Study: Not Enough Evidence That HPV Vaccine Is Safe and Effective - Page 11

[Chicharronita]

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.

So, it could be low, it could be high but maybe not...nobody knows for sure.

Well I'm sorry, that's not good enough for my daughter.

[Rrrrrachel]

That is your decision to make. I won't try to talk you out of it. Just from a statistical standpoint, it is much easier to determine the rate of something if it happens frequently. The rarer an event the more difficult it is to determine the frequency at which it occurs. Statistically, saying the rate is unknown means it is probably quite low. I is also not the same as saying we know nothing about it at all.

[Chicharronita]

I'm not worried about her getting HPV so it doesn't make any sense to get this vaccine, even if the risks of a reaction are "low."

[Rrrrrachel]

Why aren't you worried about her getting hpv, out of curiosity?

[Chicharronita]

Mainly because I ply her with whole foods and lots of vitamins and make sure she gets proper rest. But it doesn't hurt that our doctor has given us a green light not to vaccinate ever. He was very pleased by what I've been doing and how healthy she is at our last visit a few months ago.

[Rrrrrachel]

That's great I'm glad you found a doctor you get along with so well.

[erigeron]

Honestly, after reading that HuffPo piece upthread I probably wouldn't vax my daughter either. It didn't make it sound like the vaccine is all that beneficial if you're going to get regular Pap smears, which I would hope she would choose to as an adult. HPV isn't an acute disease like most of the diseases we vax against. The initial infection doesn't have symptoms and you won't see the real serious effect, if there is one, for some time--which also gives you some time to detect it and do something about it. If I had to decide tomorrow about the HPV vax for her, I would delay it. But she is only one year old. The picture could change a lot by the time she is old enough, or another vax (with longer efficacy) could be on the market. 

[Minerva23]

American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 2009; 200 [5]: 487

In this study, scientists found that even girls as young as 4 y/o were carriers of HPV. (about 1 in 5).

The spontaneous regression of any type of HPV-related manifestation is not even known. Regression rates can be up to  30% in genital warts http://www.asccp.org/PracticeManagement/Vulva/HPVInfectionsandVIN/HPVManagement/tabid/7456/Default.aspx

In case of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) regression rates were found to be as high as 53%.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8706956

Trying to get an overall picture. Not quite sure where all this leads.

* Are we over-testing like with yearly pap-smears?   

* Are too many people treated unnecessarily who might have regressed spontaneously?

* What effect does the HPV vaccine have on already infected people?

* Should everybody be tested for an HPV infection BEFORE being vaccinated?

* Will other HPV types or even other viruses/bacteria take over the vacated space by the vaccine-types, just like it is happening with the pneumococcal or HIB vaccines?

* What are the long-term effects of the vaccine?

[chickabiddy]

Originally Posted by Chicharronita 

Mainly because I ply her with whole foods and lots of vitamins and make sure she gets proper rest.

That has very little to do with human papilloma virus, which is transmitted through sexual contact.

[pek64]

Originally Posted by chickabiddy 

That has very little to do with human papilloma virus, which is transmitted through sexual contact.

Are the 4 year olds having sexual contact?

I agree that supporting the immune system, something we have more information about than prior generations, is possibly enough.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by chickabiddy 

That has very little to do with human papilloma virus, which is transmitted through sexual contact.

Yes and no.

Most of us get HPV and in something like 90% of cases (I can get the stat if you like) we fight it off on our own and it never turns into cervical cancer.

A weakened immune system (as well as smoking, having lots of children, oral contraceptives ) increase the chances of HPV causing cervical cancer.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV

Building up a child's immune system now will not necessarily mean she makes healthy choices later, but healthy role-modeling does increase the odds.

[erigeron]

Originally Posted by pek64 


Are the 4 year olds having sexual contact?
I agree that supporting the immune system, something we have more information about than prior generations, is possibly enough.

Well, about 1 in 4 girls ARE sexually abused. 

[chickabiddy]

HPV can be transmitted at birth and through shared objects (rarely).  It is a virus that is spread through contact, which has nothing to do with whole foods or vitamins.  What evidence do you have that supporting the immune system is "possibly enough" to prevent the virus from being spread through contact?

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by erigeron 

Well, about 1 in 4 girls ARE sexually abused. 

[pek64]

Originally Posted by chickabiddy 

HPV can be transmitted at birth and through shared objects (rarely).  It is a virus that is spread through contact, which has nothing to do with whole foods or vitamins.  What evidence do you have that supporting the immune system is "possibly enough" to prevent the virus from being spread through contact?

Not being spread, but a strong immune system could be enough for it not to turn into cancer, which is the marketed purpose of the vaccine.

[pek64]

Originally Posted by chickabiddy 

That has very little to do with human papilloma virus, which is transmitted through sexual contact.

Originally Posted by chickabiddy 

HPV can be transmitted at birth and through shared objects (rarely).  It is a virus that is spread through contact, which has nothing to do with whole foods or vitamins.  What evidence do you have that supporting the immune system is "possibly enough" to prevent the virus from being spread through contact?

Your quotes seem contradictory.

[chickabiddy]

They are not contradictory, although I should have written spread *primarily* through sexual contact.  The virus is spread through contact (usually direct, very rarely indirect) with another person's genital area.  Whole foods and vitamins are irrelevant.
 

[pek64]

Originally Posted by chickabiddy 

They are not contradictory, although I should have written spread *primarily* through sexual contact.  The virus is spread through contact (usually direct, very rarely indirect) with another person's genital area.  Whole foods and vitamins are irrelevant.

 

Whole foods and vitamins are relevant from the cancer prevention standpoint. And cancer prevention is the marketed purpose of the vaccine.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by chickabiddy 

They are not contradictory, although I should have written spread *primarily* through sexual contact.  The virus is spread through contact (usually direct, very rarely indirect) with another person's genital area.  Whole foods and vitamins are irrelevant.
 

So the immune system doesn't work with genital contact? A healthy immune system is of no use then as it is not able to deal with this virus? How did we ever survive without the HPV vaccine?

[chickabiddy]

Well, while obviously the human race survived, some women did die of cervical cancer.