Gardasil Facts

[mhatrw]

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

Gardasil offers sexually active women, who do not currently have HPV 6, 11, 16, or 18 infections, protection from genital warts and CIN 2+ disease for five years. If the vaccinated person is not sexually active during the five years of its efficacy, then the vaccine has not protected her from disease (as we do not have evidence that Gardasil offers efficacy any longer than five years). Its faults include tiny antibody titers for all HPV types other than HPV 16; limited protection; limited duration of efficacy; and safety concerns (as outlined in my opening statement). ...

Pap smears have never killed anyone. Pap smears are an effective screening tool to prevent cervical cancer. Pap smears alone prevent more cervical cancers than can the vaccines alone. Gardasil is associated with serious adverse events, including death. If Gardasil is given to 11 year olds, and the vaccine does not last at least fifteen years, then there is no benefit - and only risk - for the young girl. Vaccinating will not reduce the population incidence of cervical cancer if the woman continues to get Pap screening throughout her life.

If a woman is never going to get Pap screening, then a HPV vaccine could offer her a better chance of not developing cervical cancer, and this protection may be valued by the woman as worth the small but real risks of serious adverse events. On the other hand, the woman may not value the protection from Gardasil as being worth the risk knowing that 1) she is at low risk for a persistent HPV infection and 2) most precancers can be detected and treated successfully. It is entirely a personal value judgment. ...

The rate of serious adverse events reported is 3.4/100,000 doses distributed. The current incidence rate of cervical cancer in the United States is 7/100,000 women.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/302/7/795.full">The Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association Writes in the Journal of American Medicine

Whether a risk is worth taking depends not only on the absolute risk, but on the relationship between the potential risk and the potential benefit. If the potential benefits are substantial, most individuals would be willing to accept the risks. But the net benefit of the HPV vaccine to a woman is uncertain. Even if persistently infected with HPV, a woman most likely will not develop cancer if she is regularly screened.15​ So rationally she should be willing to accept only a small risk of harmful effects from the vaccine.

When weighing evidence about risks and benefits, it is also appropriate to ask who takes the risk, and who gets the benefit. Patients and the public logically expect that only medical and scientific evidence is put on the balance. If other matters weigh in, such as profit for a company or financial or professional gains for physicians or groups of physicians, the balance is easily skewed. The balance will also tilt if the adverse events are not calculated correctly.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/gardasil-hpv-vaccine-faces-safety-questions/story?id=8356717">ABC News Report

"I am very much in favor of childhood vaccines," Johnson told Chris Cuomo on Wednesday's "Good Morning America," adding that there is little doubt that the vaccine does have its benefits. ... But he added that when it comes to comparing the benefits of the HPV vaccine against its potential risks, he believes there simply is not enough evidence to recommend to all parents that they have their daughters vaccinated. "I don't think we yet know the long term benefits or risks," Johnson said. "I'm taking a pass on this one and saying to parents, 'Study the issue, read the editorial... talk to your doctor.'" ...

Dr. Jacques Moritz, director of gynecology at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital, said he would not offer the Gardasil vaccine to patients when good cervical cancer screening techniques and treatments exist. He has also chosen not to have his 11-year-old daughter get the HPV shot because of his concerns. "I'm pro preventing cervical cancer and HPV," Moritz said. "I'm not pro that the physicians don't know the risks and side effects." ...

The overwhelming consensus regarding Gardasil use is that physicians who are not well versed in the risks of HPV and cervical cancer and the side effects of the vaccine cannot adequately counsel patients whether or not to be vaccinated. Dr. Joseph Zanga, chief of pediatrics at the Columbus Regional Healthcare System in Columbus, Ga., pointed out that Gardasil does not prevent women from contracting HPV in every instance, that many people who are infected will spontaneously rid themselves of the virus, and that routine pap smears are still the best prevention against cervical cancer.

[Odin2005]

1. HuffPo? LOL!

[HuckleB]

40. The Huffington Post: Featuring bad science, facile reasoning since 2005

http://sethmnookin.com/2010/12/14/the-huffington-post-featuring-bad-science-facile-reasoning-since-2005/

[mhatrw]

41. What is with all of your "shoot the messenger" generalizations?

How long has the Journal of American Medicine featured bad science and facile reasoning?

The Huffington Post link is simply an interview with a widely recognized HPV expert. What does she say that you specifically disagree with?

[HuckleB]

42. Now that is the funniest post I've seen in some time.

Baseless generalizations are all you've offered. Anyone who cares about science knows that HuffPo is anti-science. I merely posted a mildly interesting story on the matter, as a response to another poster who knows the reality of HuffPo's quackery.

