Home > Preventable Diseases, Testimonials > Protecting the Next Generation from HPV

Protecting the Next Generation from HPV

On the last day of school, my daughter brought home a flyer that I wasn’t necessarily expecting.  It explained that the state law requires the Department of Health to provide the parents of rising sixth grade girls with information on Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and the Human Papilomavirus vaccine.  It went on to explain that some strains of HPV cause cervical cancer in women and that the vaccine targets the strains of HPV that most commonly cause cancer.  I was suprised to learn that cervical cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among women around the world, and that in the US about 10,000 woment get cervical cancer every year.  Sadly, 4,000 women are expected to die each year. As the most common sexually transmitted virus in the US, at least 50% of sexually active people will have genital HPV at some time in their lives.

While the HPV vaccine is not required by our state, the law requires notification, which is why I was receiving the flyer.

I wondered, “How many other children shared this with their parents?”  and “How many parents will take the time and effort to get their children vaccinated against HPV, considering it is not requried?”  I guess I will never know the answers to those questions, but I do know that my daughter took it seriously.  Later that day, or maybe even a day or two after (to be honest, I’m not exactly certain as the first week of summer vacation is always a blur) my daughter asked me – point blank – when she was scheduled to get her vaccine.

I’m fairly certain that my daughter doesn’t know what HPV is.  And she most likely doesn’t realize that it is spread through sexual contact.  What she does know is that it helps prevent CANCER – a word she knows all too well.  A word that she would like to avoid in her life.

As hard as it is to admit, some day my little girl will be having sexual relations and I for one want to ensure that she is protected against HPV.  Much like the mother in this Shot By Shot video below, I plan to vaccinate my daughter to protect her from acquiring HPV.

This women’s experience with cervical cancer illustrates how HPV can permenantly impact people’s lives. She shares her story so that others will appreciate the value of this vaccine and take preventive measures. I hope lots of parents will consider this vaccine for both their sons and daughters, regardless of whether it is required by the state or not.

  1. Kari
    June 30, 2011 at 11:09 am

    I found out I had in situ cervical cancer when I was 28 years old and had to have a total hysterectomy. I have had exactly 1 sexual encounter other than with my husband and just want parents everywhere to know that EVERYONE is at risk. Thankfully I was fortunate enough to have already been married and had my 3 beautiful children but many women this age have not even begun to contemplate starting their families. I urge all parents everywhere to ensure their children are vaccinated against this disease. Not only to prevent cancer, but to protect their fertility.

    Like

  2. Cindy
    June 30, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    Did your notification explain that there are over 100 HPVs and that the vaccine protects against only the HPVs that cause about 70 percent of cancers? Did it explain that even if the vaccine is fully protective for your daughter through the time she needs it — meaning it doesn’t wear off in a few years (as Gardasil is showing to do) that she still can get cervical cancer from the other 30 percent of HPVs? Did it happen to share with you that the vaccine does NOT work if your daughter is already positive for HPV? Did it explain that HPV is spread in other ways than sex, and that even babies have tested positive for HPV, so the possibility of your daughter having had HPV already is real? Did it tell you that most HPVs clear up on their own? Did it also explain that it doesn’t matter whether your daughter has the vaccine or not, that she still must get the Pap test? Did it also explain that the vaccine wasn’t tested on girls under age 15– that the actual testing is YOUR daughter getting the shot? Did it tell you that the main researcher for this vaccine said it would take vaccinating EVERY 11-year-old girl in the U.S. for the NEXT 70 years to make one iota of a difference in cervical cancer in the U.S.? Oh, and did it happen to mention the thousands of little girls who have been damaged by this vaccine, who are listed in the VAERS, or those who have DIED from it? Didn’t think so.

    Like

  3. June 30, 2011 at 3:11 pm

    Cindy :
    Did your notification explain that there are over 100 HPVs and that the vaccine protects against only the HPVs that cause about 70 percent of cancers? Did it explain that even if the vaccine is fully protective for your daughter through the time she needs it — meaning it doesn’t wear off in a few years (as Gardasil is showing to do) that she still can get cervical cancer from the other 30 percent of HPVs? Did it happen to share with you that the vaccine does NOT work if your daughter is already positive for HPV? Did it explain that HPV is spread in other ways than sex, and that even babies have tested positive for HPV, so the possibility of your daughter having had HPV already is real? Did it tell you that most HPVs clear up on their own? Did it also explain that it doesn’t matter whether your daughter has the vaccine or not, that she still must get the Pap test? Did it also explain that the vaccine wasn’t tested on girls under age 15– that the actual testing is YOUR daughter getting the shot? Did it tell you that the main researcher for this vaccine said it would take vaccinating EVERY 11-year-old girl in the U.S. for the NEXT 70 years to make one iota of a difference in cervical cancer in the U.S.? Oh, and did it happen to mention the thousands of little girls who have been damaged by this vaccine, who are listed in the VAERS, or those who have DIED from it? Didn’t think so.

    Great post Cindy! You’re right, the article doesn’t mention any of these factors:)

    Like

  4. ChrisKid
    June 30, 2011 at 3:30 pm

    Probably because they’re nothing but inflammatory nonsense?
    Let’s see, is preventing 70% of cervical cancer better than preventing 0% of cervical cancer? I’d say yes it is.
    Is HPV spread in other ways than sexual intercourse? Yes, it is, which is why it’s a good idea to protect younger adolescents, since they often engage in other sexual behaviors, such as oral sex. The vaccine protects them in that situation, too. If you meant other ways than any sexual behavior, can you provide a cite for that, please? I’d guess that even if your claim that babies have tested positive for HPV is true, it’s such a rarity that it has no real bearing on risk for the general population.
    Why would you think that the vaccine would have any bearing on whether women need a Pap test? Good medical practice, such as diagnostic prevention, is still good medical practice, and since no vaccine is perfect (as is nothing else in life) and since the HPV vaccine protects against only 70% of cervical cancers, of course detecting any that still occur is a good idea. But again, what does that have to do with the overall benefit from the vaccine?
    Your comment about the ‘main researcher’? Cite, please? And did you know that statistics from Australia are already showing lower cancer rates in the years since the vaccine has been in use? IF your main researcher said what you claim, it seems s/he might well have been wrong.
    Thousands of little girls damaged by this vaccine? Again, cite, please? Something verified, not just random VAERS reports? Same for your claim of deaths. Evidence, please, or we’ll know it isn’t remotely true.

    Like

  5. Nathan
    June 30, 2011 at 7:04 pm

    Did your notification explain that there are over 100 HPVs and that the vaccine protects against only the HPVs that cause about 70 percent of cancers?

