H1N1 vaccine flu mist package insert - SHOULD READ before taking vaccine

Please read the following excerpts from the package insert for the H1N1 vaccine (delivery - flu-mist) and then, read the insert itself. I have referenced the sections the excerpts were taken from for your convenience. The insert is a PDF file on the FDA website.

Package insert for H1N1 vaccine:

Contraindications:


Do NOT give to Children less than 24 months old

5.1 Risks in Children <24 Months of Age

DO NOT give to people with asthma - has not been studied in individuals with severe asthma!

5.2 Asthma/Recurrent Wheezing
Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal or FluMist should not be administered to any individuals with asthma or children < 5 years of age with recurrent wheezing because of the potential for increased risk of wheezing post vaccination unless the potential benefit outweighs the potential risk.
Do not administer Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal or FluMist to individuals with severe asthma or active wheezing because these individuals have not been studied in clinical trials.

DO NOT GIVE TO Immune challenged (was studied in 57 people who were HIV positive but they say not enough data to justify administering in this group)

5.4 Altered Immunocompetence
Administration of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal, or FluMist live virus vaccine, to immunocompromised persons should be based on careful consideration of potential benefits and risks. Although FluMist was studied in 57 asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic adults with HIV infection [see Clinical Studies (14.3)], data supporting the safety and effectiveness of FluMist administration in immunocompromised individuals are limited.

"May not protect all individuals receiving the vaccine"

5.7 Limitations of Vaccine Effectiveness
Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal may not protect all individuals receiving the vaccine.

Later, they admitted the vaccine had not been evaluated for effectiveness (way down in the document!) Different story from what we have read on the news, right?

Clinical trials - adverse reactions:

6.1 Adverse Reactions in Clinical Trials

Increased hospitalizations in children receiving "flu mist"

Most hospitalizations observed were gastrointestinal and respiratory tract infections and occurred more than 6 weeks post vaccination. In post hoc analysis, rates of hospitalization in children 6-11 months of age (n = 1376) were 6.1% in FluMist recipients and 2.6% in active control recipients.

Adverse reactions in adults: (same section as above)

In adults 18-49 years of age in Study AV009, summary of solicited adverse events occurring in at least 1% of FluMist recipients and at a higher rate compared to placebo include runny nose (44% FluMist vs. 27% placebo), headache (40% FluMist vs. 38% placebo), sore throat (28% FluMist vs. 17% placebo), tiredness/weakness (26% FluMist vs. 22% placebo), muscle aches (17% FluMist vs. 15% placebo), cough (14% FluMist vs. 11% placebo), and chills (9% FluMist vs. 6% placebo).
In addition to the solicited events, other adverse reactions from Study AV009 occurring in at least 1% of FluMist recipients and at a higher rate compared to placebo were: nasal congestion (9% FluMist vs. 2% placebo) and sinusitis (4% FluMist vs. 2% placebo).

Post marketing experience: adverse reactions i.e. these are side effects of the vaccine noticed after they started marketing the vaccine!

6.2 Postmarketing Experience

Congenital, familial and genetic disorder: Exacerbation of symptoms of mitochondrial encephalomyopathy (Leigh syndrome).
Gastrointestinal disorders: Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea
Immune system disorders: Hypersensitivity reactions (including anaphylactic reaction, facial edema and urticaria)
Nervous system disorders: Guillain-Barré syndrome, Bell’s Palsy
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders: Epistaxis
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders: Rash

This vaccine is NOT approved for people, over 50 years old:

8.5 Geriatric Use
Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal is not approved for use in individuals .65 years of age. Subjects with underlying high-risk medical conditions (n=200) were studied for safety. Compared to controls, FluMist recipients had a higher rate of sore throat.

8.6 Use in Individuals 50-64 Years of Age
Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal is not approved for use in individuals 50-64 years of age. In Study AV009, effectiveness of FluMist was not demonstrated in individuals 50-64 years of age (n=641). Solicited adverse events were similar in type and frequency to those reported in younger adults.

They don't really understand HOW it works: (and how well it works)

12.1 Mechanism of Action
Immune mechanisms conferring protection against influenza following receipt of FluMist vaccine are not fully understood. Likewise, naturally acquired immunity to wild-type influenza has not been completely elucidated. Serum antibodies, mucosal antibodies and influenza-specific T cells may play a role in prevention and recovery from infection.