Your "expert" is pushing the usual line of anti-vax bs. Nothing more, nothing less. Her nonsense has been taken apart repeatedly, and I've linked to some of the evidence that does just that.

Now should we discuss the many logical fallacies you are pushing here? How many of the usual anti-vax routines do you employ?

[mhatrw]

47. LOL. She is not anti-vax. You are libeling her. She is for making an informed decision.

Did you even read the interview?

Gardasil is only effective against 2 strains of cancer associated HPV, and only then if the innoculated subjects have never previously been exposed to these strains.

The chances of a US women who gets an annual Pap smear dying from cervical cancer is tiny. The efficacy and duration of the protection Gardasil offers against this tiny chance of cancer is currently uncertain. The medium and long terms risks of Gardasil are unknown. Short term complications closely correlated with Gardasil injections are rare but they obviously do exist and include both death and paralysis.

Whether a risk is worth taking depends not only on the absolute risk, but on the relationship between the potential risk and the potential benefit. If the potential benefits are substantial, most individuals would be willing to accept the risks. But the net benefit of the HPV vaccine to a woman is uncertain. Even if persistently infected with HPV, a woman most likely will not develop cancer if she is regularly screened. So rationally she should be willing to accept only a small risk of harmful effects from the vaccine.

What specifically about this do you take exception to?

[HuckleB]

48. We alll know the old "I'm not anti-vax" routine.

And thanks for the red herring. Perhaps you should educate yourself about libel.

:rofl:

[mhatrw]

51. What is that supposed to mean?

Where is your evidence that she is anti-vax?

[HuckleB]

54. She is pushing classic anti-vax lines, or at least that's how the author makes it appear...

and ignoring a great deal of the evidence base to do so. Alas, she has let journalists use her before:

http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/jabs-as-bad-as-the-cancer/ My suspicion is that your journalist published only what she wanted to publish.

It's very common, just like every line you've offered. It's like watching "I love lucy" late at night. Everyone has seen every episode, and we know what is coming next.

[mhatrw]

56. What "classic anti-vax lines"?

Is it possible to question any vaccine in any way without being labeled "anti-vax" by you?

If so, how?

Is the editorial in JAMA filled with "classic anti-vax lines"?

[HuckleB]

57. So red herrings are all you've got.

An editorial? Is that what you're using for evidence? In an OP titled "Gardasil Facts?" In other words, the line of crap you are pushing is based on almost nothing.

And isn't it odd that your "expert" lent herself to one of the biggest anti-vax conferences in the world?

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1723

[BuddhaGirl]

43. unfortunately this is usually to shut down any discussion

of anything that challenges a particular viewpoint.

Keep posting, it's good to hear all sides! :thumbsup:

[HuckleB]

44. Translation: "All sides" = misinformation and fiction.

:rofl:

[BuddhaGirl]

49. if you believe it's "misinformation and fiction"

then that's your belief. There are many people who like to hear different sides.

Cheers!

[HuckleB]

52. The evidence is clear.

This isn't the religion forum.

[mhatrw]

59. LOL. So medical science is unchanging dogma, sayeth the high priest of "science."

But this isn't the religion forum.

[HuckleB]

61. And another pointless red herring....

Yawn.

:boring:

Keep pushing those old links over and over again! Two OPs on the same topic in a couple days, and the topic isn't even a big news item. Ah, but no one's pushing anti-vax nonsense. Oh no. :rofl:

[BuddhaGirl]

64. all views are welcomed here

it's not the skeptic forum.

[HuckleB]

66. That doesn't make it ethical for people to push misinformation and scams.

Any health forum should be focused on the actual reality of the science of the matter, not on someone's fantasy. Those who choose to push the usual anti-vaccine story and those who choose to push faith healing can post here. Others can point out the ethical issues of doing so.

[BuddhaGirl]

67. This health forum welcomes conventional and alternative

views. "Faith healing" and "fantasy" is your opinion, whereas it's another's information.

*Health* is a relative term. And you can "point out ethical issues" but you also regularly belittle and insult. How is that behavior productive?

Answer - it's not.

[HuckleB]

68. It's not an interpretation.

It is what it is. Referring to baseless scams as "alternative" blah blah blah does not change the reality. We live in a world where we put some people in jail for scamming others out of money, but allow others to scam people out of money for baseless services that are nothing more than faith healing.

I'll ignore your ridiculous personal attack.

[BuddhaGirl]

69. "baseless" is your term

Alternative treatments are not "baseless" to me or others.

I did not engage in a personal attack - don't know where that came from.

