CDC: HPV Vaccine Reduced Disease Rates in Teen Girls by 56 Percent

[Hissyspit]

Source: CBS News

CDC: HPV vaccine reduced disease rates in teen girls by 56 percent

June 19, 2013

Rates of HPV strains related to genital warts and some cancers have decreased 56 percent among American teen girls since a vaccine was introduced in 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Wednesday.

The government health agency's new study, which was published in the June issue of The Journal of Infectious Diseases, shows that rates of vaccine-type HPV prevalence dropped from 11.5 percent before the vaccine was introduced to 5 percent by 2010 for 14 to 19 year-old-girls.

"These are striking results," CDC director Dr. Tom Frieden said on a conference call Wednesday. "I think they should be a wake-up call that we need to increase vaccination rates because we can protect the next generation of adolescents and girls against the cancer that is caused by HPV."

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is an ubiquitous group of more than 100 viruses, 40 of which can be transmitted sexually. About 79 million Americans are currently infected with HPV, according to the CDC. Nearly all sexually active men or women will contract at least one type of sexually transmitted HPV in their lifetime.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57590102/cdc-hpv-vaccine-reduced-disease-rates-in-teen-girls-by-56-percent

[WinkyDink]

1. Funny; I knew of no-one with this in high school OR college (1964-1971).

[sybylla]

7. We are talking about HPV and it appears to have been around as long as humans

Human Papillomavirus and Canine Parvovirus are two different things as far as I can tell. I hope you have a link to support the suggestion that they are related. I'd be curious to read that.

I don't generally cite Wikipedia, but this article appears to be well sourced. The Centers for Disease Control had no history on the virus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus

The phylogeny of the various strains of HPV generally reflects the migration patterns of Homo sapiens, and suggests that HPV may have diversified along with the human population. Studies suggest that HPV evolved along five major branches that reflect the ethnicity of human hosts, and diversified along with the human population.[58] Researchers have identified two major variants of HPV16, European (HPV16-E), and Non-European (HPV16-NE).[59]

It wasn't until 1972, however, that scientists began to argue the connection between the virus and cancer.

[Hissyspit]

13. Nope, just had a brain glitch. Thanks for correcting.

[eggplant]

4. You're kidding, right?

It wasn't very well understood until *after* then:

http://discovery.yukozimo.com/who-discovered-hpv/

HPV or Human Papillomavirus was first discovered during the 1950s. A group of scientists from different countries contributed to the identification of the virus. However, other characteristics, common associations and common strains of this virus were discovered much later, during the 1970s and 1980s.

Stefania Ginsburg-Jabłońska, a Polish physician and dermatologist was the first person to discover the connection between HPV and skin cancer in 1972. She was born in 1920 in Poland. She studied medicine at various Polish university and received a MD and a PhD degree on related subjects. She served as a director for the Medical University of Warsaw for a number of years.

She conducted research on various topics of dermatology and skin cancer being one of them. This is how she came to discover the link between skin cancer and HPV. She published over 600 medical papers based on her research. She also contributed in the development of HPV vaccine. Then in 1978, a research team from the Pasteur Institute of France discovered the specific strain of HPV virus responsible for skin cancer, called HPV-5. The team consisted of Gerard Orth and Jabłońska.

In 1976, Harald zur Hausen, a German scientist and virologist published his famous hypothesis on HPV. In his hypothesis, he explored the association of HPV with cervical cancer. He later went on to prove the authenticity of his hypothesis. During 1983 and 1984, he and his team discovered two strains of HPV, HPV16 and HPV18. They also showed that these strains of HPV were the cause of cervical cancer. For his discovery, he won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2008.

[Posteritatis]

8. People rarely hear about things they aren't aware of. Odd how that works. (nt)

[TrollBuster9090]

10. Hah! Thanks.

[kestrel91316]

34. I learned about it in college. Of course I was getting my BS in Microbiology

at the time, so it came up in virology class.

[TrollBuster9090]

43. You're better than me. I had to finish TWO degrees in Microbiology, and actually start TEACHING it

before I paid much attention to HPV. I also participated in a study to measure the incidence of HPV in males, and had some ham-fisted public health nurse practically rub a hole in my 'manhood' with a piece of sandpaper to obtain a sample for a PCR test. I considered that to be my contribution to women's health, it was the least I could do.

[kestrel91316]

48. (insert Edward Munch's "The Scream" right here) - and I'm a girl........

[sybylla]

3. Once again science beats superstition. Next up, Trent Franks introduces bill to ban the HPV vaccine.

Because making girls' lives better is not part of the platform of the GOP or acceptable for most superstitionally deranged.

[TrollBuster9090]

17. The argument against HPV vaccination is basically the same as the argument against condoms in 1982.

Except that in 1982 the GOP wasn't suicidal enough to attempt to pass bills banning condom production or usage; and they had to settle for beating the shit out of C. Everet Coop (Reagan's Surgeon General) for advocating public education on the use of condoms as a method of preventing the spread of AIDS.

The idea then, as now, was "Don't tell people how to avoid catching deadly sexually transmitted diseases. We want to SCARE THEM into sexual monogamy."

They're doing the same thing now, only this time they're raking in both the Abstinence-Only crowd, AS WELL as the Jenny McCartney anti-vaccination crazies.


