or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › New study : "No Serious Adverse Reactions to HPV Vaccination"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New study : "No Serious Adverse Reactions to HPV Vaccination"

post #1 of 43
Thread Starter 

A new massive study including close to a million girls shows no adverse reactions to the HPV vaccine. 

 

"The study included almost a million Swedish and Danish girls born between 1988 and 2000, and compared roughly 300,000 girls who had been HPV vaccinated with 700,000 who had not. All the girls were between 10 and 17 at time of vaccination, and the vaccines had been administered at some time between 2006 and 2010. The researchers then used patient registries in Denmark and Sweden to study the incidence of any serious adverse effects of the vaccine.

 

The researchers examined 53 different diagnoses requiring hospital or specialist care, including blood clots, neurological diseases, and autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes. They found that none of these diseases were more common in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group. " 

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131009100111.htm 

 

 

From SR " 

The researchers examined patient records for 53 different diagnoses requiring hospital or specialist care, including blood clots, neurological diseases, and autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes between immunized and non-immunized groups. The limited the study to 180 days post-immunization (except for thromboembolic events, which they limited to 90 days). Out of the 53 adverse events, 24 were eliminated from the study because <5 events were observed in the vaccinated group (which would become statistically impossible to analyze).

Of the remaining 29 adverse events, the results are shown in the table below." 

 

"Note: this study was supported by a grant from the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research and the Danish Medical Research Council. The funding bodies had no role in the study design; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; the writing of the article; and the decision to submit it for publication. All authors are independent from the funding agencies."

 

 

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/massive-study-supports-safety-hpv-vaccine/


Edited by teacozy - 10/11/13 at 10:38am
post #2 of 43

Thank you for posting this!

post #3 of 43
Thread Starter 

NP :) 

 

Just thought I'd add that there was  a total of 696,420 doses of the vaccine given.  696 *thousand* doses. 

post #4 of 43

Yeah, those huge numbers were very reassuring.  I've been torn on this vaccine but think I'm probably just being silly.

post #5 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

Yeah, those huge numbers were very reassuring.  I've been torn on this vaccine but think I'm probably just being silly.

Those huge numbers would be very reassuring--if only we could trust the agencies that provided them!  In case you aren't up-to-date, even the New England Journal of Medicine admitted 3 years ago that it is no longer possible to find an expert who hasn't already been paid off in some way by the pharmaceutical industry.

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1391316/vaccine-research-financial-conflict-of-interest-is-the-norm-not-the-exception

post #6 of 43
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

Those huge numbers would be very reassuring--if only we could trust the agencies that provided them!  In case you aren't up-to-date, even the New England Journal of Medicine admitted 3 years ago that it is no longer possible to find an expert who hasn't already been paid off in some way by the pharmaceutical industry.

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1391316/vaccine-research-financial-conflict-of-interest-is-the-norm-not-the-exception

 

Wow, that is an extraordinary claim. And not what they say at all.  That quote was talking about review articles which "comment on published articles but do not present new research." 

 

"Review articles are an attempt to summarize the current state of understanding on a topic.[1] They analyze or discuss research previously published by others, rather than reporting new experimental results.[2][3]  The concept of "review article" is separate from the concept of peer-reviewed literature." 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Review_article

post #7 of 43

No serious adverse reactions. Well doesn't that paint a pretty picture.  How about this picture:

 

"The adverse reaction reports detail 26 new deaths reported between September 1, 2010 and September 15, 2011 as well as incidents of seizures, paralysis, blindness, pancreatitis, speech problems, short term memory loss and Guillain-Barré Syndrome. The documents come from the FDA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) which is used by the FDA to monitor the safety of vaccines. The documents were obtained pursuant to a September 15, 2011 FOIA request for reports made from September 1, 2010 through September 15, 2011."

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-uncovers-fda-gardasil-records-detailing-26-new-reported-deaths/

 

Pretty sad when you have to use FOI to obtain information that should be right out in public view.  Guess people are too busy caring about what's going on in Hollywood to care about their own health and well being.

post #8 of 43
Quote:
 Additional information was received from a newspaper article concerning a 18 year old female…who on 10-MAY-2007 was vaccinated with GARDASIL…in the right arm…The patient who was a college freshman travelled on 05-OCT-2007 to visit her family for the weekend. The patient reportedly felt “slightly ill” upon her arrival and subsequently took an aspirin and went to bed awakening at 1:30 PM the following afternoon “appearing refreshed”. The patient became feverish again that night and woke at 1:00 AM the morning of 07-OCT-2007 with chills and a severe headache complaining that “my headache is about to explode”. The patient was taken to a local hospital, where a brain computed axial tomography (CAT) scan was performed and the brain revealed meningococcal disease in her brain and brain stem. The patient was immediately transferred to another hospital and died the evening of 07-OCT-2007 due to complications of meningitis.

 

The incubation period of meningitis is 2-10 days.  How could a vaccine administered in May cause meningitis in October?

 

Plus, the link does not work.


Edited by chickabiddy - 10/11/13 at 6:46pm
post #9 of 43
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

 

The incubation period of meningitis is 2-10 days.  How could a vaccine administered in May cause meningitis in October?