[HuckleB]

70. Baseless is what it is.

Your religious beliefs are what they are.

[BuddhaGirl]

71. in your view it may be baseless

but for others it's not.

It's your *belief* that using alternative treatments are a "religious" belief.

[HuckleB]

72. My view has nothing to do with it.

That's the part you're missing.

[mhatrw]

76. Your act is transparent. You have nothing but bluster and ridicule and

faith based certainty in the infallibility of each and every vaccine ever manufactured.

You are like the Spanish Inquisition of Big Pharma. If someone breathes one word against any specific vaccine for reason whatsoever, you label that person a dangerous heretic. Rational discourse goes right out the window as you do nothing but ridicule, demean and incriminate, completely ignoring any and all reasonable discussion.

[HuckleB]

77. Awwwwww.

I'm sorry you have no response for actual science and the real world.

I guess life is hard when you're pushing a line of baloney.

[mhatrw]

50. Because the side that does not want to discuss the issue rationally says so.

Guilt by Association. Check.

Hasty Generalization. Check.

Appeal to Ridicule. Check.

Rinse & repeat. Check.

[HuckleB]

53. You've posted nothing that can be described as rational.

You have gotten very upset when others post rational, science-based information.

Try again.

:rofl:

[mhatrw]

60. Because you say so....n/t

[HuckleB]

62. I don't have to say it for it to be true.

[lillypaddle]

2. HPV (genital warts) is rampant

Particularly among young women. Yes, pap screening catches a lot of it, but then other treatment is necessary. I'm not getting this, I guess ...

If I weren't an older woman with a son & I had a daughter, you can damn bet I'd have her vacinated. BTW, I was the director of a women's family planning, gynecological health center for years. The statistics are appalling.

[mhatrw]

8. Market it as a vaccine for genital warts, then.

[nessa]

14. They are offering it to boys now too. If the boys are..

vaccinated presumably they won't spread the virus to the girls.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33347708/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/

I wouldn't recommend my son get it, too many unknowns. He's still young but old enough to decide for himself.

[mhatrw]

16. What exactly is the benefit to his health?

I'm wondering how exactly Merck is trying to sell this one.

[nessa]

18. Pretty much none as far as I can tell. (nt)

.

[Liberal Veteran]

20. Warts on the penis, anus, perineum....can lead to anal cancer.

It is more rare than cervical cancer as a result of HPV, but even without the cancer, removal of genital and perianal warts can be painful and embarrassing.

[mhatrw]

22. Do you know of any statistics concerning the prevalence of HPV 16 & HPV 18

related penile/anal cancer among US males?

My understanding of the situation with women is that the HPV strains associated with genital warts are not the same strains associated with cervical cancer. Is this different in males?

[Liberal Veteran]

24. There is a strong association between HPV 16 and 18 and anal cancers.

HPV 16 is one of the two strains of HPV most often associated with cervical cancer. HPV 16 and HPV 18 are also known to be responsible for most anal and penile cancer cases. Recently, Johns Hopkins University's new research links HPV16 to oral cancer as well.

Of note, colorectal cancer and anal cancer are not the same thing (just a clarification for those who think it is the same).

[mhatrw]

35. Sure, there is. Now quantify this risk to the average US male.

How many US males out out 100,000 per year die because of HPV 16 or HPV 18?

Can you tell us the figures?

[uppityperson]

21. You seriously wonder why treat males for STDs? Are you really a doctor?

I read that you are and can not believe a doctor would seriously not understand why it is necessary to treat people of both sexes for STDs, even if one partner doesn't have problems from it. How about chlamydia? It causes PID and problems with fallopian tubes for females. Do you wonder why men should be treated also?

[mhatrw]

23. All vaccines confer a small risk to the vaccinated individual.

The potential benefits of the vaccine must be weighed against the potential risks and costs.

If you could get vaccinated for only $500 to confer you with 5 years of protection against being hit by a meteorite, would you line up for the shot?

Can you quantify the potential health benefit of Gardasil to males?

[uppityperson]

25. And WHOOSH!!! the goalposts move again!

You seriously wonder why treat males for STDs? Are you really a doctor? I know no doctors who are advising such a short sighted narcissistic thing as "don't treat males since they only SPREAD the virus and don't get cervical cancer".

I can not believe a doctor would seriously not understand why it is necessary to treat people of both sexes for STDs, even if one partner doesn't have problems from it. How about chlamydia? It causes PID and problems with fallopian tubes for females. I guess you don't think that men should be treated as carriers since, after all, it doesn't directly affect them.

Shame on you.