Personally:
1. I support sexual monogamy within the bounds marriage.
2. I've never been able to live up to that ideal (at least not before I was married), so, for me to criticize any young, single person for not being able to live up to it would make me a hypocrite.
3. I'm a REALIST. SEXUAL MONOGAMY IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN on a large scale.
4. I can't think of anything MORE IMMORAL than to deliberately prevent people from finding out ways (or taking actions) to prevent catching DEADLY sexually transmitted diseases just because they're not behaving the way I think they should.
5. I can't think of anything MORE IMMORAL than condemning people to a painful, traumatic death just because they're not practicing the sexual morality *I* think they should.

[kestrel91316]

33. I've never seen you around before this thread, but I LOVE YOU.

[aggiesal]

5. I read a report back around 2006 . . .

where the company that makes this drug, never tested it against HPV, and
didn't produce anything about side affects. They rammed it through the FDA.

I don't believe this study mentions side affects either.

For those reasons, I wouldn't let my 8 year old daughter (at that time)
get treated. If the studies continue to be positive, I will consider it.

[TrollBuster9090]

15. You can take a look at this scientific review from March 2013 on efficacy and safety.

Particularly the section entitled "Is HPV Vaccination Safe."

http://www.infectagentscancer.com/content/pdf/1750-9378-8-22.pdf

The conclusion is "yes, it's safe," and there are no more side effects associated with HPV vaccination than with a placebo injection.

The main side effect is an immune reaction at the injection site, which is what happens with MOST vaccinations. Vaccination is intended to provoke an immune reaction, which is how vaccination works. (ie-you inject somebody with a DEAD virus that can't hurt you because it's dead. However, the viral proteins still cause your body to mount an immune reaction, so that the next time it sees this virus (for real) it will have already prepared the Memory B cells needed to kill it. For additional safety, some companies don't use killed vaccines, because you can't guarantee killing 100% of them before you inject. (A problem they had with the original Salk polio vaccine.) Instead they use recombinant DNA technology to produce the viral proteins in the absence of the virus itself, and just inject you with viral proteins.)

As for the current report cited here, I can't get into it because the journal requires a subscription. I'm going to try to get around that by entering through PUBMED NCBI. I'll post here again if I can see anything about side effects in the original paper.

[aggiesal]

45. so there's been . . .

20+ years of trials to come up with this conclusion.
There are studies on long term side affects that shows
this is completely safe and unharmful?

[Hekate]

51. Well, we know for sure that many women with HPV will develop cervical cancer

That's been thoroughly proven, documented, studied, published, etc. etc. The threat of cervical cancer is why women get PAP smears: but it only screens for cancer, allowing you to get treatment to save your life -- PAP smears don't "prevent" anything.

[kestrel91316]

32. The vaccine is not a "drug", lol, it's a "biological" aka a vaccine.

If you don't know the difference, you are completely unqualified to comment.

[aggiesal]

46. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm completely unqualified to have my own opinion. n/t

[kestrel91316]

49. Your opinion, if you don't understand the difference, is uninformed.

But carry on - if that's how you like to go through life.

You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.

[rexcat]

59. Actually there are several companies that make the HPV vaccine...

and there are clinical trials ongoing today. In fact one of the companies has added 5 additional serotypes of the HPV that causes cervical cancer, throat cancer, rectal cancer, etc. The companies are also following the study participants long term for efficacy and safety.

You seem to be ill informed on how vaccines are approved by the FDA. The HPV vaccines were not rammed though the FDA. Very rarely are drugs, vaccines or biologics put on fast track, let alone rammed through as you stated. When they are fast tracked there are really good reasons for doing so. The companies have been looking at these vaccines for many years and have long term studies to back up the efficacy and safety of the HPV vaccines currently on the market and the new vaccines with the additional serotypes. This information is readily available for those who are truly interested in the facts. To put one's child at risk for contracting HPV and its consequences when there are safe and effective vaccines available is beyond my comprehension. If a child has never had a serious problem with the other vaccines they have received over the years they probably (>99%) won't have a problem with the HPV vaccine. There is always that rare child with a genetic issue affecting the immune system or a child with a compromised immune system secondary to cancer or drug they are on but they are typically going to have issues with most vaccines.

That does not mean that there are not risks when one takes drugs, vaccines and biologics or for that matter "natural" remedies and supplements but the rare risk of developing a serious deleterious event are far out weighed by the benefits of this vaccine. Scientific paper after scientific paper (all peer reviewed) since the HPV vaccine was approved for human use has been positive. I can't recall any peer reviewed scientific papers that have been negative.

[proverbialwisdom]

6. Do what you want, meanwhile, "Japan Suspends Recommendation for HPV Vaccines for 12-16 yo girls."

http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/06/japan-suspends-recommendation-for-hpv-vaccines-for-12-16-year-old-girls.html

Japan Suspends Recommendation for HPV Vaccines for 12 - 16 Year Old Girls

14 June 2013

Merck’s Gardasil and GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix took a hit as Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare told local governments to suspend their previous recommendation for HPV vaccine administration to the country’s 12 to 16 year old girls.

...This is the second time in the history of Japan’s vaccination program that a vaccine recommendation has been rescinded.

<>

References:

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201306150057
Health ministry withdraws recommendation for cervical cancer vaccine, The Asahi Shimbun

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/kyodo-news-international/130615/govt-cautions-municipalities-cervical-cancer-vaccinati
Gov’t cautions municipalities on cervical cancer vaccination, Kyodo News International

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/06/15/national/cervix-vaccine-issues-trigger-health-notice/#.Ub1pmOf6N2H
Cervix vaccine issues trigger health notice, The Japan Times

[TrollBuster9090]

11. None of those references do anything other than prove that anti-vaccine hysteria has spread to Japan

too, and the Japanese politicians are now becoming as reactive to non-scientific hysteria as the American politicians are.

