Re: HPV vaccine

Gardisil Researcher Speaks Out

Re: HPV vaccine

Re: HPV vaccine

Re: HPV vaccine

Re: HPV vaccine

Re: HPV vaccine

Posted by Xelindrya

Posted by MrsA1012

Posted by BlackJack96

Posted by ReiRei13

Gardisil Researcher Speaks Out

That story came out in 2009 and since then there's been much discussion to clarify this. One of her main crticisms is that the vaccine doesn't last a long time after the 3 dose series. This is true for other vaccines as well. She does bring up the risks of the vaccine (as they are with any vaccine). However, the risks are minimal when compared to the benefit. See below:

Snopes on Gardasil

This is a link a referenced in my prior post. They specfically discuss Dr. Harper.

ScienceBlogs

Gardasil researcher myth debunked

Dr. Harper and Gardasil

I think unfortunately anytime someone has a "Dr." on their name and even questions vaccines the anti-vaccine folks push this hard. This article came out in 2009. In 2013 and now 2014 it is still referenced despite being disputed pretty heartily.

I realize that the folks who drink the anti-vaccine Kool-Aid are not going to be convinced by my ranting or parade of hyperlinked sources. However, my appeal is to those of you "on the fence". Read the data. Realize that correlation is not causation. Think of the credibility of the source. See what pediatricians do for their own kids.

Do you think that blogs that basically mock anyone who has concerns about vaccines and make references to tin foil hats and drinking the Kool aid are going to change anyone's mind about anything ? That type of condescending attitude will just ensure that the message gets lost. For the record, I am NOT anti vaccine ,but I am not comfortable with the patronizing and dismissive tone that some pro-vaccine people take when people have legitimate questions and worries about something that is going into the body of their child / themselves.

I too vaccine my child but I won't be giving her HPV as I see it as unnecessary.

I may not drink the anti-vaccine Kool-Aid but I'm also not snorting the vaccine story straight off the pharma-offered mirror either.

So pardon those of us who prefer a more TESTED vaccine and for those of who have SEEN the negative affects on the girls who've taken it.

HPV vaccine

I got the HPV vaccine in my 20s. My mom wanted me to get it. No side effects. I have never received the flu shot.

Re: HPV vaccine

I'm sorry if people found my "kool aid" comment rude. However, what bothers me is the inflammatory language used that make it sound like kids are dropping like flies from this vaccine. Some quotes from this thread:

"I would never give the hpv for several reasons. One of the most important is how many children have died or had extremely negative life changing health issues. Most recently in Columbia. Another break out in England. For what it is supposed to prevent it's not worth the risk in my opinion."

"This vaccine was fast tracked and it has killed over a hundred girls in the US alone since 2006. Other countries have banned it, why haven't we?!"

Vaccination like most things in medicine is a scientific decision, pure and simple. All therapy is a risk vs. benefit situation. from the CDC again who compile the vaccine adverse events (remember these are suspected POSSIBLE events and not definitively proven). 23,000,000 doses 772 serious events including 32 deaths. Assuming the 772 events were from the vaccine. Of note they say the deaths were thought to not be from the vaccine. 772/23,000,000 = 3 in 100,000 cases of serious events that MAY POSSIBLY be linked to the vaccine. (The real risk is WAY less than this). Just to give you an idea the chance of having anaphylaxis from penicillin is like 4/10,000. (not just any old reaction but full on anaphylaxis i.e. allergy induced life threatening shock) You don't have crusades of people rising up with pitchforks against penicillin. Your chance of being struck by lightning are 1 in 6250.

The incidence of HPV associated cancers are around 11/100,000. The vaccines covers the strains responsible for most of these cancers (like 70% I think) So <3/100,000 vs. 7-8/100,000 (that's not to mention oral cancers, the morbidity from genital warts themselves, airway HPV papilloma disease in children born to moms with HPV. Also not to mention that the 3/100,000 is way oversstated since these are just events but not causal per se).

It's funny, I know the type of folks who work for the CDC and NIH. These people are not after fame and glory. They're pretty serious lab types who are driven to research. I usually take the recommendations with trust and have never actually gone through the exercise I just did above. Ironically, "questioning" and pulling out the data myself has made me EVEN MORE certain of my convictions.


Here are my sources:

CDC Summary of JAMA report on VAERS for HPV

Incidence of HPV associated cancers

Risk of Anaphylaxis to Penicillin

The lifetime lightning strike source was google so maybe I'm off there...

Re: HPV vaccine

Re: HPV vaccine

Re: HPV vaccine

Re: HPV vaccine

I'm not sure - I'm very torn and then I read articles like this:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/04/merck-dr-exposes-gardasil-scandal-ineffective-deadly-profitable/

Message edited 10/8/2014 10:58:46 AM.

Re: HPV vaccine

Re: HPV vaccine

Numbers are useless, meaningless and unimportant when that one death or one seriously affected is YOUR child.

I agree here. In my line of work I've seen kids who have complications, side effects, often severe from drugs and therapies given by us doctors. Obviously no one is going to say, well that's just tough that you're the 1 in 1000 who got renal failure from that antibiotics. The whole VAERS system is for compensation of families who MAY have had an injury from a vaccine. They often overpay and pay out claims that are not 100% certain just to be on the safe side.