They don't know if this vaccine will cause infertility or cancer:

13.1 Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility
Neither Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal nor FluMist have been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential or potential to impair fertility.

This vaccine has not been found effective in people over 50 years old. In a subgroup of adults, 18-49, the vaccine reduced illness with fever from 10 percent to 23 percent. This was a study in non high risk adults i.e. adults with no other medical conditions.

14.2 Study in Adults

Effectiveness for any of the three endpoints was not demonstrated in a subgroup of adults 50-64 years of age. Primary and secondary effectiveness endpoints from the age group 18-49 years of age are presented in Table 5.

While in a double blind study (57 in experimental group) of adults with HIV, the vaccine did not cause any worsening of their condition, they did not know whether or not it was effective in proventing the swine flu:

14.3 Study in Adults with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection
Safety and shedding of vaccine virus following FluMist administration were evaluated in 57 HIV-infected [median CD4 cell count of 541 cells/mm3] and 54 HIV-negative adults 18-58 years of age in a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial using the frozen formulation. No serious adverse events were reported during the one-month follow-up period. Vaccine strain (type B) virus was detected in 1 of 28 HIV-infected subjects on Day 5 only and none of the HIV-negative FluMist recipients. No adverse effects on HIV viral load or CD4 counts were identified following FluMist. The effectiveness of FluMist in preventing influenza illness in HIV-infected individuals has not been evaluated.

Medical providers were told that they can receive the shot and immediately go back to their patients without worrying about transmitting the viruses to their patients. But that's NOT what the package insert says... on the contrary, they DO NOT KNOW whether or not these viruses can be transmitted:

14.5 Transmission Study
FluMist contains live attenuated influenza viruses that must infect and replicate in cells lining the nasopharynx of the recipient to induce immunity. Vaccine viruses capable of infection and replication can be cultured from nasal secretions obtained from vaccine recipients. The relationship of viral replication in a vaccine recipient and transmission of vaccine viruses to other individuals has not been established.

Although the PDF distributed to medical providers (containing a bunch of myths about the safety and efficacy of this vaccine) never mentioned this, look what *I* found on the LAST PAGE of the package insert information... basically MEDICAL PROVIDERS SHOULD GIVE INFORMED CONSENT about this vaccine:

That is, the package insert says on the last page that your provider of the vaccine should let you know ALL OF THE ABOVE BEFORE you consent to take the vaccine!

17 PATIENT COUNSELING INFORMATION
Vaccine recipients or their parents/guardians should be informed by the health care provider of the potential benefits and risks of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal, and should be advised that there are two influenza vaccine formulations for this influenza season, the monovalent vaccine against disease caused by pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus and seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine.

Convenient URL to share to read this package insert which is on the FDA website:

http://tinyurl.com/H1N1-pkg-insert (copy into email or blog)

testing a new vaccine - H1N1 but not telling you about it

ABC has a video on their site showing several doctors who have the same concerns many people have about the swine flu vaccine - fast tracked, untested, too new - and are telling their patients to wait on this one. ABC news "medical expert" stated pretty much the same inaccuracies that our state health dept stated in the PDF below... "oh no, it's totally pure, been throughly tested" (in three months of testing?) And "it's the same as the regular flu vaccine" which is totally inaccurate - it's a totally NEW vaccine in concept, formulation and delivery.

Following are the inaccuracies the CDC in conjunction with the media and health depts are telling people all over the USA - this seems one step further than just not giving us informed consent that they are actually testing a new vaccine on US!

This is taken from a document released from our state health dept, a PDF to medical providers and contains pretty much the same inaccuracies I've heard from several places - here is the "informed consent information" people SHOULD be given about this new vaccine:

1. "You cannot get the flu from attenuated virus vaccines"

Inaccurate: you CAN get the illness from ANY LIVE virus vaccine.... do health care workers really not know this fact?

2. "Fact 6: The H1N1 vaccine has been properly and rigorously tested for safety and efficacy."