Can you cite any scientific evidence that the HPV vaccine is associated with any side effects? Citing that 200 people out of every 1 000 000 injected reports 'pain.' Every time I get a flu vaccination I FEEL 'PAIN.' It's not a 'side effect,' it's what happens when you have a needle poked into your arm, and something goes inside that provokes an immune reaction...which is what vaccination is SUPPOSED to do.

[proverbialwisdom]

12. Not my issue, sorry. Do your own research please. nt

[TrollBuster9090]

14. I have, and there ISN'T any. It was a rhetorical question. nt

[Thor_MN]

16. Nice, post anti-vacine crap and then refuse to defend it. Typical woo-woo

[TrollBuster9090]

19. The web-link says it all. "Ageofautism(dot)com" 'Nuff said.

There is no greater example of that old Mark Twain quote about how "A lie gets half way around the world before the truth even gets its boots on" than the 'debate' about vaccines and Autism.

1. Andrew Wakefield's study has been discredited and withdrawn by the journal that originally published it; and his collaborators have confessed to falsifying the data.

2. Here's a study from the New England Journal of Medicine comparing the approximately 400 000 kids born in Denmark between 1990 and 1999 who DID get the MMR vaccine to the approximately 100 000 who didn't, and found absolutely no difference between the frequency of Autism in each group.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134

3. There is no correlation between the use of thimerosol (a mercury-containing preservative) in vaccines and side effects.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vsd/thimerosal_outcomes/

4. Yes, the US Vaccine court awarded 'damages' to a family in ONE CASE, even though they didn't think there was a link between the girl's condition and vaccination. They did it out of pity, and unfortunately no good deed goes unpunished. The ruling gave false credence to the argument about vaccines and Autism, allowing the nonsense to persist.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp078168

So, now we're in a situation where the public is willing to allow potentially THOUSANDS of women to develop CERVICAL CANCER over their lifetimes when it could EASILY have been prevented because of some pseudo-morality, and anti-science hysteria.

[proverbialwisdom]

35. Pharmalot: Citing Side Effects, Japan Pulls Recommendations For HPV Vaccines, posted 06/17/2013

http://www.pharmalive.com/citing-side-effects-japan-pulls-recommendations-for-hpv-vaccines

Not my issue, I haven't read this article.

[TrollBuster9090]

39. "I haven't read this article." I know. You're just dumping every 'article' you can find with those

tag words here. But you have no particular bias, of course.

[proverbialwisdom]

22. Again, not my issue, but I'm aware of this letter published in Infectious Agents and Cancer Journal

Letter published in Infectious Agents and Cancer Journal on recent “HPV Prevention Series” editorial.

http://www.infectagentscancer.com/content/7/1/37/comments#1334696

Commentary on Editorial entitled “HPV Prevention Series” authored by Silvia de Sanjose

Emily Tarsell   (2013-02-04 14:41)  Private Practice

Editors,

As now better informed consumers who know the dire consequences of misinformation, we feel compelled to comment on the Editorial entitled “HPV Prevention Series” authored by Silvia de Sanjose [1]. The author makes several statements which are at best, half-truths.

The statement that cervical cancer “remains to be the second leading cause of cancer death in women in less developed regions of the world” is at best, a half-truth. It fails to mention the women living in the developed countries where cervical cancer death rates are very low. In the U.S.A., cervical cancer is 14th in frequency on the list of causes of cancer death [2] and its death rate is 1.7 per 100,000 women; in Australia and New Zealand its death rate is 1.4 and 1.6 per 100,000 respectively [3], and it is widely accepted that cervical cancer death only occurs in unscreened or rarely screened women [4]. Over-extrapolation of the clinical trial data and the benefits obtained in a population with high cervical cancer rates compared to a population living in the developed countries is inappropriate and misleading.

The statement “HPV is the necessary cause of cervical cancer”in the Editorial is also a half-truth. The whole truth should be that HPV infection is not in itself a sufficient cause of cervical cancer [5].

The author states that “major reduction of HPV related disease is feasible” through such strategies as “routine HPV vaccination of pre-adolescent and young women.” However this statement is not supportable by scientific evidence as there is no pre or post licensure research that HPV vaccines are more effective than Pap screening in reducing incidences of cervical cancer or pre-cancerous lesions [6].

<>

Sincerely,

Emily Tarsell – Sparks, MD, USA
Stephen Tunley – Sydney, Australia

Identifications of 50 additional consumers who endorse these comments are available; they also experienced dire consequences as a result of misinformation regarding hpv vaccines.

References

(1) de Sanjose S: HPV Prevention Series. Editorial. Infect Agent and Canc 2012, 7:37.
(2) http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/cancer-advances-in-focus/cervical
(3) http://appliedresearch.cancer.gov/icsn/cervical/mortality.html
(4) Janerich DT, Hadjimichael O, Schwartz PE, et al.: The screening histories of women with invasive cervical cancer, Connecticut. Am J Public Health 1995, 85:
791-4.
(5) http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/screening/cervical/HealthProfessional/page2
(6) Tomljenovic L, Shaw C: Too fast or not too fast; the FDA's approval of Merck's vaccine Gardasil. J Law Med Ethics 2012 Fall, 40: 673-81.
(7) http://www.realfoodhouston.com/2012/07/30/gardasil-and-cervarix-whats-the-controversy-about-the-hpv-vaccine/
(8) Lee NC: Testimony before the House Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on Health and Environment, March 16, 1999. http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990316b.html

Competing interests
Consumers who were misinformed about the necessity, safety and efficacy of HPV vaccines.

