Home > In the News, Preventable Diseases, Testimonials > HPV Still in the Spotlight

HPV Still in the Spotlight

In reading various immunization related news this week, I was surprised to find at least a dozen or more articles still focusing on the political aspects of the HPV vaccine.

This time, rather than focusing on Michele Bachmann’s careless disregard for the vaccine, several articles were focusing on what may have been a significant motivator for Rick Perry’s decision to try to require the HPV vaccine for young Texas girls.  Interestingly enough, the focus has turned to Perry’s own wife.  As The New York Times describes, Anita Thigpen Perry is not only her husband’s “close confidante”, but a woman “with expertise in women’s health… a nurse, country doctor’s daughter, and career-long advocate for victims of sexual assault who has been a vocal proponent of immunizations”.  I can’t say that I’m surprised. Nor am I offended.  I think it’s only natural that Governor Perry may have been influenced by his wife’s personal experiences.

However, while Perry has come under fire for his attempt to mandate the HPV vaccine years ago, California Governor Jerry Brown is currently faced with another controversial bill that would allow minors, 12 and older, to receive prevention services for STDs without parental consent.  Such services would therefore include the HPV vaccinations to protect against strains of Human papillomavirus, a virus that can cause cervical cancer.

In contemplating this measure, it’s important to note that children as young as 12 are already able to consent to diagnosis and treatment for STDs.  As one doctor explains, “What this adds is them being able to receive prevention … which is obviously a very important part of health care.”

In an interview with The Boston Herald, Dr. Gary Leiserowitz, professor and chief at the Division of Gynecologic Oncology at the University of California, Davis, Medical Center, said

“It is unfortunate that this vaccine has become mired in deeply moral and ethical values related to sexual behavior, although I suppose that it was inevitable because of the nature of the transmission,” he said. “If you look at it strictly from the standpoint of trying to prevent diseases, it seems like it’s actually a pretty remarkable breakthrough.”

I think Patty would have to agree.  In this Shot By Shot video, you will hear her remarkable story.  She talks andidly cabout the stigma of her HPV diagnosis, the embarrassment she felt, the shock she was in when diagnosed at the age of 26, and the fears that she may never be able to have a family.  Fortunately, Patty’s battle with HPV has a happy ending and her message serves as an inspirational one.

As the state of California grapples with the decision as to whether to let adolescent children make their own decisions in regards to prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, I have just one thought.  Maybe…just maybe…by allowing young girls to make their own decisions as to whether they want to be protected from HPV, we are also encouraging them to take responsibility for their own health and not constantly rely on their parents.  Hopefully, these same girls will one day become adults who are actively involved in their own preventive health measures throughout their entire lives.

After all, if the child, teen or young adult consents to behavior which would put them at risk for HPV, than shouldn’t they be able to consent to a vaccine that will protect them from the dangers they knowingly risk?  The issue at hand is that children, at any age, may not want to admit to their parents that they are sexually active, but that doesn’t mean they are not smart enought to want to protect themselves from diseases such as HPV.   Perhaps some parents mistakenly believe that the vaccine will give their child some unspoken permission to engage in sexual activity.  Sorry, Mom and Dad, but even if your child knows that you will dissapprove of their sexual activity, ultimately the choice will be theirs. Shouldn’t we give our children the credit they deserve to discern between prevention and permission?

I’m sure that there are plenty of different opinions out there regarding these issues, so feel free to share your comments for discussion.

  1. October 1, 2011 at 7:25 am

    As a youth director in my church and subbing for school nurses in my district over the past years, I can tell you that many young girls in 6 and 7th grade are already sexually active. A few years back there were 60 unwed pregnancies in the small district and the majority were in middle school. (7-9 grade) This is not a unique situation.

    When HPV vaccine came out, I had a long discussion with our pastors wife and some other women of our church. We all agreed that this was an amazing vaccine. A vaccine to prevent a deadly cancer.
    We also realized that yes, this is a sexually transmitted disease and many parents are naive to think not my daughter. Let us not forget that boys/men spread it too and can suffer serious cancer risk as well.
    Yes that is right!

    As for this vaccine encouraging sex well, Do you tell your child, ok we are going to get your shot for measles, mumps , tetanus, etc. and this is how you get it and this is what it can do. I think not. Most tell them ok time for shots, they complain, you say get your butt in the car and lets go. To those moms who have ask me what to say about it? I tell them, you tell your daughter, it is a vaccine to prevent a deadly cancer in women.

    I know several women who have/had cervical cancer and actually got the HPV from their husbands. The point is whether you become sexually active at 12 or 21 there is a huge risk for HPV. Fact is the earlier the vaccine the better the prevention.

    So many things we can’t prevent. But this is one thing we can.

    As for the political debate, They say out of everything bad comes something good. Maybe some of the uneducated remarks made by Michele Bachmann have brought about a serious discussion on this deadly disease and as for Rick Perry, I witness for myself a very sad Governor Perry as he watched a very young woman die from this deadly disease. I believe with all of my heart his motives were to grant her one last wish and to save the lives of other young women. Did he go about the issue wrongly? Well sometimes passion gets in front of all us. I know first hand. My passion for preventing vaccine preventable diseases comes from the loss of an only child to one.

