or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Study: Not Enough Evidence That HPV Vaccine Is Safe and Effective
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Study: Not Enough Evidence That HPV Vaccine Is Safe and Effective - Page 9

post #161 of 242

A few more:

 

Higher rates of anaphylaxis than expected after HPV vaccine:

 

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2008/09/01/cmaj.081133.full.pdf

 

Higher rates of blood clots and syncope after HPV vaccine, versus other vaccines (never mind versus those unvaccinated):

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/HPV/Index.html

 

"There was increased reporting of syncope and venous thromboembolism (VTE)External Web Site Icon, or blood clots, 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 them, such as smoking, obesity or taking oral contraceptives (birth control pills)."


Edited by kathymuggle - 11/13/12 at 12:20pm
post #162 of 242

I generally go to the IOM review of adverse events in various vaccines first when I start looking at adverse events.  I like it because it looked at a large body of evidence (and had a group of people look at it vs. one or two) and assessed it in it's entirety, which as we've discussed before is important.

 

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vaccines-Evidence-and-Causality/Report-Brief.aspx?page=2

 

They did find some evidence of anaphylaxis and hpv.  Anaphylaxis is a risk with all vaccines and medications,  I assume (sorry pek) that does mean a higher than normal rate of anaphylaxis.

 

Several of the other things mentioned here, like the timing of the vaccine and the rate of adverse events vs. cervical cancer, are matters of debate in the scientific community and have been discussed here before.  It's great that scientists are having these conversations.  It's important to continue to examine, debate, and reassess how worthwhile various vaccines are.  I'm glad that they're doing that.  However, it's an ongoing discussion and finding scientists on one side or the other doesn't make their opinions unassailable truth either way.

post #163 of 242

Syncope, for those playing along at home, is fainting.  Opinions on the rate of fainting and whether it's significantly different for HPV than for any injection vary.

post #164 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I thought this article was quite good. 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/gardasil-hpv-vaccine-faces-safety-questions/story?id=8356717#.UKJVR46RB7E

 

Several doctors in the article were quoted as saying they were uncomfortable with the vax.

 

I thought this line was jaw dropping: 

 

"Although the number of serious adverse events is small and rare, they are real and cannot be overlooked or dismissed without disclosing the possibility to all other possible vaccine recipients," said Dr. Diane Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at University of Missouri. "The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer."

 

This line was also interesting and backs up what I was trying to say earlier in this thread (or in one similar to it).

 

 

"Perhaps the most important, currently missing 'warning' is that the vaccine may not be forever," Zanga said. "We know that it protects for 5-7 years so that a girl getting the series at [age] 11-12 will enter the time of her most likely sexual debut unprotected but believing herself to be."

 

 

 

 

 

Even more jaw-dropping when you realize who Dr. Diane Harper is:

Dr. Harper helped design and carry out the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies to get Gardasil approved, and authored many of the published, scholarly papers about it. She has been a paid speaker and consultant to Merck. It's highly unusual for a researcher to publicly criticize a medicine or vaccine she helped get approved."  from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500690_162-5253431.html

 

And she is STILL speaking out against Gardasil safety and efficacy.  Wow.

post #165 of 242

I think it's really important to read that whole article.  Dr harper actually support the gardasil vaccine, she just thinks the risk of side effects warrants a more complete disclosure of possible side effects to parents (something that is true of all vaccines and medications, IMO)

 

 

 

Quote:
Dr. Harper agrees with Merck and the CDC that Gardasil is safe for most girls and women. But she says the side effects reported so far call for more complete disclosure to patients. She says they should be told that protection from the vaccination might not last long enough to provide a cancer protection benefit, and that its risks - "small but real" - could occur more often than the cervical cancer itself would.

 

She is also concerned about people getting lax about pap smears because they've been vaccinated.  Her position is nuanced.

post #166 of 242

Here's a great interview she did with huffpost with LOTS of great information about HPV laid out in a very matter of fact way.

 

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

post #167 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

She is also concerned about people getting lax about pap smears because they've been vaccinated.  Her position is nuanced.

This is off topic for this thread, but related so I'll post it.  My midwife informed me at my last visit (my annual) late in the summer that there was a study or some such that has resulted in the recommendation for pap smears to not have them annually any longer, moving them to every 3 or 5 years, I can't remember which now.  She said that this will likely result in insurance companies no longer carrying annual paps (& all the spiral from that).  My theory at the time was that since there is now a vaccine, which is seen by some as a perfect way to avoid the issues that pap smears aim to indicate, was the reason.  My theories only & I have no proof, evidence, etc. so please don't ask. winky.gif

 

I will continue to get paps regardless of the recommendations & neither I nor my daughter will be getting a vaccine for HPV.

 

Sus

post #168 of 242
post #169 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by mama24-7 View Post

This is off topic for this thread, but related so I'll post it.  My midwife informed me at my last visit (my annual) late in the summer that there was a study or some such that has resulted in the recommendation for pap smears to not have them annually any longer, moving them to every 3 or 5 years, I can't remember which now.  She said that this will likely result in insurance companies no longer carrying annual paps (& all the spiral from that).  My theory at the time was that since there is now a vaccine, which is seen by some as a perfect way to avoid the issues that pap smears aim to indicate, was the reason.  My theories only & I have no proof, evidence, etc. so please don't ask. winky.gif

 

I will continue to get paps regardless of the recommendations & neither I nor my daughter will be getting a vaccine for HPV.

