HPV infections drop by half because of vaccination - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-20-2013, 03:48 PM
 
lilgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,727
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)

I'm not going to weigh into the debate, but I just want to share my sister's story. 

 

A few years ago, she had a pap smear done, which showed everything was fine and healthy. Eight months later she had moved to another state and couldn't remember exactly when her last pap smear was, so she went in to get another one. In just 8 months, she had developed HPV cervical cancer. She had/s a very aggressive form of HPV which would not have infected her if she had had the vaccination. She had to have part of her cervix removed and is unlikely able to carry children. She has to get checked every six months to have new cancerous growth removed. If she had waited any longer to get her pap smear, it could have been very bad and she is very lucky. 

 

I don't get why boys aren't offered the vaccination and it's only girls whose bodies (once again) are pathologized and medicalized. But, regardless, I wouldn't hesitate if I had a girl.

lilgreen is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 06-20-2013, 04:12 PM
 
Katie8681's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Northern Cali
Posts: 674
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
2003 is the earliest year they have for national data, according to cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes/hpv/hpvprevalence0308 .

At home amongst the redwoods treehugger.gif with my husband and my son, born 7/5/11 familybed1.gif  Instant CNM, just add caffix.gif !

Katie8681 is offline  
Old 06-20-2013, 07:19 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma View Post

They also said the rate was stagnant in the 3 years prior to vax release. What about the years before that? 

The cervical cancer rate has been dropping for years.  I am not sure about HPV.  CDC graph.

2009_cervical_race_incidence.jpg


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  
Old 06-20-2013, 07:22 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

2003 is the earliest year they have for national data, according to cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes/hpv/hpvprevalence0308 .

the link does not seem to work


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  
Old 06-21-2013, 08:01 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

Cervical cancer is the ultimate bad outcome from HPV. The follow up tests for suspicious Paps are not totally benign. Colposcopy with cervical biopsy may cause preterm labor/birth and infertility, and problems with dilation in labor.

Yes - absolutely true. I had a suspicious pap in college. I had a LEEP procedure done. fast forward many many years. with my first child unbeknowst to me or my providers, I was unable to dilate past 2 cm due to the scare tissue from that procedure. My dreams of a natural water birth were dashed when I had to have an epidural to break up the adhesions and allow me to dilate. I still would not get this vaccine. 


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 11:15 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)

Well obviously you can make whatever decision you want for your child but no one can argue with math and statistics. 

 

"The cervical cancer rate has been dropping for years.  I am not sure about HPV.  CDC graph." 

 

"Between 1955 and 1992, the rate of cervical cancer deaths in the U.S. declined by nearly 70%. It continued declining more gradually to 2003. It has since stabilized." 

 

So cervical cancer did have a sharp decline initially due to an increase of pap smears but has been stable since 2003.  In 2009 there were 

  • 12,357 women in the United States were diagnosed with cervical cancer.
  • 3,909 women in the United States died from cervical cancer.

 

The predicted number for 2012 

  • In 2012, an estimated 12,170 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in U.S. women.

   

  • In 2012, an estimated 4,220 U.S. women will die from the disease

 

http://qap.sdsu.edu/screening/cervicalcancer/facts.html

 

So again, it has not dropped since 2003. 

 

Also, "Currently, the lifetime risk of developing cervical cancer among U.S. women is approximately 1 in 147."   What is the rate of death from a guardasil vaccine again? Out of the tens of millions of doses that have been given ?  Even if we say that all the 135 claimed deaths were from the vaccine that is 135 out of 79 million doses so  .000171% 

 

 

The vaccine protects against the two strains that cause over 70 percent of all cervical cancers. 

 

There is literally no way anyone can say that statistically their child is more likely to die from the vaccine than from cervical cancer. No way. You cannot argue with math.  

 

I do understand people that don't want to give the chicken pox vaccine, I really do.  Your chance of dying from chicken pox is extremely low. Plus you would need boosters in adulthood to keep yourself from catching it then and having it be more serious.  Even Polio I get because the numbers are so miniscule.  But HPV?  I am sorry I will just never understand your reasoning behind this one.  You need to look at the BALANCE of risk.  No vaccine/medication comes with zero risk. But the tiny risk your child might suffer from a serious reaction to the vaccine or death from the vaccine is so outweighed by the very real risk your child could get cervical cancer.  