    Probably. According to the post, it “went on to explain that some strains of HPV cause cervical cancer in women and that the vaccine targets the strains of HPV that most commonly cause cancer.

    A vaccine that has the potential to reduce cervical cancer by that much sounds pretty good to me.

    Did it explain that even if the vaccine is fully protective for your daughter through the time she needs it — meaning it doesn’t wear off in a few years (as Gardasil is showing to do) that she still can get cervical cancer from the other 30 percent of HPVs?

    That is the same as the first question. But Gardasil is not showing signs of “wearing off in a few years.” It has not shown signs of wearing off after 5-6 years in the research I have seen, and longer term studies are expected to also show protection.

    Did it happen to share with you that the vaccine does NOT work if your daughter is already positive for HPV?

    Really? Will it not help prevent the strains in the vaccine that she does not yet have? You may be correct, but it sounds illogical. I would like to see some evidence.

    The CDC states, “People who have already had sexual contact before getting all 3 doses of an HPV vaccine might still benefit if they were not infected before vaccination with the HPV types included in the vaccine they received.” Certainly does not indicate to me that the vaccine will NOT work. Certainly not with the NOT in all caps, which to me means “absolutely not.”

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/hpv/vac-faqs.htm

    Did it explain that HPV is spread in other ways than sex, and that even babies have tested positive for HPV, so the possibility of your daughter having had HPV already is real?

    It seems unlikely that the flyer would mention this, or the rest of the questions, since they are getting increasingly obscure. The vaccine is recommended for 11-12 year olds. It is a small minority indeed that is going to have genital HPV by this age. In fact, this sounds to me like another reason for daughters to get the vaccine, since there are other ways for them to contract HPV than just sexual intercourse.

    Did it tell you that most HPVs clear up on their own?

    This is not much condolence to the 4000 or so women who die annually from cervical cancer caused from HPV that did not clear.

    Did it also explain that it doesn’t matter whether your daughter has the vaccine or not, that she still must get the Pap test?

    I have no idea why it would mention this, since it has very little bearing on the importance of the HPV vaccine. Pap tests are important for a variety of reasons. It’s like saying airbags are a bad idea because you still have to wear your seatbelt.

    Did it also explain that the vaccine wasn’t tested on girls under age 15– that the actual testing is YOUR daughter getting the shot?

    Probably not, because it would be lying. According to this review, “In 5 clinical trials, 21,480 girls/women aged 9 to 26 years and boys aged 9 to 16 years received >or=1 dose of HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine or placebo. All serious and non-serious adverse experiences (AEs) and new medical conditions were recorded for the entire study period(s).”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19952863

    Did it tell you that the main researcher for this vaccine said it would take vaccinating EVERY 11-year-old girl in the U.S. for the NEXT 70 years to make one iota of a difference in cervical cancer in the U.S.?

    Citation please? It is already reducing precancerous lesions.
    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)60551-5/abstract

    Oh, and did it happen to mention the thousands of little girls who have been damaged by this vaccine, who are listed in the VAERS, or those who have DIED from it? Didn’t think so.

    Probably not, since VAERS does not list things that happen from a vaccine, it lists things that happened after a vaccine. Since there were no more serious adverse events (and certainly not deaths) in studies involving tens of thousands of people in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, the vast majority (if not all) of serious VAERS reports certainly don’t represent reactions to the vaccine. For the notification to act as if they do would be quite dishonest.

    Like

  6. Cindy
    July 1, 2011 at 8:42 am

    Answers for Nathan: Indeed, Gardasil’s efficacy is waning. First, Diane Harper, one of the lead researchers who invented the vaccine, said so at the NVIC conference in 2009. Second, it was reported by Merck itself that efficacy drops dramatically as soon as the girls/women are exposed sexually. Third, MarketWatch reported that the efficacy drops with sexual exposure as well — at the exact time they need. And fourth — and probably most significant — Merck’s clinical trials reported that they actually gave their study women an extra booster shot at five years to keep up the waning efficacy — which means in a couple years they’re going to be pushing boosters on these girls. Another note: Dr. Harper also reported that Gardasil’s protection against warts is only TWO years (remember, this vaccine protects only 2 of over 100 that can lead to cervical cancer when the dysplasia is left untreated. As far as age groups go, Merck’s own trial reports specify that efficacy was tested only on girls/women ages 16 and up. The girls under that age were tested only for specified “safety” events that included rash, injection site swelling/pain, etc. Also, the clinical studies are questionable anyway because the “placebo” actually contained the adjuvant aluminum. There were saline studies that were done — but in the end they weren’t used. But if you look them you will see that the safety “issues” would have sent up some red flags because the REAL placebos — saline — had so few adverse events. But the aluminum so-called placebos were close to what the vaccine showed. Next, for all the 4000 women who will die of cervical cancer this year. Can you say definitively that all 4000 will have gotten cancer from the 2 HPVs in the vaccine? How do you know it isn’t/wasn’t from the other 98 that cause cancer? Also, it’s very important to note that most women who die from cervical cancer haven’t gotten a Pap test in the past 5 years. Which brings up the subject of making sure that girls know when they get these shots that they absolutely must continue with Pap tests. If you look on blogs and teen chat sites, you’ll see that the girls got/are getting the shots are all pleased that they now “won’t have to have a Pap test.” VERY DANGEROUS THINKING. And as far as already reducing precancerous lesions, that in itself is suspect because scientists have no way of knowing, other than manipulation of statistics, how many women might have gotten cervical dysplasia that would lead to cancer. Yes, they do have some indication that fewer women in control groups get CIN 2 or 3, but ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF THAT THEY’LL NEVER GET CANCER. This is an HPV vaccine, not a cancer vaccine because of that one little thing — you still have a 1/3 chance of gettng it from the other 98 or so HPVs. The only thing that stops you is regular cancer/Pap test screening. And it was also Dr. Harper who said in a public meeting that you’d have to vaccinate all girls in the U.S. for 70 years to make an iota of difference in cancer rates here, primarily because the rates are practically negligible already. Again, the other 1/3 of HPVs that cause cervical cancer come into play here. The bottom line is there are thousands of reports in the VAERs. And even the CDC has admitted that probably only 1 percent of adverse reactions get reported to VAERS. Oh– and there’s the small matter of all the dead girls who received this vaccine. You can argue that it wasn’t the vaccine. But don’t tell that to Jenny Tetlock’s parents, who are scientists and who followed up her case to the bitter end, and who discovered too late that this vaccine can be dangerous and lethal if you have any kind of immunological problems, hidden or known, when you get it. Which leads to my final argument — this vaccine was tested on women who were carefully screened and perfectly healthy with absolutely no hidden or known immunological problems. So if your daughter’s the healthiest around and there’s no MS or Lupus or ALS or arthritis, etc. anywhere in your family history, and you want to choose this, then great. It’s your choice. But don’t knock those who bother to study up on how this vaccine came to be — which is to help women in Third World countries who don’t have access to or resources for regular Pap screening.

