Study: Not Enough Evidence That HPV Vaccine Is Safe and Effective - Page 5

[kathymuggle]

And to get things back on track…..

Here is SaneVax'es take on HPV vaccine. It does link some of its sources of information, but I want to hunt down where they got the info that the vax only last 5-6 years from!

http://sanevax.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/03.27.11-HPV-Vaccine-Fact-Sheet121.pdf.  

ETA:  found it.  This site said Gardasil was only effective for about 5 years.  http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/prevention/HPV-vaccine

Why on earth are we giving it to 9-12 year olds, then?  If you look at this table on wiki, about 50% of people are virgins at18.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescent_sexuality_in_the_United_States

It might make sense to wait until your daughter is older to give the vaccine, or (shudder) give one at 9-12 and one later on?  Say 5 years later?  Just speculating.  

Edited by kathymuggle - 11/1/12 at 8:35am

[Rrrrrachel]

I don't give much credence to sites like sanevax.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I don't give much credence to sites like sanevax.

That's fine. If I may speak for Kathy, I honestly don't believe she thought that posting the information from Sanevax on the HPV vax - and the studies they used, would sway you from vaccinating your child (when old enough) with Gardasil. Perhaps it might be of help for others though.

[Taximom5]

I think this quote needs to be repeated:

"Currently, in the US, the death rate from cervical cancer (2.4/100,000 women) is lower than the rate of reported serious adverse events, including death, from Gardasil (3.34/100,000 doses distributed)."
Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD, University of British Columbia

And that's without the necessary boosters every 5 years.

[erigeron]

I haven't looked at the research, but Gardasil has only been AROUND for about 5 years, so how can they really know its long-term effectiveness yet? 

[erigeron]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

I think this quote needs to be repeated:
"Currently, in the US, the death rate from cervical cancer (2.4/100,000 women) is lower than the rate of reported serious adverse events, including death, from Gardasil (3.34/100,000 doses distributed)."
Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD, University of British Columbia
And that's without the necessary boosters every 5 years.

What about the incidence rate of cervical cancer? This quote is disingenius in comparing "death" from cervical cancer to "serious adverse events and death" from the vaccine. It should compare death rates to death rates, or it should also consider incidence of cancer. Getting cancer and going through treatment and surviving it is pretty unpleasant. 

[SkewedD]

Taximom:

There is absolutely no hatred at my site, and I take exception to you claiming that there is. Well, I take that back. There is hatred at my site that can be seen when I wrote about an anti-vaxxer who was calling for scientists and physicians to be lynched for vaccinating children, and the poster at Dr. Tenpenny's Facebook page saying she was going to bomb the Get Vaccinated Ohio organization. The hatred wasn't coming from me, however. Do you see frustration and even anger? Yes you do. But hatred? No.

Now, as to this quote:

"Currently, in the US, the death rate from cervical cancer (2.4/100,000 women) is lower than the rate of reported serious adverse events, including death, from Gardasil (3.34/100,000 doses distributed)."

I and others have explained why this is incorrect, in detail. Please note the text below from the blog entry originally linked 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.

There are several serious reasoning flaws with this approach. The first is that the authors use the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) as their source for adverse event reporting. This system allows for anyone and everyone to report ANYTHING that has happened to them after they received HPV vaccine, from falling down a flight of stairs to bruising at the injection site. The major problem is that these reports may have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual vaccination.

Here is a thought experiment. Imagine that we have the MAERS (milk adverse event reporting system). Everyone has access to the system and can report any adverse event that occurs after drinking milk. We’re going to see reports of odd white moustaches, flatulence, diarrhea, diabetes, myocardial infarction, and autism. Are all of these things caused by drinking milk or are some coincident to the fact that a large proportion of Americans drink milk every day?

To whomever was pondering my sex, I came to this board because someone had alerted me to a post here regarding my blog. Does it really matter, anyway?

Japonica-the link you provided is broken; I don't know to which paper by Shaw you are referring and can't address it. I can tell you that in general I find his work to be superficial, misleading, and sloppy.  There are over 200 links to scientific papers on my blog; but you need to actually read the blog entries and comments to see them. Whether or not I link my own work is between me and my blog. I work anonymously (see threats from anti-vaxxers above) and will continue to do so.

Regarding editing my post, I again have to thank you for the patience you have shown me here. However, I won't edit it. I understand that you may then delete it, and that's okay. But as a scientist I cannot bring myself to edit a truth because it makes someone uncomfortable. I feel as though Rachel and prosciencemom had a great interpretation of it, and I thank them for that.

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by erigeron 

I haven't looked at the research, but Gardasil has only been AROUND for about 5 years, so how can they really know its long-term effectiveness yet? 

Gardasil has been around in clinical testing for closer to 20 years, so this picture isn't quite that bleak, but I think most researchers admit the picture of long term effectiveness and long term effects will develop more over the next few decades.