 

Edit: Also 32 percent of women who get cervical cancer will die by 5 years. So almost 1 in 3. http://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/cervical-cancer/statistics

 

The treatment for the EARLIEST stages of cervical cancer is a hysterectomy often in addition to radiation.  More advance cases requires radiation, hysterectomy, and chemo therapy.    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cervical-cancer/DS00167/DSECTION=treatments-and-drugs

 

This is a very very serious cancer and you should do anything in your power to reduce the chance you daughter will get it. 

 

Mind you, this is only the statistics for cervical cancer. Anal cancer is also almost exclusively contracted through HPV. It kills almost an additional 1,000 people a year and is the cancer Farrah Fawcett died from. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 02:19 PM
 
Gryphonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

Edit: Also 32 percent of women who get cervical cancer will die by 5 years. So almost 1 in 3. http://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/cervical-cancer/statistics

 

The treatment for the EARLIEST stagesof cervical cancer is a hysterectomy often in addition to radiation.  More advance cases requires radiation, hysterectomy, and chemo therapy.    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cervical-cancer/DS00167/DSECTION=treatments-and-drugs

 

 

 

I had cervical cancer, thus learned a lot about it. 

 

Treatment for the earlier stages(stage 1) is just removal of the cancer (no hysterectomy), and survival rate is over 90%.

 

If discussing a disease related to HPV we should use the right information.

Gryphonn is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 02:42 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)

"I think the site you linked is using the data off CDC which says something like 12k got it and 4k died but there's even a little asterisk down there on the CDC site that says "use caution when using these figures" - if the CDC advises caution on using the figures I bet they are pretty far off."

 

 

Here are the American Cancer Society's statistics from cancer.org

 

"The American Cancer Society's estimates for cervical cancer in the United States are for 2013:

  • About 12,340 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed.
  • About 4,030 women will die from cervical cancer."  

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cervicalcancer/detailedguide/cervical-cancer-key-statistics   

So there you go. Are you going to dispute the American Cancer Society too? 

"The 5 year survival rate for 1a2 is 91% according to your site.  You've got to go pretty high up the staging to get to 1 in 3 mortality..." 

The mortality rate of all cervical cancers is about 1 out of 3. Which is what I said.  At the extreme early stages the survival rate is going to be better of course but even then you still have an almost 10 percent chance of dying and a 100% chance of extremely invasive surgery that carries risks and also losing the ability to have children. 

Your chance of getting cervical cancer in the US is 1 out of 147.  (http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer)

I'd love to see ANYONE show me a study that shows 4,000 people die a year from guardasil vaccine.  You won't be able to. I don't think there is even anyone anti vaccine that is even trying to claim anywhere NEAR that many people have died from the vaccine. The highest number I have seen is 135 over the 7 years the vaccine has been available.  

Which still brings me to the same point. You are more likely to die from cervical cancer than you are from the guardasil vaccine. You are more likely to get cervical cancer than you are to suffer a severe reaction from the guardasil vaccine.  

 

 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 02:52 PM
 
fruitfulmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Between the Rockies and a Flat Place
Posts: 4,198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Quote:
and also losing the ability to have children

Not everyone who has cervical cancer gets a hysterectomy or loses their chance to have children. No one is saying it is a good thing or that it isn't risky or painful or hard or anything like that. What we want is for people to be able to make choices for themselves based off the clear facts. Making statements like every woman who gets this cancer is going to lose her womb and ability to bear children is false. 

fruitfulmomma is online now  
Old 06-21-2013, 03:05 PM
 
Gryphonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:

 

Here are the American Cancer Society's statistics from cancer.org

 

"The American Cancer Society's estimates for cervical cancer in the United States are for 2013:

  • About 12,340 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed.
  • About 4,030 women will die from cervical cancer."  

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cervicalcancer/detailedguide/cervical-cancer-key-statistics   

So there you go. Are you going to dispute the American Cancer Society too? 

"The 5 year survival rate for 1a2 is 91% according to your site.  You've got to go pretty high up the staging to get to 1 in 3 mortality..." 