    Like

  2. Steve Michaels
    October 1, 2011 at 8:36 am

    I have watched silently while you continue to publish ever more irrational arguments in support of a demonstrably failing vaccine policy. Many pro-choice advocates such as myself have always said that in the face failed vaccine theory, that legislative force and ridicule of those who disagree with vaccine policy would be the death throes tactic of those who oppose health freedom of choice.

    Your falling number of comments on this site stand as a testament to two facts. Firstly, you are only preaching to the choir, and secondly, those who disagree with you find your claims so irrational and egregious as to not warrant a response. It is good to see that you are being relegated to insignificance in your ‘fight’ to peddle poisons on us all.

    Remember, the laws protecting children from making decisions which they are not developmentally able to make for themselves are for the PROTECTION of children. Your expedient argument to take away parental responsibility for children is designed to be more of the thin wedge to make all children wards of the ‘state’ with bureaucrats with no knowledge of specific situations making decisions for children who neither understand the concepts in question or the risks of what they are being told to do. In your world, people (adult and child alike) should not be told what the FDA REALLY said about HPV:

    “The FDA news release of March 31, 2003 acknowledges that “most infections (by HPV) are short-lived and not associated with cervical cancer”, in recognition of the advances in medical science and technology since 1988. In other words, since 2003 the scientific staff of the FDA no longer considers HPV infection to be a high-risk disease when writing educational materials for the general public whereas the regulatory arm of the agency is still bound by the old classification scheme that had placed HPV test as a test to stratify risk for cervical cancer in regulating the industry.”

    and:

    “The HPV DNA test is not intended to substitute for regular Pap screening. Nor is it intended to screen women under 30 who have normal Pap tests. Although the rate of HPV infection in this group is high, most infections are short-lived and not associated with cervical cancer.”

    http://www.naturalnews.com/downloads/FDA-HPV.pdf

    The above source is an archived copy of what actually appeared on the FDA website, but was (predictably) removed in order to bolster the case for a dubious vaccine.

    Like

  3. Quokka
    October 1, 2011 at 9:04 am

    Hey Steve you forgot the third option – that those commenters that used to be opposed to vaccines have read the clearly evidence based discussions regarding the safety and efficacy of vaccines explained here. Now they understand and simply read articles as I do without feeling the need to make boring rambling irrelevant statements like you do.

    Like

  4. Chris
    October 1, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    Why should we take medical advice from Mike Adams? He is just a supplement shill who used to sell computer stuff.

    Like

  5. Steve Michaels
    October 2, 2011 at 4:10 am

    You mean evidence like this:

    http://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/murdoch-and-vaccines-exposure-of-murdochs-crimes-expose-a-much-larger-story/

    A lovely outline of how (just with MMR and H1N1) grossly intertwined the pillars of government, media and medical research are and how little comfort can be gained from current ‘research’ because of the woeful and underexposed conflicts of interest. Given that the subject of this article is HPV, have you ever asked yourself why Garadasil has incurred the largest number of VAERS complaints of any product in history yet the CDC says there is no cause for any investigation whatsoever? Current form shows that if the head of the CDC plays ball with the industry, there is a lucrative job at the end of the tenure. But as you are well aware, these are all just coincidences because only a conspiracy nut would track down all of the conflicts and inbred dealings surrounding the single largest and most profitable manufacturing industry in the world…Right? Ask parents in Texas who’s little girls are developing precancerous cervical lesions after receiving Gardasil. It might be a bit too touchy to ask the parents of damaged and dead kids from the vaccine.

    Like

  6. Twyla
    October 2, 2011 at 4:47 am

    The problem is, there have been some extremely serious adverse reactions reported to the HPV vaccines. In the event of a reaction, who will be taking care of that child or teenager? Most likely the parents. If the parents are not even aware that their daughter or son received the vaccine, that will impact their ability to understand what is happening.

    And, HPV usually clears from the system without causing harm. When cervical cancer does occur, if caught early with regular pap tests it is very treatable.

    So there is a real decision to be made here, which may be beyond a 12 year old’s knowledge, wisdom, and ability to sift through medical information.

    Vaccines are medical decisions with risks on either side. Youngsters need their parents’ help and guidance in making these decisions.

    http://sanevax.org/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-g-yerman/an-interview-with-dr-dian_b_405472.html

    Like

  7. Twyla
    October 2, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    re: “After all, if the child, teen or young adult consents to behavior which would put them at risk for HPV, than shouldn’t they be able to consent to a vaccine that will protect them from the dangers they knowingly risk?” It sounds like you are saying that those kids who engage in risky behavior will be allowed to consent to this vaccine, which implies that those who don’t engage in risky behavior won’t be able to consent to this vaccine. I’m sure that’s not what you actually mean. Basically your question makes no sense. And for those already engaging in risky behavior who have already contracted the virus, this vaccine has no benefits and may actually worsen the risk of deveoping cervical cancer.

    – A totally naive kid who knows nothing about this and is not engaging in risky behavior could be convinced to get this vaccine because of respect for adults who recommend it, without the parents’ knowledge or consent. We still do not know how long this vaccine is effective; it may only be five years or less. A 12 year old who receives this vaccine and does not become sexually active until age 17 may not even have any remaining immunity from the vaccine at that time. So, taking on the risk of the vax with no conceivable benefit. We also do not know the risks of continuing to vaccinate for HPV every five years.