I don't think any of us would say "oh, well that's sad but at least you're only the 3% who lost a kid, the rest of us 97% are very happy to keep blindly following the status quo."

That's the fallacy though it's not 3 in a 100. it's 7 in 23 MILLION (if all 7 deaths were from the vaccine. i.e. if you get the vaccine and get an unrelated problem and diet that gets reported). So it's LESS THAN 7 in 23 MILLION. If it was 3 were 3% we would have 700,000 deaths!

Do you realize that most 'probable' cases are misdiagnosed or the cause is 'too vague' yet when a parent says she was fine and now she has seizures this month and the only thing changed is that shot.

Please prove this with facts that something was "misdiangosed". One thing to caution about ANY medical case discussed on the web or even on the news, without actually reading the medical chart in front of you, its very hard to make a decision either way. Even for a trained person like me. The facts presented for public consumption are the facts that the presenters want known.

A small % sampling without any verified proof of its long term affects is just bad science. Then to cover up the effects by reporting bad data back supports the bad science.

With all due respect, unless you are willing to dissect the clinical trials of the vaccine, look at its statistical power, look at the statistical significance you really don't have a leg to stand on here. There are rules of statistics that are used when designing these studies. Later, reviewers skewer these studies. If you are at a scientific meeting it's not pretty. Especially for something like vaccines with all the public hysteria.

If anything the FDA is often too restrictive. There are drugs are used in pediatric hospitals accross that have FDA black box warnings or have no indications for use in children. They are used anyway since the literature supports it and again the risk benefit profile favors treating the child.

Also, those small numbers that you cite might be enough to deter someone from taking a vaccine that only protects against a few strains of a treatable illness that is easily screened for.

The strains that are covered are responsible for like 70-80% of the cancers (it's on a source in my prior email) so the vaccine does provide good coverage. Not perfect coverage, but good coverage.

It is simply a matter of how one conceptualizes risk.

Correct. Risk should be conceptualized in a rational, nonbiased, nonemotional way. There's a concept called the availability heuristic that affects us all. Basically we exaggerate the importance of information that is more recent.

For an example that affects us doctors: Someone with recurrent headaches probably has a 1/100 shot of having a brain tumor. There are definitely worrisome signs about a headache that would make someone more suspicious and others that make you less suspicious. If you have a patient who was "low risk" and you missed it and didn't investigate that will affect your perception of risk and you'll send patients for more head MRIs and Cat Scans even though the data probably says you shouldn't. We are all guilty of this even yours truly.

The same can be said for vaccines. There are a handful of cases out of millions (if that) that may have had an issue from the vaccine. However, the data is presented in a way that makes you feel that it's more prevalent. This affects behavior.


So are you saying that Federal entities are not affected by lobbying groups for pharma?

Obviously any sort of lobbying etc has an effect or they wouldn't do it. However, with regard to the financial implications of vaccines. Drug companies make A LOT more money off of other drugs than vaccines so with regard to vaccines I think the money is not as much of an issue.

The link below is an interesting read on this.

Pharma and vaccines

Message edited 10/8/2014 3:21:59 PM.

Re: HPV vaccine

I don't think it is irrational to say that you are declining against a shot because of possible short term side effects, unproven long term side effects and the fact that the discease said vaccine protects against ( and not even close to fully ) is easily screened for and can generally be treated. Nor do I think it is irrational to say that you believe the risk of side effects are much lower than the risk of HPV, so receiving the vaccine appears to be the best choice. Again, a matter of perspective. A great example : a women tests positive for the BRAC mutation. She has a lifetime breast cancer risk of up to 60 percent. In this scenario some women choose an immediate double mastectomy. Others choose more frequent imaging / screening. When you ask both women why they did what they did those in the first group usually say they couldn't live with the fear of cancer. They had constant anxiety about when the "bomb"would drop. Those in group two feel that they don't want to undertake a major , invasive surgery to stop something that might never happen. For them, frequent screening provides enough peace of mind. So again, this type of decision making is largely based on one's comfort / discomfort with different kinds of risks. It is also a matter of perspective. I think that we all have a right to bodily integrity / self determination so I support the right of each person to weigh the risks and benefits of each choice and do what they feel is best.

Message edited 10/8/2014 6:03:18 PM.

Re: HPV vaccine

I think the big difference between the breast cancer example and the vaccine one are that the effects of someones choice affect those around them. i.e. When my kids are teens/college aged I want to know that they are protected (and are in a pool of protected people) since we know how college kids are....

I realize this is a moot point. there's no way either of us is going to convince the other.

On a different note for those still reading this. Please get your flu shots. Also, give your kids the flu shot. Hundreds of people die and thousands of people are hospitalized from the flu. Mostly the elderly and kids. I've seen it. This is especially true if we have an outbreak like we did with H1N1. Not hyperbole. See below:


CDC Flu Data from H1N1

Re: HPV vaccine

Re: HPV vaccine