    Like

  7. July 1, 2011 at 9:38 am

    http://www.expert-reviews.com/doi/full/10.1586/erv.09.120

    From Diane Harper

    Primary prevention of cervical cancer with Gardasil is limited to human papillomavirus (HPV)-16, -18 and -31-related CIN 2/3+ disease [5]. At the level of secondary screening, Gardasil has prevented 20% of abnormal Pap smears after 3 years of use [6], and maximally could prevent approximately 55% of abnormal Pap tests per year if 100% of the sexually active population is vaccinated. Among the other vaccinated women who go on to develop abnormal Pap tests (45%), colposcopy and biopsy are still necessary, putting them at risk for reproductive morbidities from excisional treatments.

    The benefit of vaccination for the individual is an increased chance that her continued Pap tests will be normal. There is no benefit to public health unless the protection lasts for at least 15 years and over 90% of all sexually active females of all ages are vaccinated [7], as cases of cervical cancer will merely be postponed, not prevented. The incidence of cervical cancer is estimated to remain at the current seven per 100,000 women, even with vaccination [8].

    The risks of serious adverse events, including death, reported after Gardasil administration were 3.4 per 100,000 doses distributed [1]. This rate is the best estimate that exists, but is factitious because the VAERS is incomplete. Under-reporting of serious adverse events is a commonly recognized occurrence as the reporting system is voluntary, physicians are not accustomed to reporting or linking adverse events to new medications/vaccines, and the process of reporting is cumbersome. Some argue that serious adverse events were over-reported for Gardasil due to the publicity surrounding the defeated legislative proposals for HPV vaccine mandates. Slade could only verify 772 unique serious adverse events due to incomplete reporting processes, thereby leaving under-reporting and undercounting as the source of numerator error [1]. Likewise, the denominator is based on doses distributed, not doses received, and is not calculated on a per-vaccinated-woman basis. Should the denominator in Slade’s work be adjusted to estimate doses received and then recalculated on a per-vaccinated-woman basis, the rate of serious adverse events could increase up to fivefold higher than the 3.4 per 100,000 reported [1].

    Like

  8. July 1, 2011 at 9:42 am

    In the same article

    Unlike Menactra® (Sanofi Pasteur, Lyon cedex, France), which prevents immediate death from meningitis with a known increased risk of Guillain–Barré syndrome, Gardasil will only prevent cervical cancers decades from now in women who continue to participate in Pap screening. The tolerance for serious adverse events in a vaccine that prevents a disease that can kill within 24 h after contracting the bacteria is different to the tolerance for serious adverse events in a vaccine that prevents disease from a virus that is mostly cleared by the body within 2 years of infection and does not progress to advanced stages of cancer unless there has been no screening for years.

    Like

  9. ChrisKid
    July 1, 2011 at 9:58 am

    Obviously, there’s a lot more in your comment that needs response, but first of all, this:
    “But even Jenny’s father makes clear that he does not want his daughter to become the poster child for the anti-Gardasil campaign. He cautions that it is by no means certain that Gardasil caused Jenny’s illness, and that there is no medical consensus on whether that hypothesis is stronger than other possible explanations. And he’s right.”
    Apparently Jenny Tetlock’s parents are scientists enough to understand the difference between correlation and causation.
    You, on the other hand, continue to insist on perfection, which cannot be achieved in nature or in science. Your claim that girls are happy that they’ll never have to have a pap test only indicates the need for better education, not a problem with the vaccine. How could that have anything to do with the safety or efficacy of the vaccine, and why would you even include it as part of your argument? It’s a completely different discussion.

    Like

  10. ChrisKid
    July 1, 2011 at 10:00 am

    http://news.consumerreports.org/health/2008/07/gardisil-vaccin.html
    Just thought I’d share this with you all, since it addresses a large part of what we’re discussing here.

    Like

  11. Cindy
    July 1, 2011 at 10:08 am

    From this point I defer to a scientist’s point of view, which is given above by Dr. Harper. If you’re determined that vaccines are totally completely 100 percent safe, you’re not going to listen any comments negative to the vaccine here anyway. This next comment isn’t about Gardasil, but I’ve seen so many parents put down because they connected their children’s neurological symptoms including autism to recent vaccination. I used to be skeptical myself. But if your child gets a shot then has a seizure on the way home, screaming from the minute he gets that shot until he turns 4 or 5 years old, you’re never going to convince me that the shot didn’t cause it. Even Paul Offit says no vaccine is risk-free. That’s all I’m going to say on this topic.

    Like

  12. Nathan
    July 1, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    Answers for Nathan

    The only questions I asked was for a citation for the assertion that “it would take vaccinating EVERY 11-year-old girl in the U.S. for the NEXT 70 years to make one iota of a difference in cervical cancer in the U.S.” and evidence that HPV vaccine is completely ineffective if you already have any strain of HPV. Two things that in your long unbroken response you did not provide.

    Indeed, Gardasil’s efficacy is waning. First, Diane Harper, one of the lead researchers who invented the vaccine, said so at the NVIC conference in 2009.

    I would like a citation for this as well. The evidence does not seem to indicate this is the case.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19962185

    Second, it was reported by Merck itself that efficacy drops dramatically as soon as the girls/women are exposed sexually.

    Again, it should not be difficult for you to find a reference for this. The vaccine may well be less effective in people who have HPV prior to the vaccine, that is why it is recommended to vaccinate before girls start sexual activity. But the trials indicate no waning at 6.4 years thus far.

    MarketWatch reported that the efficacy drops with sexual exposure as well — at the exact time they need.

    Are you referring to this? (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/merck-hits-another-delay-for-wider-gardasil-use)
    This concerns what I said above – that it is less effective in people that already have one or more strains of HPV. It has nothing to do with when the vaccine wanes for people who have not previously contracted HPV. If that were the case, it would be waning in the study population. It is not.

    And fourth — and probably most significant — Merck’s clinical trials reported that they actually gave their study women an extra booster shot at five years to keep up the waning efficacy — which means in a couple years they’re going to be pushing boosters on these girls.

    Again, I would love a link. I tried to google the concept to no avail. No booster was used in the study above. Of course, I don’t find the idea of a booster anathema when it reduces cancer.

