Study: Not Enough Evidence That HPV Vaccine Is Safe and Effective - Page 10

[Rrrrrachel]

Honestly, I don't know.  I DON'T have a teenage daughter, so I haven't really gone through the research extensively, and I haven't been able to discuss it with hypothetical teenage daughters doctor.  I hadn't really looked at it at all until the subject started coming up here in the last few weeks.  That huffpost article made me feel glad I don't have to make that decision right now, but other sources are much more reassuring.

[kathymuggle]

nm 

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

 

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.

I doubt you are posting information for the likes of me, which is obviously a waste of your time. However, there are people that visit this board who are still exploring the issue and would likely appreciate your sources and knowledge. Statements without back up sources are not helpful for those people. Whether your sources are of value or to be dismissed is up to the reader to decide for themselves. Everyone that posts risks their sources being dismissed by others. Its the nature of the animal. Not being willing to post sources when asked has a detrimental effect on credibility.

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

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

For example, the NHS. They state here http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/HPV-vaccination/Pages/Side-effects.aspx that the rates of fainting following HPV are impossible to accurately determine.

[BeckyBird]

From the NHS article:

It is not possible to reliably estimate how frequently other side effects occur. This is because information is received from people reporting side effects themselves, rather than controlled, clinical tests.

The frequency of these side-effects is unknown:

• blood problems, leading to unexplained bruising or bleeding
• chills
• fainting or brief loss of consciousness
• feeling dizzy
• general feeling of being unwell
• Guillain Barré syndrome
• jointpain
• lymphadenopathy
• musclepain or tenderness
• seizures
• tiredness
• vomiting
• weakness

Yes, this vaccine is just what my daughter needs! I'm very convinced it's safe.

[Minerva23]

Maybe I missed it. What I came across my own research about Gardasil recently is the adjuvant used in Gardasil is  AAHS (amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate) and I understand that it is the first time it has been used in a vaccine. So this adjuvant has not really been tested in humans before and the placebo group in the study apparently received the AAHS HPV-free version.

'Do you think AAHS [amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate] in Gardasil® can be the primary contributing factor to so many deaths and adverse reactions in young girls who were vaccinated withGardasil® ? Please elaborate.

Personally, having looked at the results of the clinical trials where the vaccine was tested against the AAHS as a control, I believe it is a strong possibility that AAHS is a contributing factor. The reason being the adverse events during the trials were somewhat evenly distributed between the two groups. Unfortunately, over 70% of all trial participants experienced a ‘new medical condition’ during the trials – which, by the way, is the CDC’s definition of an adverse event.'

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/08/gardasil-vaccine-rdna-introduced-at-coroners-inquest-2450366.html

or

<link to hate site removed by Mosaic>

I really would like to learn more about AAHS but I could not find a safety sheet for it online. Most sites just refer back to just aluminum hydroxide but not this special form.
 

[Rrrrrachel]

I don't think you're allowed to link to that second site here.

I've come across several studies today which found the rate of adverse events is not higher in gardasil than other vaccines given in adolescence. I posted one resource in the "sister thread" to this one. I will have to look into aahs more specifically.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 


For example, the NHS. They state here http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/HPV-vaccination/Pages/Side-effects.aspx that the rates of fainting following HPV are impossible to accurately determine.

They also said this about the rate of anaphylaxis :

"Severe reactions like this are rare. From April 2008 to July 2010, there were 41 anaphylactic reactions reported to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA – the medicines safety watchdog). Out of four million doses given from September 2008 to July 2010, that makes such reactions very unlikely."

40/4 000 000 reduces down to 1/100 000.  

That is way higher than the normal rate of anaphylaxis post vaccine!

Here is a stat on the general rate of anaphylaxis:

http://www.bccdc.ca/NR/rdonlyres/D8070CE2-A6E8-4CC8-86EE-941D7EBAEEAB/0/1GustafsonAnaphylaxis.pdf

 "Estimate of anaphylaxis was 0.26-0.65/million doses of vaccine or 2-5 cases in 7.5 million doses."

OT - but it looks like varicella has a high anaphylaxis rate as well - 1/333 333.  

Edited by kathymuggle - 11/14/12 at 5:57am

[HappyHappyMommy]

Hi All, There have been a couple of concerns raised about posts on this thread getting personally. Let's please keep it about the topic and not the person. All, please review your posts and, if you have made a personal comment, remove the personal comment and focus just on the topic. Thank you! 

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by Minerva23 

Maybe I missed it. What I came across my own research about Gardasil recently is the adjuvant used in Gardasil is  AAHS (amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate) and I understand that it is the first time it has been used in a vaccine. So this adjuvant has not really been tested in humans before and the placebo group in the study apparently received the AAHS HPV-free version.

Could you help me find out where you read about this as a new adjuvant, because I'm not finding. I posted this also on the sister thread (is it just me who thinks it odd that we're keeping both going for so long!). 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1366581/studies-demonstrating-hpv-vaccine-is-both-safe-and-effective/40#post_17171520

[pek64]

Originally Posted by Mirzam 


I doubt you are posting information for the likes of me, which is obviously a waste of your time. However, there are people that visit this board who are still exploring the issue and would likely appreciate your sources and knowledge. Statements without back up sources are not helpful for those people. Whether your sources are of value or to be dismissed is up to the reader to decide for themselves. Everyone that posts risks their sources being dismissed by others. Its the nature of the animal. Not being willing to post sources when asked has a detrimental effect on credibility.