 

Sus

 

It seems like a lot of diagnostic tests (prostate exams, mammograms, etc) are moving that way, as a way to reduce the rate of invasive procedures as a result of false positives.  I don't think it's actually related to the vaccine, but then I don't really know either!  I think the effect of the vaccine on PAP rates is definitely worth examining.

post #170 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

 

 

Several of the other things mentioned here, like the timing of the vaccine and the rate of adverse events vs. cervical cancer, are matters of debate in the scientific community and have been discussed here before.  It's great that scientists are having these conversations.  It's important to continue to examine, debate, and reassess how worthwhile various vaccines are.  I'm glad that they're doing that.  However, it's an ongoing discussion and finding scientists on one side or the other doesn't make their opinions unassailable truth either way.

I don't disagree with you.

 

Which leaves us where?  

 

1.  Sign your daughter up for HPV even though the safety has not been decided/established, etc

2.  don't sign your daughter up for HPV.

 

I am glad they are having these discussions.  Maybe they will have more information about the HPV vaccine in a few years; in the meantime, my family will pass.

post #171 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by mama24-7 View Post

This is off topic for this thread, but related so I'll post it.  My midwife informed me at my last visit (my annual) late in the summer that there was a study or some such that has resulted in the recommendation for pap smears to not have them annually any longer, moving them to every 3 or 5 years, I can't remember which now.  She said that this will likely result in insurance companies no longer carrying annual paps (& all the spiral from that).  My theory at the time was that since there is now a vaccine, which is seen by some as a perfect way to avoid the issues that pap smears aim to indicate, was the reason.  My theories only & I have no proof, evidence, etc. so please don't ask. winky.gif

 

I will continue to get paps regardless of the recommendations & neither I nor my daughter will be getting a vaccine for HPV.

 

Sus

 

Just to clarify-

 

The new pap guidelines have nothing to do with the HPV vaccine.  First of all, your midwife is incorrect- the new guidelines are to do paps every other other year, or every 3 years in people who have been tested for HPV and are negative.  They should not be done anymore in people over age 75.  These are just recommendations for screening- people who have a history of abnormal paps or cervical cancer follow different guidelines.

 

The reason for this is that cervical cancer is extremely slow growing.  Most abnormalities picked up on a pap resolve on their own in a year or two with no intervention at all. Doing a yearly pap does nothing but increase the chances of getting a colposcopy followed by LEEP or cone biopsy.  Getting those procedures done can impact someone's ability to successfully carry a pregnancy in the future.

 

So, feel free to continue to get annual paps, but you are needlessly increasing your risk of having an unnecessary procedure.

post #172 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Syncope, for those playing along at home, is fainting.  Opinions on the rate of fainting and whether it's significantly different for HPV than for any injection vary.

Source, please.  

 

The CDC said (to quote post 161 upthread)

 

"there was increased reporting of syncope and venous thromboembolism (VTE)External Web Site Icon, or blood clots, compared with what has been found for other vaccines given to females of the same age"

post #173 of 242
Right. Opinions vary.
post #174 of 242

Whose opinion varies from the CDC on the issue of fainting post HPV vaccine?

post #175 of 242

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post
Just to clarify-

 

The new pap guidelines have nothing to do with the HPV vaccine.  First of all, your midwife is incorrect- the new guidelines are to do paps every other other year, or every 3 years in people who have been tested for HPV and are negative.  They should not be done anymore in people over age 75.  

Thanks for clarifying  thumb.gif.  I said in my post that I knew I was not quoting my midwife correctly, but thanks for pointing out what you know.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

 These are just recommendations for screening- people who have a history of abnormal paps or cervical cancer follow different guidelines.

I do have a history of abnormal paps sooooooo that's part of the reason why I didn't pay real close attention to what she was saying...didn't apply to me.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

So, feel free to continue to get annual paps, but you are needlessly increasing your risk of having an unnecessary procedure.

You didn't ask & I didn't say in my post above.  Your comment, while I imagine is meant to be helpful to me & others, could have been said much nicer. 

 

Sus

post #176 of 242
Kathy, I'm not going to justify my statement that people disagree about something. You're welcome to disregard my statements or look into it for yourself.
post #177 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Kathy, I'm not going to justify my statement that people disagree about something. You're welcome to disregard my statements or look into it for yourself.

I will disregard it and move on.

 

I said something, cited the CDC, you said no - opinions vary, without citing anything.

 

For all any of us know, you made it up.  shrug.gif  

post #178 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Kathy, I'm not going to justify my statement that people disagree about something. You're welcome to disregard my statements or look into it for yourself.

 

Then it is difficult to take your statement with more than a pinch of salt if you are unwilling back it up.

post #179 of 242
Quote:

 

For all any of us know, you made it up.  shrug.gif  

Now come on, you have some research skills, you can do better than that.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

 

Then it is difficult to take your statement with more than a pinch of salt if you are unwilling back it up.

 

that's fine

 

I'm not going to play this game where y'all want people to cite every little thing.  It's silly.  I can post a link that says virtually anything about vaccines.  Finding someone on the internet that says something doesn't make it magically true.  I'm not going to condense my knowledge gathered over a long period of time and from many sources into links because it's convenient for you. Especially when any link I do provide is likely to be dismissed as biased or pharma shill or whatever. Don't take my word for it, do your own research, by all means.  I will post sources when I feel it's appropriate and not post sources when I don't feel it's warranted.  I don't feel it's warranted for a statement that the scientific discussion is on going and people disagree.  That's silly.

post #180 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Here's a great interview she did with huffpost with LOTS of great information about HPV laid out in a very matter of fact way.

 

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

That is a good article.

 

If you had a teen daughter would you have her vaccinated for HPV at this point in time?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Study: Not Enough Evidence That HPV Vaccine Is Safe and Effective