    Remember, this vaccine protects only 2 of over 100 that can lead to cervical cancer when the dysplasia is left untreated

    From my reading, only 30 of them cause genital infection. The vaccine effectively prevents four of them, and is showing partial efficacy to at least ten others.

    As far as age groups go, Merck’s own trial reports specify that efficacy was tested only on girls/women ages 16 and up.

    I linked you directly to trials that were in children as young as nine. Please read them. I’m not sure why you are arguing about this.

    Again, from the review of studies I linked to above: “HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccination was associated with more injection-site pain than placebo but similar incidences of systemic and serious AEs and new medical conditions potentially consistent with autoimmune phenomena.”

    You don’t seem to be interested in looking at all of the research concerning the HPV vaccine, but only the research that supports what you already believe.

    More later, time permitting. I will gladly provide references to anything I stated upon request but I wanted to avoid being stuck in moderation.

    Like

  13. ChrisKid
    July 1, 2011 at 4:46 pm

    No child screams from the moment he gets a shot until he turns 4 or 5 years old. Can we stick to facts here, and leave the hyperbole for those websites that prefer scare tactics?
    As for your statement that anyone claimed that vaccines are totally completely 100 percent safe, that’s a sheer lie. And you know it. Not only is it a lie, it’s totally ridiculous even to bring it up. Nothing in nature is totally safe for everyone under every circumstance. It isn’t possible. Stop setting up strawmen and stick to the topic at hand, please.
    Gardasil is not, because nothing can be, 100% safe for every single person who gets it, but then neither is any other way to protect against HPV. Well, I guess you could try abstaining from all sexual contact of any kind with anyone for the rest of your life. That might work. Some of us would rather lead normal lives. Gardasil is, however, much safer than not preventing HPV at all, and it’s certainly better than contracting cervical cancer. (Or anal, or penile, or throat, or mouth)
    May I ask why, if you say you’re deferring to a scientist’s point of view, the only scientist you’ll defer to is Dr. Harper?

    Like

  14. Nathan
    July 1, 2011 at 5:07 pm

    Continued…

    Also, the clinical studies are questionable anyway because the “placebo” actually contained the adjuvant aluminum. There were saline studies that were done — but in the end they weren’t used.

    There are numerous published studies regarding the safety of HPV vaccine, including ones that use saline as a placebo. Here is one (ages 9-15 years, by the way):
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17484215

    “In this randomized, double-blind trial, 1781 sexually naive children were assigned (2:1) to quadrivalent HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine or saline placebo administered at day 1 and months 2 and 6.

    A higher proportion of vaccine recipients (75.3%) than placebo recipients (50.0%) reported one or more injection-site adverse experiences following any vaccination. Rates of fever were similar between vaccination groups. No serious vaccine-related adverse experiences were reported.”

    Further, trials that use aluminum as the placebo are extremely valuable. It is well known that aluminum adjvants cause more swelling, pain, and redness at the site than saline. Patients are less likely to know they received placebo if they got the aluminum. Fortunately, there is extensive research on aluminum in vaccines and a Cochrane review found no adverse events from aluminum adjuvants except pain, swelling, and redness at the site.

    Next, for all the 4000 women who will die of cervical cancer this year. Can you say definitively that all 4000 will have gotten cancer from the 2 HPVs in the vaccine?

    I did not say that they would have. There is a 70% chance that they would have. I was refuting your irrelevant argument that the majority of people clear HPV. That is true, but it is the people who do not clear it that can get cancer and die to the tune of 4000 per year. Most, but not all, of those can be prevented with this vaccine.

    Also, it’s very important to note that most women who die from cervical cancer haven’t gotten a Pap test in the past 5 years.

    All the more reason to be vaccinated, as sexually active females are not always good about getting their paps.

    Which brings up the subject of making sure that girls know when they get these shots that they absolutely must continue with Pap tests. If you look on blogs and teen chat sites, you’ll see that the girls got/are getting the shots are all pleased that they now “won’t have to have a Pap test.” VERY DANGEROUS THINKING.

    You are now using teen chat rooms as evidence. This is shaky. But I agree with you, they should get their pap tests. Each of the three times that the patient gets the HPV vaccine is an excellent time for the nurse or provider to remind her of that.

    Yes, they do have some indication that fewer women in control groups get CIN 2 or 3, but ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF THAT THEY’LL NEVER GET CANCER.

    Of course not. There is always a chance of cancer. But the chance is much less if you are vaccinated. This is all about significantly reducing the risk of cervical cancer. The evidence is clear that HPV vaccine does this, and is already significantly preventing cervical cancer.

    This is an HPV vaccine, not a cancer vaccine because of that one little thing — you still have a 1/3 chance of gettng it from the other 98 or so HPVs.

    Again, most of the 98 other HPVs do not cause cervical cancer. And again, it is all about reducing risk – by up to 2/3. That’s pretty good. And you are arguing semantics. It is a vaccine for HPV, which reduces a woman’s chance of cervicalcancer.

    And it was also Dr. Harper who said in a public meeting that you’d have to vaccinate all girls in the U.S. for 70 years to make an iota of difference in cancer rates here, primarily because the rates are practically negligible already.

    Yes, you said this above. I asked for a citation. Do you have one? Because what Rick posted above does not say this. I am wondering if you know what the definition of “iota” is. Also “negligible.” Twelve thousand new cases of cervical cancer in the US and 4000 deaths per year is negligible to you?

    The bottom line is there are thousands of reports in the VAERs. And even the CDC has admitted that probably only 1 percent of adverse reactions get reported to VAERS.

    But that is not the bottom line. The bottom line is that VAERS is a reporting system for events – things that occur after the vaccine – not reactions (things that occur because of a vaccine). To tell whether an event is a reaction, you have to do a study, or an investigation.

    In the case of death, there are numerous reports of death that occurred at some point after the vaccine. Upon investigation, none of the deaths turned out to be actually from the vaccine. If we compensate for underreporting as you indicate, we find that zero is one percent of zero, which is how many deaths are caused by Gardasil, by all available evidence.

    Which leads to my final argument — this vaccine was tested on women who were carefully screened and perfectly healthy with absolutely no hidden or known immunological problems.

    A full review of the literature shows this not to be true. The vaccine has been tested in numerous trials on many populations, including populations with known immunological problems like HIV positive individuals. And I don’t see any evidence of extensive screening for “hidden” immunological problems in the majority of trials. If the vaccine caused problems with the things you imply, it would be evident in the studies and the post-consumer monitoring.

    But don’t knock those who bother to study up on how this vaccine came to be — which is to help women in Third World countries who don’t have access to or resources for regular Pap screening.