Inaccurate: This vaccine was "fast tracked" meaning it's not been well tested for EITHER safety OR efficacy. That's impossible with a fast tracked medication. Furthermore, its delivery as "flu mist" inhaled is controversial because concerns have been raised about the viruses attenuated or other (there are ALWAYS SOME WHICH DO NOT GET WEAKENED in live virus vaccine) crossing the blood / brain barrier and causing problems. Which is why "flu mist" has never been a real popular delivery... despite it being more "attractive" than an injection.

A friend of mine saw a CDC person interviewed on TV - he admitted that they were basically testing this on the public who will receive the vaccine. That's a no brainer with a very different vaccine which has been "fast tracked" to FDA approval.

3. "Fact 7: Multi-dose vials of H1N1 vaccine contain safe amounts of thimerosal, a vaccine preservative, which prevents contamination with bacteria and fungi."

Partially accurate. Thimerosal which is a type of mercury, is used as a preservative but there has been NO SAFE amount established and some studies have linked the receiving of a yearly flu shot with higher risk of neurological disease and Alzheimers. Mercury is highly toxic even in minute amounts.

4. "Fact 8: No causal connection has been found linking the use of thimerosal as a vaccine preservative and the incidence of autism, speech or language delay, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder"

Not accurate - some studies have found a link between the MMR and autism which has SUDDENLY greatly increased in incidence, including a well done clinical study of several years duration in the UK which has been ignored by the American media. (You know like the 38 worldwide studies suggesting a link between abortion and breast cancer have been ignored by the AMC and the AMA?)

5. "Fact 9: Healthcare workers can safely receive the live attenuated (“weakened”) Influenza virus vaccine (Flumist) and go back to work immediately without risk of spreading the weakened virus to their patients UNLESS they work directly with bone marrow transplant patients."

May be inaccurate as flu can take 7-10 days to incubate and in that period, a person is said to be the most contagious.

6. "Fact 10: There is a much higher risk of getting Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) from having influenza illness than from getting vaccinated for influenza."

The CDC has admitted in other places, that there IS a risk of Guillain Barre with the H1N1 vaccine, specifically, and that it is unknown what that risk is. In 1976, they had 4000 cases of GBS FROM the vaccine and, by the way, the "great pandemic" predicted, never hit.

Australia ordered a version of the H1N1 vaccine without Thimerosal, without squalene and with DEAD viruses.... (i.e. their National Health Service).

The H1N1 vaccine also contains an adjuvant called "squalene" which is supposed to enhance the immune system however this has been poorly tested if at all and some studies have suggested it as a factor in the "Gulf war syndrome" (the vaccines given the soldiers had this in it and vaccines have not contained it since).

OK, Here's my take on this. The vaccine for H1N1 is TOTALLY new in every way for a flu vaccine, even the delivery. They are beta testing it on the public and if they pull it off i.e. do not have disastrous side effects, then think of what they will have... a vaccine which (1) enhances the immune system, (2) delivers a better immunity than a dead virus vaccine (though so far NONE of them deliver more than a couple of years immunity) and (3) has an attractive delivery system.... no shot!

Doing the math... a BIG SELLER! If they do have disastrous side effects, then they will say "oh well" because you know what.. the American public has a very short memory and so not much damage will be done... No one will remember it a couple of years down the line. So not really much of a risk for the pharmaceutical but a big risk for the American public who is NOT getting "informed consent" not even the medical providers... and if they JUST can test it on medical providers that will be enough of a test base for them. thousands. (a large segment of the public is NOT getting the H1N1 vaccine).

There was an article in Scientific American detailing this process - the fact that the pharmaceuticals (and surgeons) have to do this sort of thing with beta testing new procedures and drugs on the public largely because experimentation on human beings is against the law. They took the example of giving O2 to premies on the theory that it would help them... this blinded thousands of kids. They stated that if they had done a double blind study - 600 receive O2 and 600 do not, they would have found out within a year that o2 can cause blindness and you would have had no more than 600 blind babies instead of the thousands blinded over the 10 years they were testing this. But then, even if human experimentation WERE legal, who would volunteer?

They have done this sort of "beta test" several times... it's not a new concept and if Americans READ more instead of getting most of their info from TV, they would know this process... "who does not study history, is doomed to repeat it"

figures, statistics and lies

Today, I got an "alternate health" ad in the mail. It claimed that the number 36,000 deaths a year from flu was a false figure and in fact only about 750 people died a year from the flu and "that was from the CDC".