    – Parents know their children’s medical history. Has the child/teen had adverse vaccine reactions before? Did the child already receive the HPV vaccine? Does the child/teen have an immune system disorder that could increase the risk of adverse reactions?

    – And, a kid who is already sexually active and has already contracted HPV could go ahead and get the vaccine without realizing that if she already has the virus the vaccine actually increases the risk of developing lesions. Per the FDA, in trial women who received the Gardasil vaccine and who were already sero-positive and PCR-positive for vaccine-relevant genotypes of HPV developed 44.6% more high-grade precancerous lesions than those who did not receive Gardasil in (See bottom of page 13 here:
    http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4222B3.pdf
    “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…”)

    From interview with Diane Harper, Gardasil researcher:

    “Recent reports state that Gardasil may have triggered MS (Multiple Sclerosis) in some girls receiving the vaccine. What are your thoughts on this?

    “‘Neurologists at the American Neurological Association have indeed concluded that Gardasil is temporally associated with autoimmune attacks on the neurologic system. The range of neurologic disorders is unknown.'”
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-g-yerman/an-interview-with-dr-dian_b_405472.html

    Again, these are complex medical decisions. Anyone taking on the risks of this vaccine needs to do so with full understanding of current information. Minors need the involvement of their parents. Some parents may not have much to contribute, but many others do. We shouldn’t legislate based on an assumption of poor parenting.

    Like

  8. Chris
    October 2, 2011 at 2:55 pm

    They mangled what Diane Harper said:

    “I did not say that Cervarix was as deadly as cervical cancer. I did not say that Cervarix could be riskier or more deadly than cervical cancer. I did not say that Cervarix was controversial, I stated that Cervarix is not a ‘controversial drug’. I did not ‘hit out’ – I was contacted by the press for facts. And this was not an exclusive interview.”

    Plus, she was not a vaccine researcher, but only worked on some trials:

    Professor Harper did not “develop Cervarix”, as the Sunday Express said, but she did work on some important trials of Gardasil, and also Cervarix.

    In the future try to use more reliable sources of evidence.

    Like

  9. Chris
    October 2, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    It might be a bit too touchy to ask the parents of damaged and dead kids from the vaccine.

    We’ve told you before that VAERS is a self selected passive reporting system and is not real data. Provide the real data, or you will not be believed.

    Like

  10. Chris
    October 2, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    The problem is, there have been some extremely serious adverse reactions reported to the HPV vaccines.

    Citation required in the form of a journal, title and date of a paper indexed in PubMed, not random websites, anything in “Medical Hypothesis” and videos from retired physicians who have not experience in epidemiology

    Like

  11. Steve Michaels
    October 3, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    Over 18,000 reports and 49 deaths have been reported to VAERS. My whole point, aside from the fact that the CDC acknowledges that there is underreporting to the tune of 90+% (meaning there may be as many as 180,000 suspected adverse reactions and 490 deaths), is that VAERS is ostensibly used to find patterns of reports to facilitate further investigation. The CDC consistently refuses to investigate any further even though Gardasil has the highest reported number of adverse reactions in the history of VAERS. The real data comes from the “further investigation” role of the CDC. It is not a question of being ‘believed’ it is a question of looking for the answers, which is being suppressed.

    Like

  12. Kelly
    October 3, 2011 at 5:25 pm

    Hey, Steve’s back and as usual, Steve gets it wrong.

    As of June 22, 2011, there have been 68 VAERS reports of death. These reports have been investigated and none of these deaths were caused by the vaccine.

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/HPV/gardasil.html

    If the CDC is suppressing the information, they aren’t doing a very good job if that information is being published on their very own website.

    Like

  13. Steve Michaels
    October 3, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    Kelly :
    Hey, Steve’s back and as usual, Steve gets it wrong.
    As of June 22, 2011, there have been 68 VAERS reports of death. These reports have been investigated and none of these deaths were caused by the vaccine.
    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/HPV/gardasil.html
    If the CDC is suppressing the information, they aren’t doing a very good job if that information is being published on their very own website.

    Do you even read your own source? There is absolutely NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER TO ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF VAERS REPORTS. NONE! Your citation supports my point that further studies have NOT been conducted. In fact, your source admits that 8% of reports are serious, that is “VAERS defines non-serious adverse events as those other than hospitalization, death, permanent disability, or life-threatening illness”, yet still no further studies even though 8% require hospitalization, end in permanent disability, death or life threatening illnesses. Thank you. And thank you for pointing out that I actually UNDER REPORTED the number of deaths. I am not sure how you claim that I’ve got ‘it wrong’, you have done a great job of undermining your own claim. Thank you again!

    Like

  14. Steve Michaels
    October 3, 2011 at 5:48 pm

    Exactly how does ‘worked on some trials’ NOT qualify as research? Your comment is so typical of dogmatic assertion. Orwellian double-speak contrary to honest search for truth.

    Like

  15. Kelly
    October 3, 2011 at 6:39 pm

    Yes, I do, Steve, but apparently you don’t. From my own source: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/302/7/750.abstract

    The only reason you think there is no further investigation is because you haven’t bothered to look for it, even when a link is provided. I provided a link to the main page, as I felt others would be interested in all the information on the safety of the HPV vaccines, not just the part that shows you wrong. I figured an intelligent person would be able to read the website and find the needed information. I guess I overestimated your intelligence Steve. My bad.