    I do not mean to “knock” you. But you do not have the facts. I am trying to help with that. It is vitally important, if you want to be fully informed on a topic like this, to look at all the evidence and not just what is made easily available on antivaccine websites.

    Like

  15. July 1, 2011 at 9:20 pm

    I refer to Dr. Harper because she was involved in the creation of Gardasil.
    http://www.med.umkc.edu/informatic_medicine/Faculty/harper.shtml
    Biography
    Diane Harper, MD, MPH, MS is an internationally known researcher, clinician and educator in the field of HPV associated diseases, especially focused on the prevention of cervical cancer. She contributed to the sentinel research in designing and implementing the studies of both HPV vaccines, Cervarix and Gardasil, worldwide.

    I would think she would know what the vax she helped create would or would not do.

    Like

  16. July 1, 2011 at 9:31 pm

    http://www.free-press-release.com/news-gardasil-developer-claims-vaccine-prevents-abnormal-pap-tests-not-cervical-cancer-1297697975.html

    More from Dr. Harper
    The best way to prevent cervical cancer is with routine Pap screening starting at age 21 years. Vaccination cannot prevent as many cervical cancers as can Pap screening. Pap screening with vaccination does NOT lower your chances of cervical cancer – Pap screening and vaccination lowers your chances of an abnormal Pap test. Gardasil® is associated with GBS [Guillian-Barre Syndrome] that has resulted in deaths. Pap screening using a speculum and taking cells from the cervix is not a procedure that results in death.

    If a woman has no access to Pap screening, receiving HPV vaccines may help reduce cervical cancer IF the vaccines last long enough. At this time, Gardasil® is proven to last for at least 5 years, and Cervarix® for at least 8.5 years. Health policy analyses show that there will be no reduction in cervical cancer unless the vaccine lasts at least 15 years.

    http://www.free-press-release.com/news-dr-diane-harper-tells-the-truth-about-gardasil-part-i-1297090964.html

    Harper says, “It has been a plan for Merck from the beginning”. When we asked her about this she stated, “Unfortunately, the FDA has given Merck a blanket approval to use Gardasil® in males and females 9-26 years old without making it clear to parents or males/females that the only data for male cancer preventions is in MSM (gay men) NOT in heterosexual men”. She goes on to say, “For men who have sex with men, there is a benefit to using Gardasil in the prevention of anal intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 and 3. However, in the case of heterosexual men, this was never tested, and there is no penile cancer prevention seen in heterosexual men”.

    Harper also tells us that for people who have a current diagnosis of HPV , “Neither Gardasil® nor Cervarix® will cure or treat the current HPV, so there is no reason to vaccinate for current disease. A previous diagnosis of HPV does not preclude the use of one of the vaccines – data show similar efficacies in those with past HPV as those who are HPV naive. The reasons for adverse reactions are not clear. There is a remote immune hypothesis that someone with a large HPV infection may react poorly to a HPV vaccine, but this is hypothetical and theoretical”

    Like

  17. July 1, 2011 at 9:42 pm

    http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4222B3.pdf

    There were two important concerns that were identified during the course of the efficacy
    review of this BLA. One was the potential for Gardasil™ to enhance disease among a
    subgroup of subjects who had evidence of persistent infection with vaccine-relevant HPV
    types at baseline. The other concern was the observations of CIN 2/3 or worse cases due
    to HPV types not contained in the vaccine. These cases of disease due to other HPV
    types have the potential to counter the efficacy results of Gardasil™ for the HPV types
    contained in the vaccine.
    1. Evaluation of the potential of Gardasil™ to enhance cervical disease in
    subjects who had evidence of persistent infection with vaccine-relevant HPV
    types prior to vaccination.
    The results of exploratory subgroup analyses for study 013 suggested a concern that
    subjects who were seropositive and PCR-positive for the vaccine-relevant HPV types had
    a greater number of CIN 2/3 or worse cases as demonstrated in the following table:
    Table 17. Study 013: Applicant’s analysis of efficacy against vaccine-relevant HPV
    types CIN 2/3 or worse among subjects who were PCR positive and seropositive for
    relevant HPV types at day 1. [From original BLA, study 013 CSR, Table 11-88, p. 636]

    In the table a 44.6 chance of developing cervical cancer if you have HPV when you started the vax series. So are they screening the women before giving the shot to make sure they are not in the 44.6 at risk group? Since the answer is NO how can you say this is a cancer vaccine unless you mean it has the potential to give cancer as well as protect from HPV which is a virus and not cancer but an a very small percentage of women can become cancerous.

    Like

  18. July 1, 2011 at 9:47 pm

    So above if you have the virus you increase your odds of getting cancer. So do the younger children not having sex have this virus?

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.10529/abstract

    Oh my gosh, prepubertal children have the virus. So if you can have it before sex, are they testing each girl/woman before they give this “life saving” vaccine that can CAUSE cancer to see if those they are giving it to are at risk?

    Like

  19. July 1, 2011 at 9:49 pm

    Oh her is another link showing that children can have the HPV virus. Are they not recommending this for children right now? http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1403036

    Like

  20. July 1, 2011 at 9:52 pm

    http://sanevax.org/research-blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Tomljenovic_Shaw-CMC-published.pdf

    L. Tomljenovic*,1 and C.A. Shaw2

    1Post-doctoral fellow, Neural Dynamics Research Group, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia, 828 W. 10th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1L8, Canada

    2Professor, Departments of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences and Experimental Medicine and the Graduate Program in Neuroscience, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, 828 W. 10th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1L8, Canada

    Abstract:

    Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community. We hope that the present paper will provide a framework for a much needed and long overdue assessment of this highly contentious medical issue.

    Like

  21. July 1, 2011 at 9:54 pm

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15874868

    Castle PE.

    SourceDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. castlep@mail.nih.gov

    Abstract

    Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the necessary but probably not sufficient cause of cervical precancer and cancer. Secondary exogenous and endogenous factors, HPV cofactors, may contribute to the probability of a cancer-associated (oncogenic) HPV infection progressing to cervical precancer and cancer. For these cofactors to influence the natural history of HPV infection, they must act on cervical tissue to promote viral persistence, progression to precancer or cancer given viral persistence, or both. The aim of this review was to examine briefly the impact these factors may have on carcinogenesis of the cervix. Specifically, the roles of the cervical transformation zone, cervical immunity, inflammation and coinfection, and exposure to the main HPV cofactors (smoking, oral contraceptive use, and multiparity) are discussed.