Link from: http://www.greatergoodmovie.org/news-views/hpv-vaccines-and-science-based-medicine/

[Thor_MN]

25. For something that is not your issue, you seem to have a lot to say about it...

"The statement that cervical cancer “remains to be the second leading cause of cancer death in women in less developed regions of the world” is at best, a half-truth. It fails to mention the women living in the developed countries where cervical cancer death rates are very low. In the U.S.A., cervical cancer is 14th in frequency on the list of causes of cancer death and its death rate is 1.7 per 100,000 women; in Australia and New Zealand its death rate is 1.4 and 1.6 per 100,000 respectively "

Huh? The best shot they have is to claim a half truth because the article they criticizing specifically excluded something they want to whine about?


If you want do drive by shootings, own up to it...

[TrollBuster9090]

26. This 'NOT MY ISSUE' thing is getting to be a little like "SOME PEOPLE SAY..."

First, THAT LETTER DOES NOT LINK TO ANY EVIDENCE OF HPV VACCINES HAVING SIDE EFFECTS. It claims the following:


1. In response to an EDITORIAL piece that claims Cervical Cancer is the second leading cause of death among women, it claims Cervical Cancer is NOT second. Nothing about vaccine safety.

2. The author then hand-waves about the fact that HPV is STRONGLY CORRELATED with cervical cancer not being proof that it 'CAUSES' cervical cancer. ie- If anybody develops cervical cancer who does NOT have HPV, does that disprove a link between cervical cancer and HPV? If 98% of smokers develop lung cancer, would any rational person go around saying "the 2% who don't proves smoking does not cause lung cancer?"

3. The author then claims there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that HPV vaccinations will reduce cervical cancer, because there was no 'before and after' study. HELLO! THIS LETTER WAS WRITTEN IN 2012. THE STUDY THAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT WAS COMPLETED IN 2013, AND IT SHOWS A 56% REDUCTION IN CERVICAL CANCER FOR THE VACCINATED GROUP.

4. The author then quibbles with the original editorial's claim that HPV vaccination will reduce cervical cancer in the third world because it's TOO 'EXPENSIVE.' Nothing about being dangerous.

5. Finally, the author blathers about the potential risks of 'reported' side effects outweighing any potential benefits the vaccine may provide, without providing any evidence whatsoever about so-called side effects. She then blathers about using Pap Tests to lower the incidence of cervical cancer, despite the fact that Pap Tests are even MORE expensive than HPV vaccination, and has lowered the incidence of death from cervical cancer by TREATING CANCER after it's been diagnosed, rather than PREVENTING it in the first place. Treating cancer is FAR more expensive than preventing it.


The article that that letter is contained within is even worse.

It claims that 128 deaths have been reported to the VEARS (vaccine safety agency), and then links to a page THAT SAYS NO SUCH THING, and in fact SAYS THE OPPOSITE!

This is the page they link to:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/HPV/Index.html

That page then contains a link to THIS page:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/HPV/jama.html

Which confirms that there were 32 deaths (not 128) reported, and it was concluded that NONE of them had anything to do with the vaccination. It also confirms several other conditions that developed coincidentally (a total of 772), and concluded that none of them had anything to do with the vaccination.

[proverbialwisdom]

37. Are you being disingenuous? The article doesn't refer to reductions in cervical cancer rates.

Last edited Thu Jun 20, 2013, 11:36 AM - Edit history (1)

The article states "rates of HPV strains related to genital warts and some cancers have decreased 56 percent" among American teen girls. Catch the difference?

The letter, written by parents of teens who suffered adverse reactions, CONTRARY TO YOUR POINTS asserted:

1) Among women in less developed regions of the world, cervical cancer remains the second leading cause of cancer death. Among women in developed countries, it is 14th and only occurs in unscreened or rarely screened women, average age 54, causing death if it remains undiscovered and untreated.

2, 3) Flip those numbers on smokers. Come on, read at link below that "...more than 90% of women infected with high risk HPV resolve spontaneously," "HPV infection is not in itself a sufficient cause of cervical cancer."

See: http://brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/sexual_health/sexually_transmitted_infections/hpv.php

"HPV is an infection which many people will contract, but only a small minority will have a lasting infection leading to cancer. This is because, in most cases, HPV (both low and high risk types) is cleared by the immune system. In a study of female college students, more than 90% of women infected with high risk HPV had cleared the infection 24 months later. The average time of infection is 4 to 20 months. Progression to pre-cancer occurs when infection with a high risk type persists over time.

Infection with high-risk HPV types is a necessary, but generally not a single or sufficient cause of HPV related cancers. Other factors which may contribute to developing cancer include smoking, nutrtional status, health of the immune system (e.g., HIV infection), and oral contraceptive use. Oral contraceptive users have a slightly increased risk of cervical cancer. This may be associated with lack of condom use when on the pill and lifetime number of partners, rather than any direct effect. There is insufficient evidence of a link to recommend discontinuation of oral contraceptive use in women with high-risk HPV infection.

In the US, HPV is considered to be the most common STI. There are 6.2 million new HPV infections in the United States each year. It is estimated that at any given time 26% of women ages 14-49 have HPV. Because HPV is so common, a person can have very few sexual partners and still come into contact with this virus. The lifetime risk of acquiring HPV is 75% for sexually active adults."