[pek64]

I have extremely low risk for HPV and therefore the cancer it *might* cause. If I had been vaxed as a teen, against my wishes, and suffered a permanent side effect, like sterility, I'd be pretty mad!!

[Rrrrrachel]

I'm not aware of any documented cases of death from gardasil.  I asked on another thread for some information on all of these higher rates of adverse events, because from what I've seen it's mostly fainting, but I got back crickets.

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by pek64 

I have extremely low risk for HPV and therefore the cancer it *might* cause. If I had been vaxed as a teen, against my wishes, and suffered a permanent side effect, like sterility, I'd be pretty mad!!

I'm curious if you'll get the same response from taxi that I got from taxi when I talked about not being vaccinated for HPV.  I guess we'll see.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by erigeron 

I haven't looked at the research, but Gardasil has only been AROUND for about 5 years, so how can they really know its long-term effectiveness yet? 

I think this is a good point.  Is it only effective for 5 years - or has the study/existence of the vaccine only been in existance for 5 years, ergo we can say the vaccine is effective for 5 years plus, but the upper limit is unknown?  

Sadly, the cancer.gov link does not answer the question.

It says:

"Gardasil and Cervarix are highly effective in preventing infection with the types of HPV they target. The vaccines have been shown to provide protection against persistent cervical HPV 16/18 infections for up to 8 years, which is the maximum time of research follow-up thus far. More will be known about the total duration of protection as research continues (7).

HPV vaccination has also been found to prevent nearly 100 percent of the precancerous cervical cell changes that would have been caused by HPV 16/18. The data so far show duration of production for up to 6.4 years with Cervarix and for up to 5 years for Gardasil—in women who were not infected with HPV at the time of vaccination (7–10)."

On one hand it says up to eight years, which is the maximum research time so far….and then in the next breath says 6.4 and 5 years.   I would expect to see 8 years plus if it was a straightforward 8 years plus.  

Here is a link (#7 form the above quote), published 2011  

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

It says this:

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

So…I am at a loss.  Is it only effective for 4-8 years, or do we only have data from 4-8 years?  Time will tell.

[SkewedD]

Pek64, there is absolutely no evidence nor biological plausibility for HPV vaccine causing "sterility". What does cause challenges to fertility is HPV itself, which even in the absence of cancer results in treatments that may leave a woman unable to carry a child to term.

I'm super-glad you are at low risk for HPV. But everyone should be aware that all it takes is one partner, and you don't even have to have intercourse to transmit HPV.

[SkewedD]

Kathymuggle,

I just saw an excellent presentation at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting where this exact concern was addressed. One of the lead researchers of the HPV vaccine trial in Costa Rica stated that they have seen no waning of efficacy of the vaccine, nor do they expect to. More importantly, however, she brought up the very important point that even if the vaccine's efficacy were to decrease after 10 years, most women will already be past the point where HPV poses its largest threat to causing cervical cancer. This is because of emerging evidence that one of the keys to developing cervical cancer from HPV appears to be persistence of the virus over decades. And what this means is that it appears that a very strong risk factor would then be exposure to intercourse at a young age. Thus, if young women are protected during that critical time of growth and development, they may not even need a booster. You say "only" 8 years. I say that is 8 crucial years, and 8 fewer years of your daughter or son being at risk.

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.

[pek64]

http://truthaboutgardasil.org/

[pek64]

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1365801/premature-ovarian-failure-following-hpv-shot

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by pek64 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1365801/premature-ovarian-failure-following-hpv-shot

This is a link to another mothering thread that references an age of autism article.  less than compelling.

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by pek64 

http://truthaboutgardasil.org/

This seems to be a lot of speculation presented as fact with no actual research underpinning it.

[kathymuggle]

One more:

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM111263.pdf

I just skimmed it, but it does look like there is an increase in arthritis or arthritis type reactions after HPV vaccines in both males and females.  Pages 9 and 10.  

Edited by kathymuggle - 11/1/12 at 10:18am

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by SkewedD 

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.

If (big if, I know) the low end of duration of effectiveness is 4 years, and the high end is 8 years, it might make more sense to give the drug to an older youth, rather than a younger one, if no boosters are involved. 

What follows is hypothetical (I would need to look up info on patterns of adolescent and adult sexuality for it not be hypothetical). 

Let say most people have the most number of partners between 16-24.  

If a girl is vaxxed for HPV at 9, effectiveness could wear off at 13-17.  She may reap no benefits, or benefits for only 1 year of her peak "number of partner" years.  Alternately, if a girl is vaxxed at 15 - she is looking at much better coverage during her peak sexual partner years.  Even if she had a partner or two before the vax, she is still getting more mileage out of the vax than a 9 year old.

In some ways, assuming the vax is safe (not going there right now) it might make more sense to vaccinate people at 10, 15 and 20  - that would give the most coverage.