    Like

  22. July 1, 2011 at 9:57 pm

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21425100

    [Demyelinating disease and vaccination of the human papillomavirus].
    [Article in Spanish]
    Álvarez-Soria MJ, Hernández-González A, Carrasco-García de León S, del Real-Francia MÁ, Gallardo-Alcañiz MJ, López-Gómez JL.
    Source
    Servicio de Neurología, Hospital General de Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real, España. mape1012001@hotmail.com
    Abstract
    INTRODUCTION:
    Primary prevention by prophylactic vaccination against the major cause of cervical cancer, the carcinogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16 and 18, is now available worldwide. Postlicensure adverse neurological effects have been described. The studies realized after the license are descriptive and limited by the difficulty to obtain the information, despite most of the statistical indexes show that the adverse effects by the vaccine of the HPV are not upper compared with other vaccines, the substimation must be considered.

    CASE REPORTS:
    We describe the cases of four young women that developed demyelinating disease after the vaccination of the HPV, with a rank of time between the administration of the dose and the development of the clinical of seven days to a month, with similar symptoms with the successive doses. We have described six episodes coinciding after the vaccination.

    CONCLUSIONS:
    Have been described seizures, autoimmune disorders such as Guillain-Barre syndrome, transverse myelitis, or motor neuron disease, probably adverse effects following immunization by HPV vaccine. So we suggest that vaccine may trigger an immunological mechanism leading to demyelinating events, perhaps in predisposed young.

    Like

  23. Nathan
    July 4, 2011 at 12:59 am

    No, she was not involved in the creation of Gardasil at all. She was involved in trials on the already created vaccines, as the biography says.

    Like

  24. Nathan
    July 4, 2011 at 1:12 am

    I can agree with most of this – a woman who gets regular pap tests is going to have precancerous lesions detected and removed, so the vaccine is mostly going to reduce the need for LEEP procedures and cone biopsies (cold knife biopsy), etc. of the cervix. A pap smear may not cause death, but these procedures can sometimes cause significant morbidity, including hemmorhaging and infections. Cone biopsies can cause cervical stenosis leading to pregnancy problems, or incompetent cervix leading to miscarriage.

    The thing is, though, sexually active females are not always good about getting regular pap tests, and when they come of a certain age, even conscientious mothers cannot ensure that they are done. This is in part why there are 4000 deaths from cervical cancer per year.

    It may be true that the vaccine needs to last for 15 years to be effective. So far, the vaccine shows no signs of waning. If it does, a booster may be needed. As shown above, however, it has already started to reduce cervical cancer.

    Gardasil for males is really not the subject of this blog post and I will leave it for another time.

    Like

  25. Nathan
    July 4, 2011 at 1:16 am

    You must not think many people will actually read that link, or perhaps you did not read it yourself. The findings of that subgroup were not replicable in other studies, and were found to be likely due to baseline differences in the control and placebo group. From the link:

    “This demonstrated a limitation of the evaluation of small subgroups, where subgroups
    might have imbalances in baseline demographic characteristics. In this case, it appeared
    that subjects in this subgroup of study 013 who received Gardasil™ might have had
    enhanced risk factors for development of CIN 2/3 or worse compared to placebo
    recipients. In study 015, the applicant conducted a subgroup primary efficacy analyses
    for HPV 16/18. Here, the evaluation of this subgroup did not raise a concern about
    enhancement of cervical disease due to HPV:”

    Like

  26. Nathan
    July 4, 2011 at 1:21 am

    These links are about transient presence of HPV in the oral mucosa, which is common, and does not seem to have anything to do with the persistent genital infection of HPV of interest in the trial you found concerning above.

    Like

  27. Nathan
    July 4, 2011 at 1:38 am

    This is a review article with no original research published in a low tier journal with an impact factor all of 4.7. Considering it was written by an antivaccine activist (here speaking at an antivaccine conference prior to the article’s publication – http://www.vaccinesafetyconference.com/speakers.html) and relies on known antivaccine cranks in its citations (i.e. Russell Blaylock, inventor of “Brain Repair Formula” to fix alleged vaccine damage), I wouldn’t place its relevance higher than the Cochrane review that concluded that aluminum adjuvants caused no problems except local pain, swelling, or redness, the numerous studies do not show long term neurologic complications with vaccines in general, or the vast majority of experts who conclude based on the evidence that aluminum adjuvants are extremely safe.

    Like

  28. Nathan
    July 4, 2011 at 1:49 am

    Unfortunately I cannot read the full study (its in Spanish) and the abstract seems plagued with translation errors. Case reports are important, but cannot show causation. Guillan Barre occurs in the general population at a rate of 1-2 per 100,000 people, and will certainly occur after vaccination sometimes by chance alone. GBS has not been shown to be associated with Gardasil, as the rate does not exceed the expected background rate. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/hpv/gardasil.html. It has also been studies for autoimmunity risk http://www.infectiousdiseasenews.com/article/68429.aspx#submitComment and none was found, nor was it found in the numerous preclinical trials.

    Like

  29. Cindy
    July 4, 2011 at 8:14 am

    I wasn’t planning to make any more comments, but I just can’t help noting that HPV is HPV and there’s really no reason to differentiate between genital HPV caused by sexual activity or HPV that shows up in the throat, or under the fingernails of 10-year-old boys or in babies born to HPV positive mothers. The bottom line is HPV is most commonly transmitted sexually, but because it’s a skin-to-skin transmission, it’s possible for newborns to have it — as numerous studies have shown, as well as youngsters who have had no sexual activity. Also Nathan, are you the same Merck defender on Pharmalot (http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/10/the-gardasil-grope-merck-lusts-after-adult-women/ )

    or possibly the same lead author, Merck-funded Nathan on HPV studies (http://ijjkk.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6TD4-51JFCWF-8-5&_cdi=5188&_user=4861547&_pii=S0264410X10016361&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_list_item&_coverDate=01%2F10%2F2011&_sk=999709996&wchp=dGLbVzW-zSkzS&_valck=1&md5=b83aa0a04870effe50d44d024776d8c5&ie=/sdarticle.pdf).

    Just wondering. Also why is it necessary for shotofprevention.com to hide its funding source on whois? What/who is this site trying to hide?

    Like

  30. Kelly
    July 4, 2011 at 9:28 am

    Cindy :
    I wasn’t planning to make any more comments, but I just can’t help noting that HPV is HPV and there’s really no reason to differentiate between genital HPV caused by sexual activity or HPV that shows up in the throat, or under the fingernails of 10-year-old boys or in babies born to HPV positive mothers.

    No, Cindy. Not all HPV are the same and it is important to distinguish between genital HPV and other kinds because the vaccine is only designed to protect against genital HPV.