Again, this is not my issue. You can track down the adverse reaction stats or not, your choice. You might start here, I haven't read the page personally: https://www.facebook.com/pages/One-More-Girl/136725669714295 . OTOH, I've looked this over last year and find it terribly sad: http://truthaboutgardasil.org .

[TrollBuster9090]

40. Every year over 12 000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer, and over 3000 die from it.

Strains of HPV are linked to 70% of cervical cancers. It's easier and cheaper to prevent it than to treat it after it's diagnosed.

The letter is making the argument that cervical cancer rates have dropped as a result of women taking Pap Tests, thus facilitating treatment. I pointed out that it's much cheaper to prevent it than it is to treat it, which is true, and you didn't address that.

Yes, most cases resolve spontaneously. Does that mean it's not a problem? ABSOLUTELY NOT! What kind of an idiot thinks that?
It's not the soul cause of cervical cancer. Does that mean it's not a problem? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

The only reason for not preventing the spread of HPV-associated cervical cancer with an anti-HPV vaccine would be if the vaccine has harmful side effects that outweigh the protective benefit, AND IT DOESN'T!

NEITHER YOU, NOR ANY OF THE BULLSHIT LINKS YOU'VE PROVIDED HAVE SHOWN ANY PROOF OF SIDE EFFECTS. Please provide a credible source showing evidence of side effects for the HPV (which I already know you can't do) or STFU.

[TrollBuster9090]

42. This is not my issue, but while you're at it, try reading something USEFUL.

When the statistics are not in your favor, cite anecdotes. That's a common strategy.

Well, one of those goofy links you posted claims the HPV vaccine has harmful side effects, causes neurological damage, and has caused deaths. Then it provides a link to a CDC report which actually says the opposite. Here's what it actually says:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/HPV/jama.html#1

"The study's main findings include the following:

More than 23 million doses were administered nationally since the HPV vaccine was licensed in June 2006. There were a total of 12,424 reports to VAERS of adverse events following HPV vaccination through December 2008.
Since the HPV vaccine was approved, the vast majority (94%) of adverse events reported to VAERS after receiving this vaccine have not been serious. An adverse event is considered serious if it is life threatening, or results in death, permanent disability, abnormal conditions at birth, hospitalization or prolonged hospitalization.

The most common events reported were:
Syncope (or fainting)–common after need injections, especially in pre-teens and teens
Local reactions at the site of immunization (pain and redness)
Dizziness
Nausea
Headache
Of the 12,424 reports of adverse events, 772 (6% of all reports) described serious adverse events, including 32 reports of deaths.
The 32 death reports were reviewed and there was no common pattern to the deaths that would suggest they were caused by the vaccine. In cases where there was an autopsy, death certificate, or medical records, the cause of death could be explained by factors other than the vaccine. Some causes of death determined to date include diabetes, viral illness, illicit drug use, and heart failure.
There were two reports of unusual neurological illness (per autopsy, probable variants of Amytrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) often referred to as “Lou Gehrig's Disease”) that resulted in the death of two young females. There is no current evidence suggesting that the HPV vaccine caused these illnesses, but researchers from several highly regarded academic centers are studying the cases.
There was increased reporting of syncope and pulmonary emboli (blood clots of the lungs) compared with what has been found for other vaccines given to females of the same age. Of the people who had blood clots 90% had a known risk factor for blood clots, such as taking oral contraceptives (birth control pills). VAERS reports cannot prove the vaccine caused the adverse event in women with these risk factors. However, this finding needs further investigation."

The CDC's safety report says three things:

1. NONE of the 32 deaths reported could be attributed to the vaccine.

2. Out of 7.7 million people to get the three doses of vaccine, only 32 people died soon enough afterwards for somebody to think there might be a connection. That's a 0.0004% incidence rate.

3. Out of 23 000 000 doses administered, only 12,424 cases of 'adverse effects' were reported, MOSTLY MINOR. That's a minor adverse effect rate of 0.05%.

So, they key question is: presented with facts like that ARE YOU STILL GOING TO INSIST ON CONTINUING TO POST BULLSHIT LINKS ABOUT THE HPV VACCINE BEING UNSAFE?

[proverbialwisdom]

47. Tip: read business sources. Add this Businesswire article (new website for me) to your research.

Maybe it's out of date, I don't know. Maybe manufacturing has changed, maybe quality control, maybe nothing. Google for reports on withdrawn "batches' in India and Spain, or don't. In any case, we don't need to agree, that's the genius of the principle of informed consent.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20090209005358/en/NVIC-Vaccine-Risk-Report-Reveals-Reaction-Reports

February 09, 2009 07:30 AM

NVIC Vaccine Risk Report Reveals More Serious Reaction Reports After Gardasil

Vaccine Safety Group Calls for Investigation

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Comparing serious adverse event reports to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) following Gardasil (HPV) and another vaccine for meningococcal (Menactra), the National Vaccine Information Center (www.NVIC.org) found that there are three to 30 times more serious health problems and deaths reported to VAERS after Gardasil vaccination. As reported by CBS News, the longtime vaccine safety watchdog group is calling for action, including an investigation by the Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS) and the U.S. Congress into the fast-tracked licensure and government recommendation that all young girls and women get Gardasil vaccine.

“Merck only studied the vaccine in fewer than 1200 girls under age 16 and most of the serious health problems and deaths in the pre-licensure clinical trials were written off as a 'coincidence,'” said NVIC co-founder and president, Barbara Loe Fisher. “If the new Administration and Congress want to make government recommended health care safer, more effective and less expensive, a good place to start is by looking into the human and economic costs of Gardasil vaccine.”

