betsy L. Angert | Monday, February 05, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Thank you for the compliment. I don't know exactly why I started digging in on this one, either. Something just didn't smell right about, so I started reading the actual vaccination test studies to find out what was really going on.
While it is a widely accepted medical theory that HPV "causes" cervical cancer, it's not close to being a fact. Although the vast majority do, many cases of cervical cancer don't show any association with HPV. It's a very good guess that certain strains of HPV are necessary co-factors for certain highly prevalent types of cervical cancer to emerge. The two really bad strains protected for in GARDASIL go hand in hand with 70% of CURRENT cervical cancer cases. My point is that there are 36 nasty strains of HPV screened for currently, and the human body is an ecology. We have no idea how protection against the two strains of HPV that are CURRENTLY most prevalently associated with cervical cancer (typically decades after initial exposure) will affect overall cervical cancer rates far in the future.
What we instead DO know is that current practices of annual pap smears and screening for ALL bad strains of HPV continue to reduce rates of cervical cancer among the US population annually. If all US women received a pap smear every year and were then promptly treated for any abnormal growths encountered, both the cervical cancer contraction and mortality rates would plummet even further to the point where HPV-associated cervical cancer would kill no more than a handful of US women a year. Yes, that is a guess as well, but it's a far better guess than assuming that conferring protection against four of the myriad of current and future strains of harmful HPV will somehow do the trick.
Certainly GARDASIL's benefit data against the four strains of HPV it targets are compelling. HOWEVER, the benefit data against ALL forms of HPV are not published by Merck and estimated by OP-GYNs to be a mixed bag. The benefit data against cervical cancer itself are nonexistent. The long term risk data for any population are nonexistent. There are almost no risk data at all for pre-teens. The fact that the "placebo control" was a shot of alum that was recently shown to cause neural death in mice is particularly problematic in terms of interpreting the small amount of risk data that were gathered.
Studies of the long-term benefits of a new drug or vaccine take a long time. It would take several decades to prove conclusively that this vaccine prevents cervical cancer deaths. So why the rush to make these three injections COMPULSORY for preteens?
Perhaps this would be excusable if GARDASIL conferred protection against HPV generally, but it does not. We have absolutely no way of even guessing how conferring protection against four strains of HPV will affect cervical cancer rates decades down the line. If you do, please quantify the expected benefits in terms of the expected reduction of cervical cancer contraction and mortality rates for the population of US women who get annual pap smears. The only thing you can say about these number are that they are unknown and tiny.
I am not trying to stop anyone from signing up themselves or their kids for this. If you want to pay $360 to make your little girl one of Merck's test subjects, please do. As I said, the vaccine shows promise. It may be a life saver for a small segment of the population (especially those too poor or uninformed to get annual pap smears), and it offers protection against most genital warts and a good percentage of HPV dysplasias. The procedures to remove these warts and dysplasias are very painful, so these benefits are compelling. However, the risk and cost vs. benefit profile of this vaccine is not such that it is good public policy to mandate it -- especially not for a pre-teen population on which it has never been sufficiently tested -- even with an "opt out" clause. If Merck wants to make sure that women and parents who want it and can't afford it can get it, they should offer it to low income individuals and families on a sliding scale rather than lobbying state and federal governments to pony up the billions.
Posted by: stickdog | Monday, February 05, 2007 at 05:03 PM
The fact that Merck's vaccine protects against only 70 percent of the viruses that cause cervical cancer is key.
Pap smears, by contrast, can detect nearly 100% of cervical cancers. This is why Merck itself acknowledges that girls who receive the vaccine still need to have regular Pap smears.
But given all of the hype about Gardasil there is a real danger that girls who receive the vaccine will think that they are now "safe" and don't need Pap smears. Last weekend NBC news interviewed a young girl in Texas who expressed relief that she had been vaccinated: "Now this is one cancer I don't have to worry about fighting." No one corrected her.
Merck has been pushing Gardasil and pushing hard--enlisting of help of organizations like Planned Parenthood (which receives large contributions from Merck) because the company desperately needs a new blockbuster drug. After being forced to withdraw Vioxx from the market Merck is financially strapped. See the Wall Street Journal's stories about the vaccine--the Journal makes it clear that this is a busines story.
If Merck were primarily concerned with saving lives, it would make this vaccine available--at an affordable price--in the emerging world, where Pap smears are not readily available. Instead, it is charging $360, making Gardasil the most expensive vaccine after manufactured.
Posted by: Maggie Mahar | Saturday, February 10, 2007 at 01:46 PM
Dear Maggie Mahar . . .
I greatly appreciate your comment and conclusions. I think we must consider what is significant and was not stated when the young woman spoke to reporters. Gardasil does not prevent all strains of cervical cancer.
I agree with you; it is a very costly drug. It seem "immunizing" all young women will do more for the Merck bankroll than it will for young girls. The poor, those to not qualify for public assistance will not receive the vaccine. Those that do might consider the research on this drug. As stickdog shared, there is ample reason for caution.
I invite you to post this comment at BeThink.org. this, my newer site allows for greater conversation and dialogue. The direct link is, Texas Mandates STD Vaccination for Elementary Age Schoolgirls.
I think many would welcome your words. A full discussion of this executive order, and the broader initiation of the drug, is essential. I believe we must assess, what does this mean for America, about America, for young girls, and what might this mean for or about Merck Pharmaceuticals.
Posted by: Betsy L. Angert | Saturday, February 10, 2007 at 07:44 PM
Vaccines are POISON. The only one[s] who benefit from vaccines are PHARMACEUTICALS. Lots of Vitamin D will protect you from the flu and many other diseases. DON'T be fooled by paid off media hype. STOP the sickening assault on humanity.
Posted by: STOP THE VAX | Sunday, August 30, 2009 at 03:19 AM