Study: Not Enough Evidence That HPV Vaccine Is Safe and Effective - Page 7 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#181 of 242 Old 11-13-2012, 10:30 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

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.

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#182 of 242 Old 11-13-2012, 10:35 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,044
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)
nm 
BeckyBird likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#183 of 242 Old 11-13-2012, 10:53 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,440
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

 

 

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.


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#184 of 242 Old 11-13-2012, 12:25 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,735
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

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.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#185 of 242 Old 11-13-2012, 01:11 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,897
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)

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.


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#186 of 242 Old 11-13-2012, 03:16 PM
 
minerva23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: down by the riverside
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)

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.
 


“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”
―Socrates

minerva23 is offline  
#187 of 242 Old 11-13-2012, 03:21 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#188 of 242 Old 11-13-2012, 06:13 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,044
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post


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.  


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#189 of 242 Old 11-13-2012, 07:58 PM
 
HappyHappyMommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,920
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)

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! 


hh2.gif Head over to the Holiday Helper forum and be a part of this wonderful Mothering tradition! joy.gif

Wondering about Mothering in general? Check out Mothering's User Agreement! smile.gif

HappyHappyMommy is offline  
#190 of 242 Old 11-14-2012, 09:07 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,735
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minerva23 View Post

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


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#191 of 242 Old 11-14-2012, 09:26 AM
 
pek64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post


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 is offline  
#192 of 242 Old 11-14-2012, 09:30 AM
 
pek64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

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 is offline  
#193 of 242 Old 11-14-2012, 09:34 AM
 
pek64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
pek64 is offline  
#194 of 242 Old 11-14-2012, 02:43 PM
 
minerva23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: down by the riverside
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

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


“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”
―Socrates

minerva23 is offline  
#195 of 242 Old 11-15-2012, 08:37 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,440
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)

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]

 

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#196 of 242 Old 11-15-2012, 11:54 AM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

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.  nono.gif


Chicharronita is offline  
#197 of 242 Old 11-15-2012, 11:09 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,735
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
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.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#198 of 242 Old 11-16-2012, 04:00 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

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.
BeckyBird and Jennyanydots like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#199 of 242 Old 11-16-2012, 05:24 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,044
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

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.


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#200 of 242 Old 11-16-2012, 06:11 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,044
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

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).  

rachelsmama likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#201 of 242 Old 11-16-2012, 12:11 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

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.

BeckyBird and Taximom5 like this.

Chicharronita is offline  
#202 of 242 Old 11-16-2012, 12:14 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#203 of 242 Old 11-16-2012, 12:29 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)

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."


Chicharronita is offline  
#204 of 242 Old 11-16-2012, 12:35 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Why aren't you worried about her getting hpv, out of curiosity?
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#205 of 242 Old 11-16-2012, 12:59 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)

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.


Chicharronita is offline  
#206 of 242 Old 11-16-2012, 01:32 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
That's great I'm glad you found a doctor you get along with so well.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#207 of 242 Old 11-16-2012, 02:18 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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. 

erigeron is offline  
#208 of 242 Old 11-16-2012, 02:21 PM
 
minerva23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: down by the riverside
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)

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?


“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”
―Socrates

minerva23 is offline  
#209 of 242 Old 11-16-2012, 02:36 PM
 
chickabiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,487
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post

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.


Carseat-checking (CPST) and WAH mama to a twelve-year-old girl.
chickabiddy is online now  
#210 of 242 Old 11-16-2012, 02:43 PM
 
pek64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

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.
pek64 is offline  
Reply

Tags
Vaccines , Vaccinations , Hpv

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off