Gardasil and Menactra vaccines are recommended by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for gradeschool, high school and college age children, although Gardasil is only given to girls while Menactra is given to both girls and boys. If reports of Gardasil vaccine-related adverse events are only coincidental as maintained by CDC officials in October 2008, there would be little or no difference in the number and severity of adverse event reports for both vaccines.

Using the MedAlerts database, compiling data for VAERS through November 30, 2008, NVIC found that compared to Menactra, Gardasil is associated with at least twice as many Emergency Room visit reports (5,021), four times as many Death reports (29); five times as many “Did Not Recover” reports (2,017) and seven times as many “Disabled” reports (261). There have been 34 reports of thrombosis, 27 reports of lupus, 23 reports of blood clots, 16 reports of stroke, and 11 reports of vasculitis following Gardasil vaccine given alone without any other vaccines. There are three to six times more fainting or syncope reports after Gardasil vaccination than after Menactra and there have been 544 reports of seizures following Gardasil and 158 after Menactra (73 Menactra-associated seizures involved co-administration with Gardasil).

Rechallenge reports to VAERS involve cases where there was a worsening of symptoms after repeated vaccination. There were 275 Rechallenge reports after Gardasil compared to eight after Menactra (7 Menactra-associated Rechallenge reports involved co-administration with Gardasil). In the entire VAERS database for all vaccine adverse event reports, there are 467 rechallenge reports, of which nearly 60 percent are for Gardasil.

<>

[TrollBuster9090]

50. Informed Consent is meaningless when A) A high level of technical training is required to understand

the options, and B ) conflict of interest groups are flooding the zone with disinformation.

This is exactly the same as the Global Warming debate. The majority of expert professionals, with no financial axe to grind say it's real, but various parties with financial interests are flooding the information zone with disinformation.

Yes, pharmaceutical companies do this, and so do citizen advocate groups. In the case of vaccines, however, the vast majority of professionals with no financial interest one way or the other agree that almost all vaccines are safe when compared to the risks associated with not using them.

Here are two important things to know about the article you just cited. It LOOKS better than the ones you've linked to directly from anti-vaccine activist sites, but all that's going on is an anti-vaccine advocacy group (the NVIC) has written a report that LOOKS technical and unbiased, and then fed it to the media who gladly repeated it because controversy sells.

1. NVIC is an anti-vaccine group founded by parents whose children have allegedly been damaged by vaccinations, and are seeking damages from the U.S. vaccine court. They're after money.

2. They state that (for example) Gardasil is associated with "two times as many ER visits (5021) and four times as many death reports (29) as Menactra." What they conveniently fail to mention is that A) 8 million more doses of Gardasil have been administered to people than Menactra, and B ) in both cases the number of adverse effect reports is so small that you can't get reliable statistics from it. (ie-25 'death reports' vs. 7 is not a significant difference when you're dealing with 23 million doses vs 15 million doses.)

Here's the CDC safety report on Gardasil. 23 million doses.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/HPV/jama.html

Here's the CDC safety report on Menactra. 15 million doses.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/gbsfactsheet.html

Both reports were compiled in 2008 and used in the NVIC 'comparison' in 2009. NVIC did NOT pro-rate the number of adverse report effects to the number of doses administered. Let's see what happens when you do that:

to quote their own figures, 5021 emergency room visits for 23 million doses of Gardasil is a rate of (5021/23 000 000 X 100%)= 0.0002%. They claim only half as many for Menactra (2510) for 15 million doses, a rate of 0.0167%


So, pro-rating the number of ER visits for Gardasil and Menactra to the number of doses given (0.0167%/ 0.0002%), you're 84 times more likely to have to go to the ER after a shot of Menactra than after a shot of Gardasil.

Are you still impressed by the NVIC's analysis?



Why am I so passionate about this? (And I'm sorry for taking it out on you, personally.) Because parents are now starting to BELIEVE all this horseshit they see repeated on the internet, and there has now been an dramatic increase in the number of parents refusing to vaccinate their kids against HPV, citing "safety concerns." (aka-bullshit they've seen on the internet.)

THE VACCINE IS SAFE!
The vaccine can prevent THOUSANDS of women from GETTING cervical cancer, which is much cheaper and safer than treating it after diagnosis.
And yet, people are refusing to protect their daughters from a deadly disease that there is no need for them to get, all because they've been duped, confused, and bemused by bullshit that gets spread around the internet.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/18/us-evidence-hpv-vaccin-idUSBRE92H0A020130318

[proverbialwisdom]

53. Thanks, apology accepted. The tension that exists is between epidemiology vs case histories.

As noted, the public health action taken in Japan earlier this week is the diametric opposite of the stance affirmed by the CDC. Interesting timing. That's my contribution to this thread.

POST 37.

Again, this is not my issue. You can track down the adverse reaction details or not, your choice. You might start here, I haven't read the page personally: https://www.facebook.com/pages/One-More-Girl/136725669714295 . OTOH, I've looked this over last year and find it terribly sad: http://truthaboutgardasil.org .

Also, google Dr. Diane Harper, vaccine developer and Gardasil researcher, for her informed opinion.

In any event, your position remains strongly promoted globally here: http://www.bushcenter.org/blog/2013/02/01/scaling-cervical-cancer-prevention

[TrollBuster9090]

41. Just FYI, this is Emily Tarsell, the author of that letter.

http://vimeo.com/19227193

[Hekate]

52. For something you claim is not your issue, you certainly...

... spamalot.