    Yes, there were more reports of death than what you reported, but all of them were found to be unrelated to the vaccine. That’s the part you got wrong. It shows that the CDC takes all reports to VAERS seriously and continuously provides updated information to the public as it investigates these reports.

    Like

  16. Chris
    October 3, 2011 at 9:31 pm

    She was on of many that were part of the vaccine trials for both HPV vaccines. She was only a small part, and if you click on the blue letters that form her name you can actually read the article by Dr. Ben Goldacre.

    Like

  17. Steve Michaels
    October 4, 2011 at 6:12 am

    Yes Kelly, did you read the conclusion? Here it is:

    “Conclusions Most of the AEFI rates were not greater than the background rates compared with other vaccines.”

    Do you understand that statement? It means NOTHING. It only compares to other vaccines. If all vaccines have reactions (which they do), then comparing to other vaccines is utterly worthless. My only point, which you again reinforce, is that no amount of complaints will sway the establishment view.

    Here’s a source for you:

    http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CervicalCancer/DetailedGuide/cervical-cancer-key-statistics

    “Cervical cancer was once one of the most common causes of cancer death for American women. Then, between 1955 and 1992, the cervical cancer death rate declined by almost 70%. The main reason for this change was the increased use of the Pap test.”

    What’s that? A 70% decline BEFORE the vaccine was introduced? How about that. Just like other VPD’s. Substantial declines BEFORE vaccines yet shills like you pretend that those declines never happened.

    How about this tidbit:

    “About 12,710 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed.”

    Compare that to the smaller population that has received the vaccine and filed complaints about adverse reactions: 18,000.
    So much for risk/benefit analysis.

    Like

  18. Kelly
    October 4, 2011 at 9:35 am

    Steve, your whole point was “that VAERS is ostensibly used to find patterns of reports to facilitate further investigation. The CDC consistently refuses to investigate any further even though Gardasil has the highest reported number of adverse reactions in the history of VAERS. The real data comes from the “further investigation” role of the CDC. It is not a question of being ‘believed’ it is a question of looking for the answers, which is being suppressed.”

    The JAMA article shows that your point was completely wrong. CDC did indeed investigate the reports to VAERS. The data was not suppressed but published both on the CDC website and in a common, well-respected medical journal.

    So now you are saying your “only point is that no amount of complaints will sway the establishment view”. The removal of RotaShield after a pattern of intussusception also shows that complaints will indeed sway the established view. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/rotavirus/vac-rotashield-historical.htm

    As for risk/benefit analysis, I’ll leave that up to someone that actually understands that VAERS is a reporting system and does not indicate causation. You can’t make up fantasy risks, Steve, and then say that the risks outweigh the benefits of the vaccine. You can’t say “so much for risk/benefit analysis” when that analysis has been done and you don’t like the answer.

    Once again, you have no clue as to what you are talking about. As usual, once your initial point was refuted, you change your mind to make another point and then claim victory. Well, of course the data that refutes the initial point doesn’t apply to your second, that’s why I’ve provided evidence that refutes your second point as well.

    Like

  19. Nathan
    October 4, 2011 at 3:40 pm

    Your falling number of comments on this site stand as a testament to two facts. Firstly, you are only preaching to the choir, and secondly, those who disagree with you find your claims so irrational and egregious as to not warrant a response.

    Steve, you’re still just as entertaining. You have no idea what kind of traffic numbers this blog gets, nor the demographics of who visits it, but boy are you raring to doomsay in bombastic fashion. But at least you are pretty consistent. Judging a blog by its troll traffic is not unlike judging the safety of a vaccine by raw VAERS reports.

    And I guess we can assume by this logic that your and Twyla’s responses here mean that this post’s claims are neither irrational nor egregious.

    Like

  20. Nathan
    October 4, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    There are tons of strains of HPV, only a handful of which cause cervical cancer. But this is irrelevant. If a woman has a strain that causes cervical cancer, she is at a much higher risk of cancer. HPV vaccine covers two strains that cause 70% of cervical cancer. The rest of the strains are irrelevant to this discussion.

    “The HPV DNA test is not intended to substitute for regular Pap screening. Nor is it intended to screen women under 30 who have normal Pap tests. Although the rate of HPV infection in this group is high, most infections are short-lived and not associated with cervical cancer.”
    http://www.naturalnews.com/downloads/FDA-HPV.pdf
    The above source is an archived copy of what actually appeared on the FDA website, but was (predictably) removed in order to bolster the case for a dubious vaccine.

    Steve, pap smear advocacy is all over the CDC website, including within the context of HPV vaccination. Here is the CDC page for “Cervical Cancer Prevention.”

    http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/basic_info/prevention.htm

    Cervical Cancer Prevention
    Two tests can help prevent cervical cancer—

    The Pap test (or Pap smear) looks for precancers, cell changes on the cervix that may become cervical cancer if they are not treated appropriately. The Pap test is recommended for all women.

    The human papillomavirus (HPV) test looks for the virus that can cause these cell changes. Talk with your doctor, nurse, or other health care professional about whether the HPV test is right for you.