I didn't believe it. I had never questioned the 36,000 deaths a year from the flu and had quoted the figure myself because it came from the CDC.

But the ad got my curiosity going. Easy enough to look up. I looked up "FLU DEATHS" CDC" and got this page.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm

As you can see, it IS on the CDC website. Turns out that the truth (according to the CDC) is no one KNOWS how many die from the flu so the estimations were made from a percentage of those who die from respiratory disease deaths and other mathematical constructs.

The CDC writes:

Does CDC know the exact number of people who die from flu each year?

CDC does not know exactly how many people die from flu each year. There are several reasons for this: First, states are not required to report individual flu cases or deaths of people older than 18 years of age to CDC. Second, influenza is infrequently listed on death certificates of people who die from flu-related complications [12]. Third, many flu-related deaths occur one or two weeks after a person’s initial infection, either because the person may develop a secondary bacterial co-infection (such as a staph infection) [1,8,11] or because influenza can aggravate an existing chronic illness (such as congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) [3]. Also, most people who die from flu-related complications are not tested for flu, or they seek medical care later in their illness when influenza can no longer be detected from respiratory samples. Influenza tests are only likely to detect influenza if performed within a week after onset of illness. For these reasons, many flu-related deaths may not be recorded on death certificates. These are some of the reasons that CDC and other public health agencies in the United States and other countries use statistical models to estimate the annual number of flu-related deaths. ***

Oh - that's enlightening! No one KNOWS so they use a mathematical model to come up with the 36,000 deaths a year from the flu. Here is it, right from the horse's mouth! But when this figure is quoted, have you ever heard they say they really DO NOT KNOW how many a year die from the flu and that the deaths are usually from something else? hmmmm

This even shocked ME....Somehow I had never questioned the 36,000 deaths they were claiming...

So why DOES the CDC "ESTIMATE" the number of deaths from flu (and puff it up... hmmm)

Here is their answer to that one:

Why does CDC estimate deaths associated with flu?

CDC feels it is important to convey the full burden of flu to the public. Flu is a serious disease that causes illness and deaths nearly every year in the United States. CDC estimates of annual influenza-associated deaths in the United States are made using well-established scientific methods that have been reviewed by scientists outside of CDC [10]. CDC feels that these estimates are a timely representation of the current burden of flu on the United States.

But these numbers are used by the media etc to scare folks into getting the vaccine which is BIG MONEY for the manufacturers....

Enlightening. That's why it's good to read EVERYTHING. I didn't believe the alternate health ad but that claim was bold enough for me to question something I might have never questioned and which, I guess, should have been questioned in the first place.

So let's talk about the proposed Health Care program. Obama tells us that the concerns of the public are all because of the evil Republicans and all a bunch of lies.

For example, abortion won't be paid for in the Health care bill, he tells us. But the bill says different. ALL SURGERIES are paid for and abortion is a surgery. So some Democrats and Republicans tried to introduce amendments that made sure abortion was EXCEPTED out of surgeries. And the amendments failed.

If abortion is not paid for, why didn't the amendments pass? We all remember the youtube video how Obama promised Planned Parenthood that he would not deviate from his total abortion stance (from conception to birth).

Seniors are concerned that the Health Care bill might mean rationing of care for seniors. Obama answers us with "there is no rationing in the bill" and that seniors are not to worry but seniors were not born yesterday. Treating seniors is expensive and they suspect unless there is an amendment which GUARANTEES them treatment, they don't trust Obama's reassurance, especially when he admitted that it was right to not give his grandmother a joint replacement and has talked about how expensive it was to treat seniors when they might only have a few years of life left. Seniors know that the expensive health care program has to be paid for in some manner and that in other plans, care IS rationed to save bucks.

This is not the "evil Republicans" or "insurance companies". This is just people finally beginning to do what they should have done in the first place. Question - everything and trust - no one.

You know the old "In God we trust - all others pay cash" idea?

Vaccines - how urgently do we need them?

