Gardasil now approved for Vulvar and Vaginal Cancer

[KurumiSophia]

http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/n...t-more-cancers

Now my question is, how common are these cancers that they must be prevented in this fashion?

[MamaRabbit]

Yeah "how common is it?" is what popped in my head first.

[SoCaliMommy]

Probably not common at all. They just want more $$$

[crittersmom]

Another case of we have this new thing, it does....something.We must use it on everything now!Kinda like the trend of adding omega products to as many food products as possible without really knowing the consequences.

[mamakay]

Look at page 169 here:

http://www.fda.gov/cber/review/hpvmer060806r.pdf

Table 111.

That's for women who were infected before vaccination, but still...

[mamakay]

Now...check this out, too...

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0

We previously showed that vertical transmission frequently results in persistent infection, and now present data on the prevalence of HPV-16 DNA (the most prevalent high-risk HPV type) in healthy children. Buccal samples from 267 healthy children aged 3-11 years were tested for HPV DNA by generic PCR (MY09/MY11), and a HPV-16 specific nested PCR. Reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR was used to determine the prevalence of transcriptionally active HPV-16 infection in a subset of children. HPV-16 DNA was detected by nested PCR in 138 of 267 (51.7%) samples, whereas HPV DNA was detected in only 45 (16.8%) specimens by generic PCR, that has a lower analytical sensitivity.

[Janice in Canada]

Originally Posted by mamakay

Look at page 169 here:

http://www.fda.gov/cber/review/hpvmer060806r.pdf

Table 111.

That's for women who were infected before vaccination, but still...

Am I reading this table wrong - but it looks like there was no reduction of incident rate with Gardasil over the placebo???

Janice

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by Janice in Canada

Am I reading this table wrong - but it looks like there was no reduction of incident rate with Gardasil over the placebo???

Janice

Not just no reduction...but the women who got Gardasil were 181.7% more likely to develop the most severe vaginal neoplasias!

[wallacesmum]

Combine that with the fact that HPV strains are showing up in tests of young children, meaning that there is no reasonable assurance that children who aren't sexually exposed will be HPV negative.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by wallacesmum

Combine that with the fact that HPV strains are showing up in tests of young children, meaning that there is no reasonable assurance that children who aren't sexually exposed will be HPV negative.

HPV is also probably causing all kinds of other types of illnesses and cancers, too...throat, oral, etc.
So I really wish there was some kind of "all cause cancer registry" following people who got Gardasil vs. placebo.

[zylph]

Originally Posted by Janice in Canada

Am I reading this table wrong - but it looks like there was no reduction of incident rate with Gardasil over the placebo???

Janice

There was no reduction in HPV-related neoplasia incidence among women that were PCR positive for HPV at the day they were injected with the vaccine. Meaning that the vaccine doesn't protect against HPV-induced neoplasias in women that are already infected with the virus. Which is not unexpected.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by zylph

There was no reduction in HPV-related neoplasia incidence among women that were PCR positive for HPV at the day they were injected with the vaccine. Meaning that the vaccine doesn't protect against HPV-induced neoplasias in women that are already infected with the virus. Which is not unexpected.

It was an 181% increase. Not just "no reduction". Might be a weirdo coincidence, but maybe not, too.

[Deborah]

I bet the 181% increase was unexpected.

[leila1213]

Originally Posted by wallacesmum

Combine that with the fact that HPV strains are showing up in tests of young children, meaning that there is no reasonable assurance that children who aren't sexually exposed will be HPV negative.

Bingo. One of my favorite authors wrote a paper about West Nile Virus and was talking about how, if you examine only dead birds in search of a common "cause" of death, you may find something linking them. However, that is completely different from finding causation. If you examine healthy birds in addition to dead ones, you may find that they are all carrying that "deadly" "virus". Like saying that "This man died from the flu!" and disregarding the fact that he was 95 years old and smoked like a chimney. You can't blame a germ just because it is there at the time of the pathology. It may actually be a SYMPTOM of the pathology, not the cause. :