    Once again, an anti-vaxer demonstrates that their position is based on misconception and logical fallacy. The “pharma shill” gambit makes you look really desperate Cindy because it indicates that you really have nothing else to support your position.

    Like

  31. Cindy
    July 4, 2011 at 9:44 am

    HPV is HPV and HPV 16 can cause oral cancer, not just genital cancer so the vaccine type we’re talking about here — at least 1 of them is all the same. And I’m not an anti-vaxxer. Both of my children were fully vaccinated with no adverse events. I, myself, got a booster shot of tetanus & whooping cough just 3 years ago. You could hardly call that anti-vax. What I am against is total deniers and absolutists who deny that vaccines can cause harm in some people, and who absolutely insist they’re best thing for everyone. Even Paul Offit has said openly that vaccines can cause serious adverse events, and that no vaccine is absolutely safe. As far as desperate goes, when I’m with deniers and absolutists I always try to understand what’s driving them — and usually there’s an ulterior motive beyond herd immunity, especially in the vaccine world. The scientific literature that’s been cited here by others is quite sufficient to show that caution should be a key word with the HPV vaccine. I kind of liken it to telling everyone that’s safe to eat peanuts. I can eat peanuts but I know someone personally who has a reaction to peanuts if he’s even in the same room with them, so even though peanuts generally safe,, they’re not absolutely safe. Same thing with aspirin. Most people can take aspirin, but a single tablet can kill me. So what’s the difference with vaccines and the cocktail of components that are in them? Since when are vaccines the one thing that is absolutely different from every other thing on the planet that makes them absolutely safe as compared to my analogy of aspirin and peanuts? I doubt that you will find any scientist anywhere who will declare that vaccines are absolutely safe. Yet, the vaccine fanatics will accept nothing less than absolute. And that’s what I call desperate.

    Like

  32. Cindy
    July 4, 2011 at 9:46 am

    P.S. Since we’re demanding the scientific references here, I’m including this URL:

    http://oralcancerfoundation.org/hpv/

    Like

  33. Kelly
    July 4, 2011 at 11:19 am

    Wow, Cindy, that’s a pretty big strawman you got there. Don’t see anyone denying the vaccine has risks, however the risks of this vaccine are small compared to the benefits. I’m also not seeing anyone say that everyone should absolutely get this vaccine. There are contradictions to the vaccine, and I don’t see anyone denying that there are.

    Of course you won’t find any scientist declare vaccines are absolutely safe, because it is not true. I’m a scientist and a vaccine fanatic and accept that the vaccines are not 100%. I actually find more folks on the anti-vaccine side declaring absolutes and demanding that the vaccine be 100% safe or 100% effective in order to make it worthwhile. Kind of like you are doing. Why should this vaccine be approached with more caution then the other vaccines you have had or given to your children, Cindy?

    And you are the one denying the scientific evidence that all HPV are the same. They are not. Why do you think they have different names, if they are all the same? Just because HPV 16 can be found in the mouth does not make it the same as other oral HPV strains.

    What I am against, Cindy, is people spreading misinformation about vaccines. One cannot make an informed choice without the correct information. You seem to be very misinformed about HPV.

    Like

  34. Kelly
    July 4, 2011 at 11:22 am

    Geez Cindy, did you even read the link you provided?

    One of the most common virus groups in the world today affecting the skin and mucosal areas of the body, is the human papilloma virus. Over 120 different types/versions of HPV have been identified, and different types are known to infect different parts of the body. The most visible forms of the virus produce warts (papilloma’s) on the hands, arms, legs, and other areas of the skin. Most HPV’s of this type are very common, harmless, non cancerous, and easily treatable. Genital warts are known technically as condylomata acuminatum and are generally associated with two HPV types, numbers 6 and 11.

    For pete’s sake, your own reference tells you that your statement that all HPV are the same is incorrect, yet you insist that you are right. What was that about denial, Cindy?

    Like

  35. Cindy
    July 4, 2011 at 11:49 am

    Obviously they’re not all the same or they wouldn’t have different names, i.e., numbers. But HPV is still HPV, kind of like people are people, even though they’re not all the same race. The purpose of the URL was to show that your “genital” HPV 16 most certainly has been associated with oral cancer, which was contrary to an earlier statement you made.

    I’m not totally against the HPV vaccine. What I’m against is this massive movement of mandated vaccines on mankind. It should be a choice, not a mandate, especially since some children (and a few adults) who do have adverse reactions to vaccines appear to be acceptable collateral damage in the eyes of the vaccine pushers who keep preaching herd immunity. We are getting closer and closer to individualized medicine. I hope and pray that sooner, rather than later, we’ll be able to tell with a simple test whether or not a child may have a chance of an adverse reaction to a vaccine, so that child can avoid getting a particular vaccine.

    One vaccine I’m totally against is the hepB at birth for every single child. That is the most ridiculous recommendation ACIP has made to-date. They even admit they’re forcing this vaccine on every baby because they couldn’t get to the intended population on a voluntary basis. But that’s a different topic and not part of this board so I’ll just stop there.

    We just plain need to stop pushing vaccines on the undeveloped world in place of clean water and sanitation. There’s room for both, you know, and they should be a tandem strategy, only most vaccine pushers don’t want to acknowledge that part. Once Bill Gates pumps an equal amount of money into running water, toilets and sewage systems for the people he throws vaccine money at, I’ll settle down. That’s why I believe it’s time for the developed world — including presumably intelligent scientists — to think about joining the organization Clean Water for the World and help people in Third World countries get the tools they need to help themselves.

    Like

  36. Kelly
    July 4, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    Man, Cindy. Give it up. If it is obvious that all HPV is not the same, why do you keep insisting that they are? Those differences are key in discussing the HPV vaccine. If you cannot separate relevant from irrelevant information, how can you claim to know anything about which evidence leads to caution regarding the HPV vaccine?

    And where did I state that HPV 16 is not associated with oral cancer?

    You seem to be very fond of strawmen. How is this topic related to mandated vaccines? Who thinks that vaccines should completely replace clean water and sanitation? While these measures can do wonders in stopping infectious diseases with a fecal-oral transmission, they do nothing to prevent person-person transmission like HPV.

    Like

  37. Nathan
    July 4, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    No, Cindy, I am neither of those Nathans. I have never visited “Pharmalot.com” (catchy name though), nor have I ever published any studies. Nice pharma shill Hail-Mary pass though. I know it is comforting when one’s facts are refuted to assume that the other person is a paid professional, but that is virtually never the case in this debate. I get no income from any pharmaceutical compay whatsoever.