[mhatrw]

33. LOL. Post the supposed benefits to the vaccine recipient.

We're waiting.

[Liberal Veteran]

26. Bad analogy.

Your odds of getting struck by a meteorite are infinitesimal.

I'm sure you would agree that your odds of exposure to HPV are significantly greater (by several orders of magnitude).

[mhatrw]

34. Quantify a US male's chance of getting any form of cancer associated with HPV 16 or HPV 18.

We're waiting.

[uppityperson]

3. PAP smears to not PREVENT but DETECT cancer. Prevention or detection of cancer? Which to chose.

Yes, early detection is a good thing but a PAP does not prevent any cancer. I'd rather prevent cancer than detect it, even early, but hey, that is just me.

However, please don't spread false info that PAPs prevent cancer as they only detect it or other cellular changes. Rather like PSA doesn't prevent prostate cancer. Or colonoscopies prevent colon cancer. They DETECT changes and THEN the person can get treated to help prevent cancer.

[MilesColtrane]

4. Yes, hard to believe an MD would make that mistaken assertion.

Calls into question her credibility.

(on edit: It appears to be the author's misinterpretation of the Doctor's statements.)

[mhatrw]

6. LOL.

[mhatrw]

5. PAP smears don't detect cervical cancer. They detect pre-cancerous lesions

that are, in a small percentage of the population, associated with the future development of cervical cancer years down the line.

[LisaL]

9. I am sure she is using it in a broad sense.

Such as pap smear will detect abnormalities and a person with abnormal pap smear will be treated to prevent cervical cancer.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. The JAMA editorial is not by 'a Nobel prize winner'; it just names the prize winner

who discovered that HPV causes cancer.

It is written by the editor-in-chief of the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association.

[mhatrw]

17. Thanks. Now corrected....nt

[HopeHoops]

11. That information has been around for many years and needs to be kept alive.

I've got three daughters (15, 17, and 19 now) and there's no way in HELL I would let them be lab rats for that shit.

[REP]

13. I had cervical cancer when I was 27; I wish I had been a 'lab rat'

Mine was fairly minor, as cancers go, but it still left me with no cervix. If I wanted children, this would be a problem (incompetent cervix).

[mhatrw]

15. Was your cervical cancer associated with HPV 16 or HPV 18?

[Holly_Hobby]

12. I watched this program on public broadcasting today that discusses

those exact points in your posting. Highly recommended, catch it if you can.

http://secondopinion-tv.org/episode/hpv-vaccinecervical-cancer

[ejpoeta]

19. they wanted to vaccinate my 11 year old when i took her for her required shot for

6th grade. i said no. i do not know enough about it to do that.

[SidDithers]

27. Health forum. Imagine that...nt

Sid

[uppityperson]

30. Gee

"why does the free dissemination of information trouble you so greatly?"

[mhatrw]

32. Why does it?....nt

[mhatrw]

31. Fun for everyone who opposes the free dissemination of information!

Imagine that.

[SidDithers]

36. ...

:rofl:

Sid

[trotsky]

37. Just prepend a "mis-" to the last word of that subject line...

and you're spot on.

[mhatrw]

38. Exactly. The Journal of American Medicine is run by quack scaremongers!

They're unaMerckan!

[trotsky]

39. Good luck to you.

I can thankfully see that the population of DU has appropriately unrecced your misinformation. Better luck with your next windmill.

[HuckleB]

28. The HPV Vaccine (Gardasil) Safety Revisited

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1652

"...

Regarding efficacy, most cervical cancer occurs decades after the infection, so it will be quite some time before we can demonstrate the effect qHPV should have on the incidence of cervical cancer. However, lesions identified on Pap smear and known to precede cervical cancer occur far earlier, and have served as a surrogate in pre and post-licensure studies. In trials to date, qHPV is 94-100% effective at preventing pre-cancerous changes from these four HPV types.

...

As a part of routine post-licensure follow-up and to address these very concerns, “Postlicensure Safety Surveillance for HPV Vaccine” was funded by the FDA and CDC and published last month in JAMA. This article is the largest attempt to evaluate the adverse events seen since qHPV was released. In it, the authors compared the adverse events reported to VAERS to the expected background rate of reported events in the unvaccinated general population of women aged 9-26, re-evaluating the previously reported adverse events known from licensure as well as the reports of more serious events that have gained public attention. The results are reassuring.

...

Notice, however, that the rates of major events of concern, namely Guillain-Barre syndrome, autoimmune disorders, transverse myelitis, and death, were all exceedingly rare, and not above what one would expect to occur in the normal unvaccinated population. In spite of the clear limitations inherent in the use of the VAERS database, this study should strongly reinforce the confidence of physicians and parents regarding the safety of HPV vaccination.