There's a tremendous amount of emotional investment trying to stop vaccinations of all kinds, yet you say it's not your issue. So apparently you have issues.

What, then, IS your issue?

[proverbialwisdom]

63. Accuracy, maybe, as evidenced by the scientific heavyweights battling this out, metaphorically.

Of course, feel free to disagree, although resorting to insults is usually ineffective.

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07853890.2011.645353

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine policy and evidence-based medicine: Are they at odds?
March 2013, Vol. 45, No. 2 , Pages 182-193 (doi:10.3109/07853890.2011.645353)

Lucija Tomljenovic 1 & Christopher A. Shaw 1,2
1Neural Dynamics Research Group, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia, 828 W. 10th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1L8, Canada
2Program in Experimental Medicine and the Graduate Program in Neuroscience, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Correspondence: Lucija Tomljenovic, Neural Dynamics Research Group, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia, 828 W. 10th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1L8, Canada. E-mail: [e-mail]

Abstract

All drugs are associated with some risks of adverse reactions. Because vaccines represent a special category of drugs, generally given to healthy individuals, uncertain benefits mean that only a small level of risk for adverse reactions is acceptable. Furthermore, medical ethics demand that vaccination should be carried out with the participant's full and informed consent. This necessitates an objective disclosure of the known or foreseeable vaccination benefits and risks. The way in which HPV vaccines are often promoted to women indicates that such disclosure is not always given from the basis of the best available knowledge. For example, while the world's leading medical authorities state that HPV vaccines are an important cervical cancer prevention tool, clinical trials show no evidence that HPV vaccination can protect against cervical cancer. Similarly, contrary to claims that cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women worldwide, existing data show that this only applies to developing countries. In the Western world cervical cancer is a rare disease with mortality rates that are several times lower than the rate of reported serious adverse reactions (including deaths) from HPV vaccination. Future vaccination policies should adhere more rigorously to evidence-based medicine and ethical guidelines for informed consent.

HTML
PDF (416 KB)
PDF Plus (447 KB)
Reprints
Permissions

[proverbialwisdom]

23. Some of these parents are physicians, btw. nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

54. wtf is woo, it's annoying as hell.

[Thor_MN]

55. Are you asking for a definition of woo?

Woo is posting nonsensical crap based on fear, devoid of any rational thinking or science.

Woo is anti-vaccine. Woo is fearing high fructose corn syrup. Woo is promting "natural" cures with no basis in reality over proven treatments. Woo is raw milk away from the dairy. Woo is cell phone caused brain cancer. Woo is "Legitimate rape" not causing pregnancy.

Anti science fear based crap.

[Puzzledtraveller]

56. where did the word come from?

for some reason it bugs the hell out me, like Sarah Palins voice does, lol. cant we just say anti-science?

[Thor_MN]

57. Honestly, I don't know where I first encountered it. It has the right sound of derision, IMO.

It conveys a negative sense, with a hint of crazy. Maybe derived from coo-coo, I most often see it doubled up. I'm avoiding saying it again in replying to you.

I've known people who could not stand the word "Ish", which in Minnesota is sometime used for a short expression of "yucky". "Oh, for ish!!" is stepping unexpectedly barefoot into dog poo. (Sorry, couldn't resist another oo word.)

[jeff47]

18. If it wasn't your issue, you wouldn't have supplied a ton of links

full of bullshit.

So yes, it is your issue. Own up to it.

[proverbialwisdom]

24. One more solid link.

Here's a highly informative overview: http://brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/sexual_health/sexually_transmitted_infections/hpv.php

[TrollBuster9090]

27. By 'highly informative' do you mean this statement:?

"There is now a vaccine for HPV, called GARDASIL, which protects against 4 types of HPV (types 6, 11, 16, 18) that are linked to 70% of cervical cancers

Yes, that's true.

But there is nothing on that link about the HPV vaccine being unsafe, which was your original claim.

[proverbialwisdom]

30. I didn't make any claims, so stop putting words into my mouth.

If that's your take-away, fine, but it isn't mine. Please, have the last word.

[TrollBuster9090]

38. No, you didn't make that claim. All you're doing is scouring the internet for every bullshit,

pseudo-science, anti-vaccine activist article claiming the vaccine has harmful side effects, posting them on here, and then backing away and saying "not my issue."


PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

EITHER CITE A SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE THAT SHOWS THE HPV VACCINE HAS HARMFUL EFFECTS, OR SHUT UP ABOUT IT. You're not doing anybody any favors, YOU'RE JUST SPREADING DISINFORMATION.

SO FAR, YOU HAVE NOT CITED ONE SINGLE CREDIBLE SOURCE SHOWING SIDE EFFECTS. Not ONE of the links you've posted here show ANY harmful side effects. You've posted several pseudo-credible links that conflate the issue with other issues, but not one that shows legitimate side effects.

[rexcat]

60. It is going to be a real issue...

when the new vaccine with 9 serotypes comes out, which should be soon. I think the new vaccine will cover almost all of the HPV that, to date, can cause cancer.

I am always amazed at the lack of good science education in this country but it might not be a lack of good science education but a lack of people who can comprehend anything beyond the simple, can't think critically or are too lazy to think.

[proverbialwisdom]

61. Do you include physicians in your ridiculous blanket condemnation?

How's this grab you?