As people who know me, know, I am very against hard advertising of medical procedures and drugs to the public. As for vaccines, I don't know HOW I feel about them. I'm not totally against them but I feel perhaps, they are overused in our society and have become a cash cow.

Gardasil the so called HPV vaccine is being more heavily (and emotionally) advertised than many other drugs and I ask myself - why does the pharmaceutical company feel it has to spend this type of money on advertising this vaccine.

Perhaps because the side effects of the vaccine are a bit much for many people? Apparently the CDC has received thousands of complaints and some of them are serious things like serious illness and death.

Also according the ads, gardasil does NOT cover all the viruses causing HPV. According to one article I read, it only covers FOUR of the 100 some HPV viruses. That doesn't seem very many.

But another niggling doubt I have, is this business of "blaming" unvaccinated kids for the outbreaks of things like measles, AMONG vaccinated kids. We would think that if a kid was vaccinated, they would be IMMUNE to the viruses, right? I mean isn't that the idea of vaccination in the first place?

The only "excuse" I've heard is "well vaccines aren't 100 percent effective".

Well duh. If they have a measles outbreak among vaccinated kids, it seems they are a lot LESS than 100 percent effective. It seems they are not very effective at all.

This year's flu vaccine covered apparently none of the flu's going around. "OOPS" said the manufacturers.

But I've seen that the flu vaccine only seems to cover the prevailent flu about once in every 10 years. I experienced that myself when as a good girl, following my doctor's advice when I was pregnant, I took the flu vaccine that year. I still got the flu which was going around. I decided forget that vaccine and have never taken it again. So when the swine flu vaccine came around which was supposed to "protect us" from the threatened "pandemic", I skipped taking that one too. Good thing, because 40 percent of those who took it, got a serious complication from it, much worse than the flu it was supposed to protect against, like Guillan Barre or "French Polio". And the threatened pandemic like so many of the other "media crisis" never arrived.

So again, why take it especially when it's one of the vaccines that still contains mercury as a preservative?

And really I would like to hear more about how "not completely effective" these vaccines are because today's new born baby has received a bunch of vaccinations before he or she is even 3 months old. And some studies (which the pharmaceuticals have tried to discount) have found a connection between some vaccines like the MMR and autism.

Maybe there are good reasons to take vaccines but it seems that no one is talking to us - except the anti vaccine folks who have come up with some rather good reasons to say "no" to many vaccines.

And to those questioning like myself, seems that the pro vaccine folks ought to be able to answer some of my questions and doubts about vaccines if vaccines are REALLY as great as these folks are claiming.

I do remember when the Salk vaccine came out. We were shown photos of kids from the 1940's in the "iron lung" wards and sufficiently scared about polio. We were never told that modern sanitation and good medical care is all that is needed in most cases to prevent disability.

We knew a post polio guy who was a quadriplegic. One of his Dad's favorite tricks was to stick his head in the toilet where there was usually urine (Mom didn't flush the toilet after going most times). The house they lived in was more than filthy and he surely, an unwanted kid, didn't get much medical care when he GOT the disease.

But frankly I didn't know any kids in any school I went to who got polio. And my mother wisely kept us out of park swimming pools because in the 1950's they didn't know that chlorine didn't work if the water was not of an acid PH.

We just accepted that it was a "grave danger" based on the photos from the 1940's and early 1950's of the "iron lung" wards.

Later on, the Sabin vaccine came out. Our son had that but I had my doubts about it. We knew it caused a certain percentage of cases of polio because it was a "live virus" vaccine. And in the last decade, the Sabin vaccine (taken by mouth) has all but disappeared - why? Because they realized that most of the cases of polio they were seeing in the 1st world were CAUSED by the vaccine.

I do know that if a person wants to keep immune using the vaccine "system" they have to get the full compliment of vaccines every 2 years. And of course, that's something even the pharmaceuticals with heavy duty emotionally based advertising couldn't push down our throats.

But since vaccines have prevented some of us from HAVING those childhood diseases like measles and mumps and German measles which gave us a lifetime immunity, I think many folks are walking around and NOT immune to these diseases (because they are not getting vaccinated every 2 years to keep up their immunity) but in our modern sanitized society, it apparently isn't that much of a danger.