 

 

I'd love to read a response for that.  With medical sources to back up the answer.  

post #10 of 43

And this one:

 

Quote:
It was reported that the patient died due to ovarian cyst. The reporter felt that the patient’s symptoms were related to vaccination with GARDASIL. 

 

The reporter (the patient's mother) "felt" that the symptoms were related to Gardasil.  That's not exactly scientific evidence. 

post #11 of 43

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20189933

 

Going blind would be a severe reaction to me.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22858647

 

complex regional pain syndrom

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18805844

 

or MS does not sound so hot either.

 

And what about anaphylactic reactions

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18762618

 

and not being able to have children anymore due to receiving a certain vaccine

 

http://casereports.bmj.com/content/2012/bcr-2012-006879.abstract

 

Just to name a few

post #12 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

And this one:

 

 

The reporter (the patient's mother) "felt" that the symptoms were related to Gardasil.  That's not exactly scientific evidence. 

Don't you think that there is a lot that is missing from this particular report?  LIke, whether or not there were symptoms between May and October, or whether or not there were any more vaccines administered between May and October? Was the May vaccination with Gardasil the last of the series of 3 or the first?  Did the young woman receive the other 2 doses, and if so, when?  Was she also given a meningitis vaccine at any point? 

 

WHY did the patient's mother feel that the symptoms were related to Gardasil?  I mean, how many mothers would even REMEMBER that their child received a vaccine 5 months after the fact?  

 

As for the incubation period for meningitis, why assume that the meningitis would only be linked to the Gardasil vaccine from the date of injection?  If vaccines and other medications can trigger meningitis, wouldn't it be possible that the initial vaccine "set the stage," so to speak, for a later reaction to one of the other triggers?  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10738845 says, "The major categories of causative agents are nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antimicrobials, intravenous immunoglobulin, intrathecal agents, vaccines and a number of other less frequently reported agents."

 

Well, that incomplete report states that she took an aspirin.  FIrst of all, very few 18-year-olds take aspirin. Was it really an aspirin she took, or was it an NSAID or even Tylenol?  What meds did they give her in the ER? When I went to the ER with a severe headache (which was later diagnosed as an atypical migraine), I was given a truckload of meds--3 different painkillers, including one specifically for migraines. I refused 2 of them, and asked for a half-dose of the third.)  I was later told that this is standard protocol in that ER for severe head pain.  What was the protocol in 2007, at the ER this young woman went to ?

 

Let's not turn up our noses at --or accept--anecdotes until we know the facts.

post #13 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

Don't you think that there is a lot that is missing from this particular report?  LIke, whether or not there were symptoms between May and October, or whether or not there were any more vaccines administered between May and October? Was the May vaccination with Gardasil the last of the series of 3 or the first?  Did the young woman receive the other 2 doses, and if so, when?  Was she also given a meningitis vaccine at any point? 

 

WHY did the patient's mother feel that the symptoms were related to Gardasil?  I mean, how many mothers would even REMEMBER that their child received a vaccine 5 months after the fact?  

 

As for the incubation period for meningitis, why assume that the meningitis would only be linked to the Gardasil vaccine from the date of injection?  If vaccines and other medications can trigger meningitis, wouldn't it be possible that the initial vaccine "set the stage," so to speak, for a later reaction to one of the other triggers?  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10738845 says, "The major categories of causative agents are nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antimicrobials, intravenous immunoglobulin, intrathecal agents, vaccines and a number of other less frequently reported agents."

 

Well, that incomplete report states that she took an aspirin.  FIrst of all, very few 18-year-olds take aspirin. Was it really an aspirin she took, or was it an NSAID or even Tylenol?  What meds did they give her in the ER? When I went to the ER with a severe headache (which was later diagnosed as an atypical migraine), I was given a truckload of meds--3 different painkillers, including one specifically for migraines. I refused 2 of them, and asked for a half-dose of the third.)  I was later told that this is standard protocol in that ER for severe head pain.  What was the protocol in 2007, at the ER this young woman went to ?

 

Let's not turn up our noses at --or accept--anecdotes until we know the facts.

 

Occam's Razor.  What's more likely- a college freshman (a known risk group for meningococcal meningitis) is exposed to the bacteria and gets sick and dies.  Unfortunately, it happens.  40% of cases of meningococcal meningitis are fatal.  

-OR-

 

A high school senior gets a Gardasil vaccination in May.  She is fine and leaves for college in August.  BUT- she has some weird latent form of meningitis, never before described, that somehow incubates for 5 months, only to become a full-blown fulminent meningitis when she takes an aspirin.

 

I'll take choice A.

post #14 of 43

Isn't the point not that nothing bad ever happened to the vaccinated group, but that it happened at the same rate as in the unvaccinated group? I guarantee you that somewhere out there is a meningitis story very similar to the above described except that the victim had not received Gardasil. 

post #15 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

Isn't the point not that nothing bad ever happened to the vaccinated group, but that it happened at the same rate as in the unvaccinated group? I guarantee you that somewhere out there is a meningitis story very similar to the above described except that the victim had not received Gardasil. 