    The most important thing you can do to help prevent cervical cancer is to have regular screening tests.

    Emphasis mine. The page then goes on to discuss HPV vaccination as well as other ways to help prevent cervical cancer.

    Seriously, I know you will laugh at us “pharma shills” telling you this, but you need to stop drinking the Kool Aid. Think critically and look for verification instead of buying in to Adams’ every syllable. Especially when he uses the phrase “in other words,” because usually that is followed with words that do not have much to do with the original words.

    Like

  21. Nathan
    October 4, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    – And, a kid who is already sexually active and has already contracted HPV could go ahead and get the vaccine without realizing that if she already has the virus the vaccine actually increases the risk of developing lesions. Per the FDA, in trial women who received the Gardasil vaccine and who were already sero-positive and PCR-positive for vaccine-relevant genotypes of HPV developed 44.6% more high-grade precancerous lesions than those who did not receive Gardasil in (See bottom of page 13 here:
    http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4222B3.pdf
    “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…”)

    You are misrepresenting this. Read on past your cherry picked quote, and you find,

    “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:

    They found in that subgroup analysis that the Gardasil group had more risk factors. Another study group did not find an elevated risk. The evidence indicates vaccination in the presence of an existing HPV virus decreases your risk for cervical cancer, not increases it.

    “‘Neurologists at the American Neurological Association have indeed concluded that Gardasil is temporally associated with autoimmune attacks on the neurologic system. The range of neurologic disorders is unknown.’”

    I can’t find this statement from the American Neurological Association, but you’ll note they did not say that Gardasil is causally associated with autoimmunity. Indeed, the research does not indicate such a link with GBS, and certainly no indication of an MS link.

    Like

  22. Nathan
    October 4, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    Steve,

    Do you understand that statement? It means NOTHING. It only compares to other vaccines.

    Steve, when the full text is available for free, you should not rely on the abstract.

    What you quoted was an observation addressing specifically what you were concerned about: That the HPV vaccine has had more VAERS reports than other vaccines. However, the conlcusion of the actual study is:

    “The postlicensure safety profile presented here is broadly consistent with safety data from prelicensure trials. Because VAERS data must be interpreted cautiously and cannot generally be used to infer causal associations between vaccines and AEFIs, postlicensure monitoring will continue, and identified signals may be evaluated using epidemiologic observational studies.”

    The study even addresses why there are more VAERS reports. You should Google “Weber effect.”

    As Kelly’s link shows you, follow up studies are continually being done, and deaths following vaccination are specifically investigated as a group. They don’t send in CSI, Steve. It;s a matter of collecting information and looking for a patter that suggests causation from the vaccine. That pattern was not found in their investigation. I’m sorry if that disappoints you, but I personally am pleased that we have a safe, effective means of preventing deaths from cervical cancer.

    What’s that? A 70% decline BEFORE the vaccine was introduced? How about that. Just like other VPD’s. Substantial declines BEFORE vaccines yet shills like you pretend that those declines never happened.

    No, Steve. We know that there were substantial improvements of deaths before vaccines. What we don’t do is pretend that the remaining deaths don’t matter.

    How about this tidbit:
    “About 12,710 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed.”
    Compare that to the smaller population that has received the vaccine and filed complaints about adverse reactions: 18,000.
    So much for risk/benefit analysis.

    Comparing all events after a vaccine to the disease against the cancer rate is beyond sad. A sore arm is not comparable to cancer. But let’s put aside the reality that VAERS reports are not synonymous with reactions, and try to at least compare apples to something resembling an apple. From the study:

    “Medically important serious events [in VAERS] included 8 reports of anaphylactic reaction (1%), 9 deep vein thrombosis (1.2%), 31 GBS (4%), 25 hypersensitivity (2.5%), 10 transverse myelitis (1.3%), 6 pancreatitis (0.8%), 14 pulmonary embolism (1.8%), 23 death (3%), 68 convulsion (8.8%), 30 urticaria (3.9%), and 9 autoimmune disorder (1.2%).”

    So, 233 medically important serious events in 2.5 years, compared to ~30,000 cases of cervical cancer (undoubtedly a medically important event), mostly preventable by the vaccine, in the same time period. Not to mention cervical complications from removal of countless thousands of precancerous lesions.

    Even if you assume that those adverse events were actually caused by the vaccine (which is a false assumption), and even if you try to armchair compensate for underreporting (which is arbitrary) the benefit of the vaccine is clear.

    Lets look at deaths: 23 reports of death following the vaccine in 2.5 years, with ZERO found to be caused by the vaccine. Compared to ~10,000 deaths from cervical cancer, most of which are preventable from the vaccine, over the same time period.

    Like

  23. Steve Michaels
    October 5, 2011 at 3:10 pm

    And Rick Perry isn’t a pharma shill? His COS was a director at Merck and one of his largest campaign contributions came from the pharma industry. Firstly, just because Mike Adams makes supplements available from his site does not in any way impugn his information when it is sourced and confirmed independently. Secondly, the reference I provided had NOTHING to do with Mike Adams’ opinions or comments. It is simply an archived document taken originally from the FDA website to ensure that it remained available in case the FDA tried to cover it’s tracks when it changed it’s tune…. which it did.