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/1/prweb9112116.htm

Results in a New Study Published in the Annals of Medicine Show Startling Discrepancy in Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Policy and Evidence-Based Medicine

The publication of the startling results of a Canadian study involving the effectiveness of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine against cervical cancer demonstrate that vaccine policy and evidence-based medicine are at odds. Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD and Christopher A. Shaw, PhD of the University of British Columbia’s evidence-based study was recently published in the Annals of Medicine, a highly-ranked peer reviewed medical journal.

New York, NY (PRWEB) January 18, 2012

SEE: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07853890.2011.645353

Related: http://www-scf.usc.edu/~uscience/gardasil_vaccine.html

[rexcat]

64. The only thing available on the link is the abstract...

I would need to read the entire article, not just the abstract, to draw any rational conclusions unlike you. One other problem with the article is the group that published the article is: "Neural Dynamics Research Group, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia."

And how are they experts on viral diseases and vaccines specifically? I did not realize that ophthalmologist were experts in infectious diseases and vaccines, not! I will rely on the experts in the field because that is how I was taught in the sciences. It is so bothersome trying to have a rational discussion on DU with the scientifically illiterate but there seems to be a fair share here!

[proverbialwisdom]

65. It's an abstract from a peer reviewed journal, hardly "scientifically illiterate."

As you are so adamant about your views, I certainly strongly encourage you to find and read the entire article before dismissing it, but that's entirely your call.

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/pdf/10.3109/07853890.2011.645353

Annals of Medicine - 45(2): Pages 182-193; Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine policy and evidence-based medicine: Are they at odds?, Electronic, Individual (access for 24 hours for US $86.00)

[proverbialwisdom]

67. Kidding? It's highly relevant. Google: hpv ophthalmology nt

[rexcat]

68. The current HPV vaccine...

covers the following sub-types: 6, 11, 16 and 18 (Merck vaccine). From Merck's website they are in clinical trials for an HPV vaccine to cover the following sub-types: 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58. GSK also has an HPV vaccine but only covers sub-types 16 and 18 and it looks like they do not have anything in clinical trails. The Merck vaccine is approved for use in both females and males but the GSK vaccine is only approved for use in females.

HPV sub-types 6 and 11 are highly associated with conjunctival papilloma. I could not find any incidence rates for the US but it appears to be low. The Merck vaccine seems to cover those sub-types. It would be nice to be able to read the article but $86.00 is a little pricy to read one article. Did you read the entire article? If you are willing to pony up $86.00 I am willing to read the article to discuss further.

My apologies for the late response. I had meetings to attend to last week in Boston to maintain my professional certification and didn't log into DU for the week.

[proverbialwisdom]

69. Here's a source with a less unaffordable paywall while the article remains as 'Subscribed content.'

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/apl/sann/2013/00000045/00000002/art00011

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine policy and evidence-based medicine: Are they at odds?
Authors: Tomljenovic, Lucija; Shaw, Christopher A.
Source: Annals of Medicine, Volume 45, Number 2, March 2013 , pp. 182-193(12)
Publisher: Informa Healthcare

Buy & download full text article:

Price: $33.00 plus tax

Related: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/757789

I cordially respect your right to disagree with the authors' conclusions, the essence of informed consent.

[TrollBuster9090]

9. Introducing the HPV vaccination program in schools was the only sensible thing Rick Perry ever did.

So, I'm not surprised that the GOP base clobbered him over THAT ONE ISSUE. They're going for a perfect score: 100% anti-science, 100% anti-common sense.

[proverbialwisdom]

20. Oh, Governor Perry does't deserve all the credit for that effort.

Summary of proposals in state legislatures across the country:

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/hpv-vaccine-state-legislation-and-statutes.aspx

[img][/img]

http://truth-out.org/news/item/9889-exposed-the-other-alecs-corporate-playbook

Exposed: The Other ALECs' Corporate Playbook

Thursday, 21 June 2012 00:00
By Steve Horn and Sarah Blaskey, Truthout | News Analysis

How is it that no matter whom we elect as our state representatives - Democrat, Republican, or other - we most often end up with policies that privilege the corporate agenda over the public interest?

It's a simple question, raised by laws promoting charter schools, fracking, union-busting, privatization, deregulation, and countless other corporate-friendly policies that have spread like wildfire around the country, particularly in recent legislative sessions.

As it turns out, the answer is relatively simple. Big business in the United States has perfected a legislative "playbook" - a methodical strategy for turning the wish list of multinational corporations into a state-level policy agenda with bipartisan support.

The specific details of legislative processes are many and intricate, yet the corporate playbook for exploiting state-level policy is straightforward and critical to understand.

<...>

The three largest "other ALECs," and the most influential Groups in state politics are the Council of State Governments (CSG), the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the State Legislative Leaders Foundation (SLLF). There are similarities in processes and structure among these organizations, but there are also several important differences.

[TrollBuster9090]

28. Oh, I get it. This is a "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!1!!!" post...

[proverbialwisdom]

29. Uh, I've never used the term even once in my entire life, so no. nt

[onehandle]

21. Sluts.

Kidding.

I meant idiots. Conservative idiots who want their daughters to die.

[kestrel91316]

31. They better vaccinate the boys, too. Where the hell do they think most of

the girls are catching it?

[MissB]

36. They do. Our pediatrician recommended it for our boys

last year. They had the three rounds of vaccines. 15 and 13 now.

[jeff47]

58. They've started to.

Men don't seem to suffer significant ill effects from HPV. So they held off on recommending the vaccine for menfolk until they had an enormous sample size to prove the vaccine was extremely safe.

OTOH, women benefit greatly from not catching HPV. So they recommended the vaccine for women earlier.

[xchrom]

44. excellent news, nt