Yes. I have found it very frustrating to be trying to decide how to proceed when the response is "We discussed that already. Go find it yourself.".

[pek64]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I don't think you're allowed to link to that second site here.
I've come across several studies today which found the rate of adverse events is not higher in gardasil than other vaccines given in adolescence. I posted one resource in the "sister thread" to this one. I will have to look into aahs more specifically.

Why would the second thread not be allowed? I didn't see anything hateful there.

[pek64]

When it comes to vaccinating against HPV, I think of the possibilty of a healthy teen having a severe reaction or dying versus an adult getting cancer and facing treatment and death. At least the adult has had a chance to live life, before facing such difficult challenges or dying.

[Minerva23]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Could you help me find out where you read about this as a new adjuvant, because I'm not finding. I posted this also on the sister thread (is it just me who thinks it odd that we're keeping both going for so long!). 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1366581/studies-demonstrating-hpv-vaccine-is-both-safe-and-effective/40#post_17171520

I have not seen AAHS being used in any of the other vaccines like Tdap, MMR and so on. Please correct me if I am wrong.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17581283 This is dircetly from Merck researches

I find it more than questionable to use this adjuvant. I could not find any safety studies in humans for AAHS so if anybody does, please let me know.

Another one of my sources is a German medical journalist http://ehgartner.blogspot.de/2012/10/gardasil-fuhrt-liste-der-nebenwirkungen.html

[Mirzam]

Seeing as we have two active HPV safety threads, I wasn't sure where to put this. But I will stick it here as it directly relates to Tomljenovic and Shaw research.

The question of HPV safety has reached the UK House of Lords. 

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/hpv-vaccine-questioned-in-english-parliament/

Quote:

Asked by The Countess of Mar

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review their policy on the use of the human papillomavirus vaccination (HPV) in the light of the recent research by Tomljenovic and Shaw about the safety of HPV.[HL2911]

 

[Chicharronita]

Originally Posted by BeckyBird 

From the NHS article:

It is not possible to reliably estimate how frequently other side effects occur. This is because information is received from people reporting side effects themselves, rather than controlled, clinical tests.

It seems wise to wait (but I'm not holding my breath) for those controlled clinical tests then since it sounds like vaccine Russian roulette otherwise. 

The frequency of these side-effects is unknown:

• blood problems, leading to unexplained bruising or bleeding
• chills
• fainting or brief loss of consciousness
• feeling dizzy
• general feeling of being unwell
• Guillain Barré syndrome
• jointpain
• lymphadenopathy
• musclepain or tenderness
• seizures
• tiredness
• vomiting
• weakness

Yes, this vaccine is just what my daughter needs! I'm very convinced it's safe.

 

Yeah, no thanks.  

[prosciencemum]

Probably this is stating the obvious for most people reading this, but saying that th frequency of side effects is unknown means just that - they don't know the rate, ie there haven't been enough occurrences to estimate it with statistical significance.

So it could be low or incredibly low. One thing it can't be is incredibly high - that would mean enough statistics to estimate the frequency by now.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Probably this is stating the obvious for most people reading this, but saying that th frequency of side effects is unknown means just that - they don't know the rate, ie there haven't been enough occurrences to estimate it with statistical significance.
So it could be low or incredibly low. One thing it can't be is incredibly high - that would mean enough statistics to estimate the frequency by now.

Tell that to the families of people who suffered severe side effects from Vioxx, Vytorin, and Lipitor. Yeah, Merck and Pfizer lied about the frequency and severity of side effects. They were fined $950,000,000 for lying about Vioxx, $41,500,000 for lying about Vytorin, and are being sued by both patients and pharmacies for lies concerning Lipitor.

So when Merck says, "we don't know how often these side effects occur," that CLEARLY doesn't mean that the rate is low.

It means they've worked hard to cover it up.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Probably this is stating the obvious for most people reading this, but saying that th frequency of side effects is unknown means just that - they don't know the rate, ie there haven't been enough occurrences to estimate it with statistical significance.
So it could be low or incredibly low. One thing it can't be is incredibly high - that would mean enough statistics to estimate the frequency by now.

Terms like low, very low and high are not especially useful - they are subjective, and I expect, deliberately used to convey the message the writer wants to convey.

here is a good example:

"http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/20110701/antidepressant-use-in-pregnancy-autism-risk

" "Children born to women who take SSRIantidepressants during pregnancy may have a slight increase in risk for developing autism spectrum disorder (ASD), a new study suggests."

"Slight" it turns out to mean, is more than double (and more than double in a disease that affects 1/88….not 1/100 000).

Numbers are best.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Probably this is stating the obvious for most people reading this, but saying that th frequency of side effects is unknown means just that - they don't know the rate, ie there haven't been enough occurrences to estimate it with statistical significance.
So it could be low or incredibly low. One thing it can't be is incredibly high - that would mean enough statistics to estimate the frequency by now.

One more thing….

It seems like there is lot we do not know when it comes to HPV vaccine.

We do not know how long the vax is effective for.

We do not know the rate of severe side effects (although I do not think the emerging picture looks very pretty)

If we were being faced with a genuine and immediate medical issue - people might choose a pharmaceutical in spite of uncertainty.

HPV is not a  immediate medical issue.   Regular pap smears are still essential, and cervical cancer is quite treatable if found early. HPV does not protect against some forms of cervical cancer (CDC says it offers protections from about 70% of cervical cancers) . About 1/12658 currently get cervical cancer (also CDC).