Great sell for the manufacturers, isn't it? Did anyone do the math about the profits on vaccinating babies (breast fed babies are immune and don't need vaccination because the mother's anti bodies are passed through breast milk) and lining up our kids for one time vaccinations? I suspect it even makes the diet industry profits pale by comparison.

Don't get me wrong. I am not against vaccines, but I think if they are so important as the media seems to feel, why can't those folks answer some of my questions better than "well, it's better than nothing" or "well vaccines aren't 100 percent effective". I think if they want us to take these jabs, they should give us better information than that? Unreasonable of me? So bite me! :)

the only way to prevent cervical cancer?

About a year ago, someone (or someones) came up with the bright idea that they should force all 12 year old girls to have a vaccination against HPV. Well, actually we know who the someones were. The manufacturer which to date has made millions of bucks with this new vaccine, Gardasil.

Merck, has spent millions of dollars promoting this vaccine, using one of their best weapons, TV ads. Healthy slim smiling young ladies are shown in a PE class (in one of the ads) saying how happy they were to be "protected" against cervical cancer. In the background, one hears the necessary disclaimers "this vaccine does not protect against all types of cervical cancer nor does it prevent STD". But how many listen to the background disclaimers anyway?

The American College of Pediatricians came out with a statement against the forced vaccination of 12 year old girls with the HPV vaccine as a requirement to attend school in 2007. They brought up the following points:

1. the vaccine is tested but long term immunity is not known yet. The College suggests establishing data banks to trace how effective the vaccine is, on the long term. As the college stated "waning protection is an issue with almost every vaccine"

2. parents rights should be respected as to whether they want their girls to receive the vaccine or not. It may not be appropriate for MOST young girls unless it is known that they are very sexually active and having unprotected sex. Receiving the vaccine should be totally voluntary on the part of the individual, states the ACP and medical providers should inform parents that the ONLY TOTAL protection from infection is abstinence.

3. AT LEAST (that they know of) 30 percent of HPV is caused by strains NOT covered in the vaccine

4. the trials were only 2-4 years long - but the average time from infection with HPV to cervical cancer is 20 years (probably why some experts have opined that the vaccine may not be needed because pap smears identify atypical cells long before the person is in danger of cervical cancer and it can be treated at that time)

5. Basically the position of the ACP is that there are far too many questions yet to be answered about this vaccine, that cervical cancer can be prevented through regular pap smears and treatment of HPV long before there is a danger of cervical cancer and that parents rights and the right of the individual to make the decision whether or not to get the vaccine, should be respected.

It should be noted that in the double blind trials with the HPV vaccine, individuals in the vaccinated cohort showed 16.5 percent fewer procedures for cervical problems involving HPV and 25 percent fewer genital warts.... this is not exactly total protection considering that this vaccine can cause some rather serious repercussions like Guillian Barre' etc. We should also remember that these trials were run by the manufacturer of the vaccine - and in the Phen Fen trials, Ayrest-Wyeth admitted that removing negative results was "common practice in the pharmaceutical industry thus the less than impressive results from the Merck trials might have been "sanitized"....

The Chicago Sun Times also ran an OP-Ed against forced vaccination - their reasons were simple - parents should have the final say. The Sun Times pointed out that the jabs were expensive (about $120 bucks a piece) and that a series might consist of 3 of them.

Recently another news article described the vaccine injection as a big "OUCH" for many girls (some have fainted or gotten other reactions).

In this, as in all vaccines, parents should proceed with caution especially as the long term repercussions of the vaccine itself are not known (and many vaccines concern a type of mercury used for preservative, that some studies have suggested can raise the risk for certain disorders like Parkinson's). Also, most vaccines are only good for a couple of years and boosters are needed regularly to continue protection.

There is a much simpler way to protect our teens against HPV. This also protects teens against HIV, and STD as well as broken relationships. What is this magic bullet? Abstinence outside of marriage. The argument is, of course, that teens cannot abstain. I think this is underestimating our teens. I have yet to meet the teen who doesn't WANT to abstain after they really learn the repercussions of NOT abstaining. As the Gardasil vaccine has an "OUCH" factor and unknown protection and/or repercussions, shall we give teaching our teens about abstinence, a good try before allowing our daughters the Gardasil injection?