Agreed.

 

I took a look at the study - and - meh. 

 

This study does not look at effectiveness or long term issues - really, it just looks at  specific short term reactions to the vaccine (diagnosis within 180 days of vaccination).  The study admits that 180 days may not capture all the issues:

 

"To accommodate the time delay between first symptom and diagnosis we used a 180 day risk period for autoimmune and neurological outcomes, which is longer than in some studies (for example, studies of Guillain-Barré syndrome after vaccination typically have a risk window of 42 days), but consistent with other studies of autoimmune disease after HPV vaccination.15 However, it may have been too short to capture diseases with a more insidious onset. "

 

For the most part, it does not find any strong correlation, with 3 exceptions:

 

"The rate ratios for 20 of the 23 analysed autoimmune outcomes were not significantly increased. Exposure to qHPV vaccine was significantly associated with Behcet’s syndrome (rate ratio 3.37, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to10.80), Raynaud’s disease (1.67, 1.14 to 2.44), and type 1 diabetes (1.29, 1.03 to 1.62)."

The study then goes on to spend a lot of time explaining why they don't think it is significant (they have 3 criteria the data must meet in order for them to find a clear relationship) and not surprisingly, the associations do not make the cut.  To me it sounds like justification, and at a minimum if I were considering this vaccine, I would look into further studies on these issues to see what they have to say.

Lastly, this is what is written about competing interests:

"Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; LAD and PS are and have been involved in other studies with unconditional grants from GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur MSD, and Merck; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work."

 

http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5906

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

Edited by kathymuggle - 10/15/13 at 7:20am
post #16 of 43
First: SkepticalRaptor is not a source & I am getting a little weary of posting that. Let's only link to primary studies or @ least academic sites, not partisan blogs by birds of prey.

Secondly, someone needs to call up the US Gov FAST & tell them to get their 6 million back, we all know they could use it! http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/stress-and-health-dr-lind/2013/apr/10/us-court-pays-6-million-gardasil-victims/
post #17 of 43
Paul Offit quoted a Vax researcher in one of his recent lectures as saying 'I never rest until the first 3 million doses are out there'. IDK if he would actually think these numbers are adequate to pick up adverse reactions that are more rare . . .
post #18 of 43
Thread Starter 

 

For the most part, it does not find any strong correlation, with 3 exceptions:

 

"The rate ratios for 20 of the 23 analysed autoimmune outcomes were not significantly increased. Exposure to qHPV vaccine was significantly associated with Behcet’s syndrome (rate ratio 3.37, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to10.80), Raynaud’s disease (1.67, 1.14 to 2.44), and type 1 diabetes (1.29, 1.03 to 1.62)."

The study then goes on to spend a lot of time explaining why they don't think it is significant (they have 3 criteria the data must meet in order for them to find a clear relationship) and not surprisingly, the associations do not make the cut.  To me it sounds like justification, and at a minimum if I were considering this vaccine, I would look into further studies on these issues to see what they have to say.

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

Yes, they do explain why it is not significant. One of the reasons being that the incidence rate for the three conditions mirrored what is found in the general population of girls that age.  That hardly sounds like they are just trying to "justify" why they don't consider it to be a reaction from the vaccine.  That's a pretty important piece of data to consider.

post #19 of 43
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

First: SkepticalRaptor is not a source & I am getting a little weary of posting that. Let's only link to primary studies or @ least academic sites, not partisan blogs by birds of prey.

Secondly, someone needs to call up the US Gov FAST & tell them to get their 6 million back, we all know they could use it! http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/stress-and-health-dr-lind/2013/apr/10/us-court-pays-6-million-gardasil-victims/

 

This is what I posted from SR. "

The researchers examined patient records for 53 different diagnoses requiring hospital or specialist care, including blood clots, neurological diseases, and autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes between immunized and non-immunized groups. The limited the study to 180 days post-immunization (except for thromboembolic events, which they limited to 90 days). Out of the 53 adverse events, 24 were eliminated from the study because <5 events were observed in the vaccinated group (which would become statistically impossible to analyze).

Of the remaining 29 adverse events, the results are shown in the table below." 

I would really like to know what part of that you have an issue with. It is factual data from the study. Not opinions.  I really am curious. 

Couldn't look at your second link, it's not an academic site ;)  Kidding. Although I didn't click on the link because it doesn't matter.  As we have discussed before, court rulings are not evidence nor are they scientific. 

 

 

post #20 of 43
Right: I can read a primary study, don't need it filtered through a 'skeptic' blog. I am sure SR linked to his source right? Why not link that directly & quote from the actual study, sans spin?

I will click on MSM links all day, academic sites (even CDC or CHOP), or primary studies. Unless you are willing to see lengthy quotes from the latest missive from Barbara Loe or AoA, I would leave SR alone, or save it for the Vax on Schedule forum, where partisan bloggings are more appropriate.

And the 6 million was not awarded by a *jury*. Special Masters don't give money if there is absolutely no case. That is the whole point of them.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › New study : "No Serious Adverse Reactions to HPV Vaccination"