    The antivaccine movement represents a significant threat to public health and puts children’s lives at risk, and is based on horrible pseudoscience, as is being demonstrated in the comments here. I spend a little time refuting antivaccine misinformation because I enjoy the logical challenge and I hope that it makes a little bit of difference in few children’s lives. And I don’t get any money for it.

    I don’t know anything about “whois” and I am not affiliated with this site, either. But Shot of Prevention is a blog of Every Child By Two (which I am also not affiliated with), which you can read all about at ECBT.org.

    Like

  38. Nathan
    July 4, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    But, Cindy, the point of the vaccine is reducing cervical cancer, which only occurs if you have persistent genital infection, as Rick’s link even shows. It does not matter if you have it transiently on your fingernails or in your mouth, at least in regards to cervical cancer. It matters if it is causing persistent genital infection. This is a vanishingly miniscule number of people before the become sexually active. HPV virus is HPV virus, but HPV virus under your fingernails is not what causes cervical cancer.

    I hope and pray that sooner, rather than later, we’ll be able to tell with a simple test whether or not a child may have a chance of an adverse reaction to a vaccine, so that child can avoid getting a particular vaccine.

    I hope so too. But in the absence of that possibility, it is far wiser to vaccinate unless you have a recognized medical contraindication.

    I can eat peanuts but I know someone personally who has a reaction to peanuts if he’s even in the same room with them, so even though peanuts generally safe,, they’re not absolutely safe.

    I compare it to peanuts too. the funny thing is, is that we don’t test every child for peanut allergy prior to their first peanut tasting. It is not feasible. Similarly, we can’t predict who is going to have a rare vaccine reaction. But it is still smart to vaccinate in the absence of that knowledge.

    So what’s the difference with vaccines and the cocktail of components that are in them?

    Nothing. Adverse vaccine reactions are possible but rare. There are medical contraindications to vaccinating. It’s just that if you don’t have one of those contraindications, you are better off vaccinating, because VPDs are far more dangerous. There is no downside to not eating peanuts (except for lack of Thai food, which I can not live without), but there is a huge downside to not vaccinating.

    I doubt that you will find any scientist anywhere who will declare that vaccines are absolutely safe. Yet, the vaccine fanatics will accept nothing less than absolute. And that’s what I call desperate.

    You are making stuff up. I don’t know who you consider a “fanatic,” (me, apparently) but no one who is educated about vaccines says they are absolutely safe. But they are far safer than the wild diseases they prevent against. I’m not here saying the HPV vaccine is perfect. I am saying that the arguments that have been presented above as reasons not to vaccinate are weak or erroneous.

    Like

  39. Steve Michaels
    July 5, 2011 at 7:31 am

    Can’t help but reply to this one Nathan. Primarily your “This is not much condolence to the 4000 or so women who die annually from cervical cancer caused from HPV that did not clear” comment. Please. According to VAERS, which we all know under reports by up to 90% actual post vaccine issues, HPV4 (Gardasil) had 21,091 reports of a total of around 29,000 for ALL vaccines. That means that potentially there have been in upwards of a quarter million reactions to Gardasil. Those 4,000 lives “saved” are no condolence to those damaged. By the way, 7 of those died. Anecdotally there have been many more reports of death as well. If the one vaccine that is responsible for 99.9% of VAERS reports does not get pulled for further study, then it stands as proof that the VAERS data is completely ignored by the FDA, CDC and NIH. And we have already gone over the way clinical studies are rigged to eliminate vulnerable people before completion to avoid reporting adverse reactions and then recommencing those studies with ‘sturdier’ participants and how the FDA has argued in court in defence of these practices.

    http://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php

    Like

  40. Steve Michaels
    July 5, 2011 at 7:49 am

    No Cindy, what you will find is the hypocritical view that admits that vaccines are not 100% safe or effective but ALL reports that show this are only correlative and not causal. It is the classic pro-vax shill argument. Agree that there are problems with vaccines on a hypothetical level but ignore all evidence that supports the admission. Conversely, any reduction in illness is 100% because vaccines are so effective. Even though the Cochrane Library, among others, have shown that many vaccines (especially flu) are less then 5% efficacious, these things are always ignored.

    Like

  41. Steve Michaels
    July 5, 2011 at 7:51 am

    Well done Nathan. You admit a researcher has serious issues with the research results and conclusions and how they are inaccurate and/or misleading and all you can do is try to disregard the points based on technicalities thus proving my above comment. Thank you.

    Like

  42. Cindy
    July 5, 2011 at 8:15 am

    Bravo, Steve & Rick.

    Like

  43. Nathan
    July 5, 2011 at 9:16 am

    Steve, you will notice that I addressed the points she raised in Rick’s subsequent posts. This post concerned her credentials, which Rick had in error.

    Like

  44. Nathan
    July 5, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    Your link says “Found 365578 events in entire database.” Not sure how that is a citation for your claims.

    By the way, 7 of those died.

    There have been more than seven deaths following Gardasil. Deaths following Gardasil have been investigated. No link has been found. I provided a link in another comment.

    If the one vaccine that is responsible for 99.9% of VAERS reports does not get pulled for further study, then it stands as proof that the VAERS data is completely ignored by the FDA, CDC and NIH.

    There are numerous studies of Gardasil safety. And where do you get the figure that HPV vaccine is responsible for 99.9% of all VAERS reports? You are making stuff up, yet again.

    Like

  45. Nathan
    July 5, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    No, we agree that what the evidence shows to be a serious adverse reaction is one, and what the evidence does not show is a serious adverse reaction is not one. The evidence indicates that no deaths following HPV vaccine have been caused by the vaccine. There are definitely serious adverse reactions to some vaccines, for example, MMR can cause encephalopathy in one per 1-2 million kids. If you want to talk about ignorning evdience, it is the antivaccine camp that ignores all the actual evidence.

    Conversely, any reduction in illness is 100% because vaccines are so effective. Even though the Cochrane Library, among others, have shown that many vaccines (especially flu) are less then 5% efficacious, these things are always ignored.

    We don’t say that vaccines are 100% effective either. And funny – Cochrane says you are off by a factor ten or more. When are you going to stop repeating these lies?

    “Against influenza symptoms vaccines were 73% efficacious (54% to 84%) when content matched WHO recommendations and circulating strain but decreased to 44% (95% CI 23% to 59%) when it did not (Analysis 1.2).”

    http://www.cochranejournalclub.com/vaccines-for-preventing-influenza-clinical/pdf/CD001269_full.pdf

    Once again, you are the one ignoring the evidence.

    Like

  46. October 6, 2011 at 10:04 am

    Do you think colposcopy is mandatory for all women?

    Like

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s