    Like

  24. Steve Michaels
    October 5, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    Thank you for proving my point about how figures can be manipulated. First you accuse me of not caring about the still occurring deaths. This is, I believe, intentionally inflammatory as well as inaccurate. As you say, posted all over the CDC site is the need for pap smears for early detection since cervical cancer has one of the highest cure rates if detected early. Since it is already known that most HPV infections occur in teen years and the early 20’s and most cervical cancer cases occur in over 40’s, it is completely IMPOSSIBLE to make any claim about this vaccine ‘saving lives’ until the theory is supported or not in 20 years’ time. It may reduce pre-cancerous lesions, but as you pointed out about the sub group increase in lesions, there are different risk factors and NONE of these factors are taken into account when determining ‘safe’ usage of the vaccine.

    You and yours ALWAYS hype the supposed benefit, exaggerate the risks of the actual disease and ignore the fact that, even in the admission that risk groups will most likely be harmed, there is no screening whatsoever to ensure counter indications are not present. And to top it all off, you say that you are empirical and unbiased. I think the arguments you and Chris and Kelly use expose your biases and the depth of the tinting in your rose colored glasses.

    Like

  25. Nathan
    October 5, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    It’s still on the FDA website, Steve. Epic, epic fail.

    http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/07p0210/07p-0210-ccp0001-01-vol1.pdf

    Like

  26. Nathan
    October 5, 2011 at 6:20 pm

    Thank you for proving my point about how figures can be manipulated.

    Oh, was that your point? Because you sure didn’t mention it earlier. You’re the one who manipulated the stats in claiming that VAERS reports are comprable to cervical cancer, so I guess were the one proving this point. Good job.

    But you should be up front with what your points are, because it seems that when you make a point and we refute that, you act as if another point (in this case a rather random one) was your point all along.

    First you accuse me of not caring about the still occurring deaths.

    No, I said that I don’t pretend like they don’t matter. I have no idea why you keep bringing up decreases in deaths prior to the vaccines. They were not on course to eliminating deaths from the diseases. They are irrelevant to the people who continued to die from the diseases, and whose lives were saved by the vaccines.

    Since it is already known that most HPV infections occur in teen years and the early 20′s and most cervical cancer cases occur in over 40′s, it is completely IMPOSSIBLE to make any claim about this vaccine ‘saving lives’ until the theory is supported or not in 20 years’ time.

    It’s completely possible, indeed logical, to make the claim that the vaccine will save lives, because 70% of cervical cancer is caused by HPV 16 and 18, and cervical cancer kills 4000 people per year, and the vaccine has already reduced precancerous lesions. In case you are not up to speed with prefixes, “pre”cancerous lesions are lesions from which cancer arises. It requires a fair amount of self-blinding to claim that we cannot predict that the vaccine will save lives, in the presence of this evidence.

    there are different risk factors and NONE of these factors are taken into account when determining ‘safe’ usage of the vaccine.

    The vaccine has been shown to be safe in the general population; whether you are low or high risk for cervical cancer has nothing to do with the safety of the vaccine. And “low risk” does not mean “no risk.” We are talking here about a population (teens) who as a group are not honest with either their parents nor their doctors about their sexual activity. So good luck with that screening.

    You and yours ALWAYS hype the supposed benefit, exaggerate the risks of the actual disease and ignore the fact that, even in the admission that risk groups will most likely be harmed, there is no screening whatsoever to ensure counter indications are not present.

    Yes, there is. It’s called a medical history. Every time I get a vaccine, even if it is a nurse-only visit, I have to fill out a form to rule out known contraindications.

    And, please. Don’t try to tell me that I ALWAYS exaggerate anything after you just tried to imply that VAERS reports are vaccine reactions and that they are comparable with having cervical cancer. Realism (or basic biologic knowledge, for that matter) about vaccines and diseases has never been one of your strong suits in these discussions. How about making another fabulous point instead of the drama.

    And to top it all off, you say that you are empirical and unbiased.

    Steve, I have never said I am unbiased, as no human being is. I do, however, try to be realistic. And I don’t just regurgitate the provaccine party line, as you do with alt-med blogs, which are often easily disprovable with a little effort.

    I think the arguments you and Chris and Kelly use expose your biases and the depth of the tinting in your rose colored glasses.

    Likewise, I think the numerous, egregious, and basic scientific errors you make in nearly every post expose that the antivaccine movement is rife with scientific illiteracy.

    Like

  27. October 7, 2011 at 10:53 am

    Just a couple of quotes to start out my day:

    Steve – “have you ever asked yourself why Garadasil has incurred the largest number of VAERS complaints of any product in history”

    Steve – “Do you understand that statement? It means NOTHING. It only compares to other vaccines. If all vaccines have reactions (which they do), then comparing to other vaccines is utterly worthless.”

    Steven, may I suggest that you at least come up with a self coherent argument?

    Like

  28. Steve Michaels
    October 9, 2011 at 4:09 am

    Nathan :
    It’s still on the FDA website, Steve. Epic, epic fail.
    http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/07p0210/07p-0210-ccp0001-01-vol1.pdf

    Thank you for your silent apology about Mike Adams. Since he is a vitamin dealer and therefore, in your mind, not trustworthy with anything (nonsequitor logic) you have gone and proven that he was in fact absolutely correct that the FDA does not consider HPV to be a major health threat. The original link that Adams provided WAS removed, but by your great research, you have found that they have posted it elsewhere and are still contradicting themselves. Well done!

