Study: Not Enough Evidence That HPV Vaccine Is Safe and Effective - Page 6

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by SkewedD 

Kathymuggle,
.

With that said, I must reiterate that absolutely no decrease in efficacy of HPV vaccine has been observed over time, but even if it did, young women are still protected at a critical time.

So you insist that "absolutely no decrease in efficacy of HPV vaccine has been observed over time," even though this is staring you in the face:

Hum Vaccin. 2011 Feb;7(2):161-9. Epub 2011 Feb 1.
Long term protection against cervical infection with the human papillomavirus: review of currently available vaccines.
Romanowski B.
Source
University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. [e-mail]

" For the quadrivalent vaccine, immunogenicity data up to 5 years show that the immune response against HPV-18 wanes after approximately 4 years."
Edited by Taximom5 - 11/2/12 at 10:18am

[Rrrrrachel]

Taxi, that is a statement about a particular vaccine with four strains and its' effectiveness against one strain.  There's a difference between that and the overall effectiveness of the HPV vaccine in general.

That distinction aside, I hope we aren't going to start throwing out everything someone says when they have a small inaccuracy. 

[Rrrrrachel]

Here's the entire abstract and study the quote above is excised from:





http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21307652

Quote:


Two vaccines against HPV are commercially available: an HPV-16/18 (bivalent) and an HPV-6/11/16/18 (quadrivalent) vaccine. and mathematical modelling....In a head to head study, the bivalent vaccine induced a higher, more sustained immune response than the quadrivalent vaccine. Immunogenicity of the bivalent vaccine against HPV-16 and HPV-18 has been demonstrated up to 8.4 years. For the quadrivalent vaccine, immunogenicity data up to 5 years show that the immune response against HPV-18 wanes after approximately 4 years. Efficacy against infection and cervical lesions associated with HPV-16/18 has been shown up to 8.4 and 5 years with the bivalent and quadrivalent vaccine, respectively. ..., both vaccines may provide sufficient immunogenicity to confer long-term protection. Ongoing monitoring is essential.





So it's a comparison between two vaccines, not a statement about the HPV vaccine in general
Edited by Rrrrrachel - 11/1/12 at 11:04am

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Here's the entire abstract and study the quote above is excised from:

It's over the 100 word limit, so I guess you will need to edit it.

[Rrrrrachel]

Oh, sorry, I wasn't even paying attention, too focused on providing context. I'm on my phone I will try to edit but may have to wait until I'm at my computer.

[SkewedD]

Taximom, the last line of the Abstract from which you snipped the sentence you included in your post reads as follows:

Cross-protection against non-vaccine types appears stronger with the bivalent vaccine. However, both vaccines may provide sufficient immunogenicity to confer long-term protection

The efficacy of the vaccine in preventing HPV infection has not waned over time. Period. I am certain that since you posted Barbara Romanowski's Abstract, you have carefully read the entire paper, and are aware that in fact, it is believed that the assay used to detect "waning" immunogenicity in that study was flawed. A more thorough assay shows that it did not, in fact, decrease.  But this is a very complicated area, so I don't blame you for not being able to understand the difference. I would also like to add that if you were familiar with the field, you would know that the Costa Rica study to which I referred was performed with the bivalent vaccine. Again, it's complicated, I know.

Kathymuggle, I discussed the reason that the ages for HPV vaccination are recommended here:

Edited by MDC moderator to remove promotional link.  

Advertising & Solicitation

We don’t welcome people posting their wares or promoting their websites in discussion threads.

In brief:

Vaccinations only work before an exposure.  The HPV vaccination schedule currently requires a series of three injections, though recent evidence suggests that only two may be needed in the near future. Regardless, completion of the series may take a year or two for various reasons. According to a 2005 report from the National Center for Health Statistics, by the age of 15 approximately 26% of American females have had sex. By age 18, it’s 70%.

 
I'm afraid I don't see the point in delaying the vaccination, as it has been demonstrated to be safe.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Taxi, that is a statement about a particular vaccine with four strains and its' effectiveness against one strain.  There's a difference between that and the overall effectiveness of the HPV vaccine in general.
. 

That particular vaccine with 4 strains is Gardasil--the vaccine usually used in the US.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by SkewedD 

Taximom, the last line of the Abstract from which you snipped the sentence you included in your post reads as follows:

Quote:
Cross-protection against non-vaccine types appears stronger with the bivalent vaccine. However, both vaccines may provide sufficient immunogenicity to confer long-term protection

MAY.

That means they just don't know, and that it may, or may not.

Originally Posted by SkewedD 

The efficacy of the vaccine in preventing HPV infection has not waned over time. Period.
I'm afraid I don't see the point in delaying the vaccination, as it has been demonstrated to be safe.

No, that is incorrect.

Gardasil's efficacy against HPV-18 has been shown to wane after 4 years. Gardasil's efficacy against HPV-16 has not been shown for longer than 5 years.