Gardasil (qHPV) is a new vaccine. Recommendations regarding its use are likely to continue to change as we learn to optimize its use. Just last week, an FDA advisory panel recommended that qHPV be approved for use in males age 9-26, and Merck is likely to seek approval to broaden the approved ages of administration. Whether these developments should alter the current practice is a point of open debate. And of course, as with any new medical intervention qHPV warrants close surveillance for any unexpected adverse effects. Though uncertainties remain regarding this vaccine’s use in the sphere of public health, for a parent who desires to reduce the risk of HPV infection and HPV induced malignancies for their child, we can confidently say that qHPV is a safe and effective option."

[mhatrw]

45. Gardasil's efficacy in women 25-49

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/acip/downloads/mtg-slides-feb10/02-2-hpv.pdf



So for the worst dysplasias, the ones that indicate a high risk of subsequent cervical cancer, the final count was 23 for Garadsil vs. 27 for the placebo!

Wow! That's an "efficacy" of 14.8%!

Note that Merck did not release the efficacy statistics of Gardasil against all HPV disease, but just that associated with HPV 6, 11, 16 and 18. Gadasil's efficacy against all HPV-related complications is undoubtedly far less.

[HuckleB]

46. Thank you for offering the usual misdirection. And a double misdirection at that!

The links provided have put that lame line of bs to rest already. You aren't providing any new bs, so why repeat what has already been debunked?

BTW, the summary of that slide show says it all. :rofl:

[mhatrw]

55. You really told me!

Don't address anything anyone you disagree with says. Check.

Supply links that don't address anything anyone you disagree with says, yet claim they do. Check.

Add :rofl:. Check

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhatrw]

63. The link is to a Merck scientist's slide show of a Merck funded study.

Of course the summary will choose to highlight any successes that can be mined in the study results

As is typical in any scientific study, the devil is in the details and the details say that Merck's own experiment showed that Gardasil had a 14.8% "efficacy" against HPV 16 & 18 related type 2 & 3 dysplasias among the 24-45 year old cohort tested:



Do you dispute this?

[HuckleB]

65. The link proves your assertions wrong.

You think you can touch on one small part of a study, and that small tiny part can eliminate everything else the study shows. Uh, that's not how this works.

Thank you for the link. It's much appreciated, since it shows all this anti-Gardisil nonsense for what it is.

[mhatrw]

73. So preventing cervical cancer is now a "small tiny part" of the study?

You are priceless.

[HuckleB]

74. WOW!

Your responses get funnier and funnier!

If only the anti-vax bs was harmless enough to be funny.

Oh, try harder next time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=221402&mesg_id=221402

and...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=164655&mesg_id=164655

and...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=20712&mesg_id=20712

and...

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=76214&mesg_id=76214

[mhatrw]

75. Can you answer ONE question?

Should each vaccine be evaluated on its own specific scientific merits or not?

[HuckleB]

78. I'm not here to play the usual anti-vax games.

I'm here to point out the bs in your anti-vax claims.

[mhatrw]

79. Should each vaccine be evaluated on its own specific scientific merits or not?

Answer the question.

[HuckleB]

80. I gave you the benefit of the doubt on the other thread.

You showed that all you are here to do is play the usual, pointless anti-vax games.

You'VE said one thing, while your history shows another over and over again.

No one needs to answer your pointless questions.

[mhatrw]

81. What's funny is that you can't answer the question because you cannot admit

that there has ever been a single vaccine or vaccine ingredient that was not God's gift to world health because making such an admission would compromise your whole agenda of broadly generalizing every vaccine as wonderful and any person who questions any specific vaccine or vaccine ingredient as a nutcase crank.

Vaccines are sacrosanct and are not ever to be questioned in any way. If anyone dares to question any vaccine or vaccine ingredient for any reason whatsoever, he or she will feel the full wrath of your Spamish Inquisition.

[HuckleB]

82. What's funny is you that you might actually think you have some point or another.

Actually, if that's true, it's quite sad.

Bye!

BTW, how many heads do you have?

[mhatrw]

83. So sayeth the Spamish Inquistion!...nt

[HuckleB]

84. Oh, the irony.

:rofl:

[HuckleB]

29. Information Is Beautiful: HOW SAFE IS THE HPV VACCINE?

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/how-safe-is-the-hpv-vaccine/

More:

Mainstream scaremongering over Gardasil
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/08/20/mainstream-scaremongering-over-gardasil/

Mercola, Gardasil, and Toyota?
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4482