    Like

  29. Kelly
    October 9, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    What? Steve, how does what you wrote even make sense?

    Who said this quote: “In other words, since 2003 the scientific staff of the FDA no longer considers HPV infection to be a high-risk disease when writing educational materials for the general public whereas the regulatory arm of the agency is still bound by the old classification scheme that had placed HPV test as a test to stratify risk for cervical cancer in regulating the industry.”? You do not provide the appropriate citation, but since you provide Natural News as your source, the assumption was Mike Adams. You haven’t seemed to deny this assumption. So did Mike Adams say that or not?

    Also, the web is a very dynamic resource. Websites are added, deleted and reorganized all the time. If the so-called incriminating document is still available, how is this some big conspiracy? Also, please explain how this document is the big smoking-gun you think it is. A company asked for reclassification of their PCR test. What does that have to do with an HPV vaccine? How is the FDA contradicting themselves?

    Here is a quote from the document: “The device is not for a use which is of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health since the device is an adjunctive assay, used in conjunction with a cytopathological examination that will detect atypical cells which may be cancerous or indicative of a potential early development of cancer . The cytopathological examination or the Pap smear performed by board-certified pathologists with or without the use of this adjunctive device is a diagnostic assay and is of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health. ”

    Is the FDA saying not to get PAP tests because HPV isn’t a big threat? Nope. The PAP test is the gold standard and strongly recommended to recipients of HPV vaccine. So the fact is that the FDA does think HPV is a major health threat and recommends vaccination and routine PAP smears to reduce the risk of that threat.

    Like

  30. Nathan
    October 9, 2011 at 9:42 pm

    Cut the song and dance routine, Steve. You were caught outright in a lie. Or rather, in parroting yet again another one of Mike Adams’ many lies.

    You claimed that the document was removed from the FDA website for some nefarious reason. Clearly that is not the case.

    And what are you talking about regarding links? My great research? Adams links directly to the FDA document on the FDA site from his website here:

    http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_HPV_Vaccine_2.html

    He uses the link I used above. No mention of anyone taking it down. He links to it again on the FDA site at the end of the article.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_HPV_Vaccine_8.html

    Epic fail again. What possesses you to write this stuff?

    And I’m sorry, Steve, but this document does not say anything we don’t already know, nor does it mean that “FDA does not consider HPV to be a major health threat,” at least not every HPV strain.

    I will repeat it for you: there are many HPV virus strains. Most of them do not cause cervical cancer. Of the few that do, types 16 and 18 cause 70% of ALL cervical cancer. Therefore, women who get 16 or 18 are at high risk of cervical cancer.

    This document concerns a company that makes an HPV virus detecting device, and whether the device can legitimately be classified as a cervical cancer detection device, or something similar. The FDA is arguing that it can only be classified as an HPV detecting device, because HPV does not automatically cause cervical cancer.

    And this is correct. Only a small number of strains cause cervical cancer, and even if you get one that does, only a certain percentage will not clear it and get cervical cancer. But types 16 and 18 in particular still put women at “high risk” (that is, greatly increased risk over the general population) of cervical cancer, to the tune of 12 thousand cases of cancer and four thousand deaths annually. Those are the strains that the vaccine prevents.

    This document is consistent with those facts. It is not a change of tune for the FDA, it is accurate, and it does not in any way take away from the fact that the HPV vaccine greatly reduces cervical cancer via prevention of the strains that cause the majority of cervical cancer.

    And I don’t mistrust Adams because he’s a “vitamin dealer.” I mistrust him because he demonstrates in nearly every vaccine-related post that he is willing to bald-face lie to his followers as he did in the post above. The fact that he wants to sell all manner of alternatives to vaccination is simply an insight into his motives for doing so.

    Unfortunately, there are a lot of suckers who are willing to take him at face value instead of checking his facts. I’m sure he appreciates that loyalty.

    Like

  31. Steve Michaels
    October 10, 2011 at 7:36 pm

    Actually Nathan, here is what I said,

    “The above source is an archived copy of what actually appeared on the FDA website, but was (predictably) removed in order to bolster the case for a dubious vaccine.”

    When I tried the direct link it came up with ‘error 504 page not found’. I based my comment on the evidence of the original link being removed. It apparently was. That hardly makes me, or him, a liar. Again, the FDA CLEARLY state (and as evidenced previously) pap smears are the number one way to reduce cervical cancer death rates (by 70% BEFORE the vaccine, as previously cited), yet you support a product which makes unsubstantiated claims based on supposed results that may or may not come to fruition 20 years in the future which is market as a ‘cervical cancer vaccine’ which will inevitably lead women to have the peace of mind to forgo pap smears in future because you and yours have so vehemently promoted this vaccine as HPV prevention, which it is not. Even Merck and the FDA admit that 30% of cervical cancer cases would not be affected even if the vaccine were effective, yet women and young girls (who are too young to understand any of this stuff) are being marketed this in a way that will reduce screening uptake in the future, thus putting more women at risk. Hardly the stated goal now is it?