Period.

[SkewedD]

I just explained to you why you are incorrect, Taximom. If you would like to continue to rely on a single sentence in an Abstract from a paper that you apparently have not read, that is your choice, but I'm afraid that does not count as research in my world.

The point that is demonstrated by that crucial last sentence is that the author understands that even if some markers of immunogenicity appeared to be waning according to the results of a below-par assay, protection against HPV hadn't budged. Again, this is complicated, so I understand your confusion.

[pek64]

So if vaccination safety has been so thoroughly demonstrated, why are there so many claiming otherwise?

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by pek64 

So if vaccination safety has been so thoroughly demonstrated, why are there so many claiming otherwise?

I wonder this too. Especially why HPV is so often a target for anti-vaccination messages....

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by SkewedD 

Kathymuggle, I discussed the reason that the ages for HPV vaccination are recommended here:

http://skeweddistribution.com/2011/09/23/the-truth-about-hpv-vaccination/

In brief:

 
I'm afraid I don't see the point in delaying the vaccination, as it has been demonstrated to be safe.

I am not really discussing safety at this point. 

I am concerned about duration of effectiveness. 

If the HPV vaccine is very effective over many years, then yes, getting it early before the possibility of infection makes the most sense.

If the HPV vaccine is not effective over the long haul, then timing is crucial. HPV is spread through sexual activity.  I would expect a 21 year old would be more sexually active than a 10 or 11 year old.  I would not want a 9 yr old to get a shot, have the vaccine effectiveness wane, and be at risk of  catching HPV by their late teens/early twenties. It is a bit of a numbers game - but if it were me, and someone said "you only have effectiveness for 4-8 years - when is it going to be?" I would go for late teens/early 20's  I think it makes more sense to vaccinate later or do multiple shots if effectiveness is as low as 4-8 years. 

[Rrrrrachel]

I think you're underestimating the sexual activity of high school students. It also appears unlikely the effectiveness fades that quickly.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

I wonder this too. Especially why HPV is so often a target for anti-vaccination messages....

Off the top of my head - and not necessarily my stance:

1.  it is a new vacine - no long term track record

2.  There have been lots of reports to VAERS and the like.  You might disagree with them, but still. 

3.  The age of the victims.  Newborns are fragile.  It might be easier to write off a newborn death or even severe reaction (let's face it - they cannot even talk yet) as coincidence,mothers exaggerating, or "he was born that way."  It is a little harder to write off a reaction of a previously healthy 13 year old.

4.  Different ideas around sex and sexual responsibility.

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by pek64 

So if vaccination safety has been so thoroughly demonstrated, why are there so many claiming otherwise?

I don't know, you tell us.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I think you're underestimating the sexual activity of high school students. It also appears unlikely the effectiveness fades that quickly.

From the wiki upthread - percentage of kids who claimed to have had sex:

Age	Boys	Girls
14	7.9%	5.7%
15	14.6%	13.0%
16	25.3%	26.8%
17	39.4%	43.1%
18	54.3%	58.0%
19	65.2%	70.1%

If if it is 4-8 years of effectiveness, I would aim for 14 or 15 myself.  You won't catch everyone, but I think more people will be exposed to HPV if you give it too young.

[pek64]

Why are there so many claims that there are vaccination problems?

Let's see.

Money. No. There's no financial advantage to such a claim. Lawsuits are limited. And there's nothing to sell to profit by (unlike the vaccines).

Hmmm.

Prestige. No. All the 'science' people do their best to ridicule those who question vaccine safety.

There must be something.... after all, it couldn't be that there actually severe reactions to vaccines. Could there?

[Rrrrrachel]

Kathy, but the effectiveness is likely NOT 4-8 years. It's likely longer than that.

Pek- of course there ARE severe reactions to vaccines. The question is how frequently they occur. And people like aoa, dr mercola, etc absolutely DO have a financial stake in perpetuating myths about vaccines, although in many cases I don't think that's the motivation.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by SkewedD 

I just explained to you why you are incorrect, Taximom. If you would like to continue to rely on a single sentence in an Abstract from a paper that you apparently have not read, that is your choice, but I'm afraid that does not count as research in my world.

The point that is demonstrated by that crucial last sentence is that the author understands that even if some markers of immunogenicity appeared to be waning according to the results of a below-par assay, protection against HPV hadn't budged. Again, this is complicated, so I understand your confusion.

If you want to try to pretend that that sentence ("both vaccines may provide...long-term protection") means that "protection against HPV hasn't budged," go right ahead.

And the "crucial last line" is "Ongoing monitoring is essential." That doesn't mean "protection against HPV hasn't budged," either.

Fascinating, how you interpret everything to mean, "Totally safe! Totally effective!"
Edited by Taximom5 - 11/1/12 at 5:44pm

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Kathy, but the effectiveness is likely NOT 4-8 years. It's likely longer than that.

Any studies showing longer?