    Like

  32. Nathan
    October 10, 2011 at 7:59 pm

    When I tried the direct link it came up with ‘error 504 page not found’.

    Maybe your browser is not set to accept reliable sources. That would explain a lot, actually.

    Again, the FDA CLEARLY state (and as evidenced previously) pap smears are the number one way to reduce cervical cancer death rates (by 70% BEFORE the vaccine, as previously cited)

    Yes, and no one is arguing about that. But that still leaves the remaining 30%, that has not gone away in the last twenty years. That is the four thousand deaths per year. They are lives worth saving. As I said, we’re dealing with a population (teens) who are not always honest about starting sexual activity and thus don’t get pap tests. Their lives are worth saving anyway, I should think.

    yet you support a product which makes unsubstantiated claims based on supposed results that may or may not come to fruition 20 years in the future which is market as a ‘cervical cancer vaccine’

    Not unsubstantiated. Extremely substantiated with numerous studies, and extensive evidence about how cervical cancer develops (In case you missed it, t’s from HPV).

    which will inevitably lead women to have the peace of mind to forgo pap smears in future

    Stop fantasizing. There is no evidence this is the case. By this logic you should not make your kids wear seatbelts while driving because the sense of safety will make them reckless. Sheesh.

    Even Merck and the FDA admit that 30% of cervical cancer cases would not be affected even if the vaccine were effective, yet women and young girls (who are too young to understand any of this stuff) are being marketed this in a way that will reduce screening uptake in the future, thus putting more women at risk.

    As I showed you, the importance of pap tests is all over the FDA site, and the CDC site as well. Now, I’m open to the possibility that the drug companies may be marketing the vaccine inappropriately. (I’m against all direct to consumer prescription advertising.) But what evidence do you have that this vaccine is being marketed as a replacement for pap tests? This is right on the front page of Gardasil.com. It’s not even fine print.

    “GARDASIL may not fully protect everyone, nor will it protect against diseases caused by other HPV types or against diseases not caused by HPV. GARDASIL does not prevent all types of cervical cancer, so it’s important for women to continue routine cervical cancer screenings.”

    It looks to me as if they are up front about exactly what Gardasil is, and the importance of pap tests.

    Like

  33. Nathan
    October 10, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    Oh, hey, look, here’s the section of the Gardasil website entitled “Protecting against HPV.” (http://www.gardasil.com/hpv/pap-test/index.html)
    Certainly this would be the place where they tell you to get Gardasil instead of pap tests, right? Well, it starts off:

    PAP TESTS SAVE WOMEN’S LIVES
    Having regular Pap tests is one of the best ways to help protect against cervical cancer in the future. A Pap test doesn’t diagnose HPV. But it can look for abnormal cells (that are caused by HPV) in the lining of the cervix before the cells become precancers or cancer. All HPV types that affect the genital area can cause abnormal Pap tests. To determine if an abnormal Pap test is caused by HPV, your doctor can order an HPV test.

    According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a woman’s first Pap test should be at age 21. Be sure to follow your health care professional’s recommendation for cervical cancer screenings.

    For girls who are not old enough for a Pap test, regular wellness visits are a good way to start lifelong, healthy habits.

    After that it gets into the importance of the vaccine. The all caps there are on the website, BTW – not mine.

    Like

  34. October 11, 2011 at 2:26 am

    Steve – “When I tried the direct link it came up with ‘error 504 page not found’. I based my comment on the evidence of the original link being removed. It apparently was. That hardly makes me, or him, a liar.”

    No, it makes you as ignorant of information systems as you are about science in general. Its called a broken link. Look it up.

    Your problem, stevie, is that you tried to claim ( or perhaps just parrot a claim) that something nefarious occurred. Your current defense of that claim is akin to a man who did not receive a reply to a letter he sent to a person at a 15 year old address claiming that this person was obviously “removed”.

    Please allow me elucidate you. Links are small bits of data stored on one computer which point to bits of data on other computers. It is possible, and given enough time, likely, that such pointers become invalid. If I call the number you gave me 10 years ago, I do not begin to conjure up black helicopter scenarios when you don’t answer or the number is disconnected.

    Besides which, even if your story is true (I doubt it simply because you are the one typing it), the fact is you tried to assign a MOTIVE to other people based on the fact that your old link was broken. You did not simply say that the link no longer worked (which would have been true) you tried to claim that the data had been removed (which was blatantly not true) AND you then went on to make claims about WHY the data had been removed.

    See, stevie, this is what you do with almost every subject (based on my experience). You latch on to the flimsiest of information, extrapolate it to ludicrous extremes, and then proclaim victory as if you had actually reasoned out a valid argument. I should also say, stevie, that you do not even bother to make your arguments self consistent. Notice, in your interaction with Nathan above, that you claim there is no evidence Gardisil will prevent cancer deaths even though you have been shown studies supporting both the causal link between HPV and cancer AND the reduction in HPV due to the vaccine. You clearly and several times claim that the establishment (the ever dramatic “them”) are making claims too far in the future to be believed. Meanwhile, you have no qualms whatsoever in stating that marketing “will inevitably lead women to have the peace of mind to forgo pap smears in future”. Yet you have provided no evidence of this whatsoever. Seriously, stevie, pots should not call the kettle black. Its simply bad form.

    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