The mortality rate of all cervical cancers is about 1 out of 3. Which is what I said.  At the extreme early stages the survival rate is going to be better of course but even then you still have an almost 10 percent chance of dying and a 100% chance of extremely invasive surgery that carries risks and also losing the ability to have children. 

Hi, I edited because I can't prove it but would guess that the ACS's statistics are from a CDC study, as they are very close to the numbers for which the CDC urges caution...  but to be sure I edited it out. Regarding criticism of the ACS, as a "cancer survivor" I am not a fan of the ACS at all.  Cancer is big business just like vaccines. I saw someone mentioned chemo is off limits for the user agreement so I apologize if this is already too far.

 

I also took out some of my own story because I don't want to open it up for discussion, but your statement regarding the treatment - "[you have a ] 100% chance of extremely invasive surgery... and losing the ability to have children" is completely false, I do think you should edit that.  The surgery for cancer caught early is an outpatient procedure and preserves fertility even according to the ACS.  This isn't all completely on topic though so I will go away now. :)

Gryphonn is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 03:16 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)

"I had cervical cancer, thus learned a lot about it. 

 

Treatment for the earlier stages(stage 1) is just removal of the cancer (no hysterectomy)..."

 

From the mayoclinic website "Surgery to remove the uterus (hysterectomy) is typically used to treat the early stages of cervical cancer. A simple hysterectomy involves the removal of the cancer, the cervix and the uterus. Simple hysterectomy is typically an option only when the cancer is very early stage — invasion is less than 3 millimeters (mm) into the cervix. A radical hysterectomy — removal of the cervix, uterus, part of the vagina and lymph nodes in the area — is the standard surgical treatment when there's invasion greater than 3 mm into the cervix." 

 

It is usually recommended even in the very early stages that you get a hysterectomy. There are rare cases where parts of the cervix are removed but it is extremely uncommon to catch the cancer early enough for that to be a valid option. 

 

To try and make it seem like most women who get cervical cancer get to go on and have children is a complete fabrication. The vast majority will not. "Unfortunately cervical cancer treatment for most women means they won’t be able to get pregnant. With cervical cancer affecting some quite young women, dealing with the emotional issue of infertility as well as the diagnosis of cancer can be overwhelming." 

http://www.webmd.boots.com/cancer/cervical-cancer/features/cervical-cancer-and-fertility

 

Anyway, I am still waiting to see some statistic that shows that your chance of dying from the vaccine is higher than your chance of dying from cervical cancer. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 03:20 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

I'd love to see ANYONE show me a study that shows 4,000 people die a year from guardasil vaccine.  You won't be able to. I don't think there is even anyone anti vaccine that is even trying to claim anywhere NEAR that many people have died from the vaccine. The highest number I have seen is 135 over the 7 years the vaccine has been available.  

Which still brings me to the same point. You are more likely to die from cervical cancer than you are from the guardasil vaccine. You are more likely to get cervical cancer than you are to suffer a severe reaction from the guardasil vaccine.  

 

 

 

And I would be interested in the research that proves Gardasil will be able to prevent any of those 4000 deaths. 

 

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines as an option for preventing cervical malignancies: (how) effective and safe?

 

Quote:

Given that it is unlikely that HPV vaccination would decrease the already low incidence of cervical cancers in developed countries with good Pap screening practices, any expected benefit from HPV vaccines will be significantly limited in such settings. Accordingly, the risk-to-benefit balance associated with HPV vaccination will then also become less favourable.

 

 

Translation:

 

In light of this study's findings of the lack of efficacy in both Gardasil and Cervarix, there can be no justification in any risks from these vaccines. If there is just a minor benefit, then only minor risks can be tolerated. If there is no benefit - and at this time these vaccines cannot demonstrate any benefit - then the vaccines cannot be justified.

 

 

 


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
Old 06-21-2013, 03:26 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)

"And I would be interested in the research that proves Gardasil will be able to prevent any of those 4000 deaths. "

 

It certainly won't prevent all of them but it will prevent thousands of cases of cancer which will in turn keep thousands of people from dying from that cancer. I have already posted how the study was done earlier in the thread so I won't repeat it. It was a study of over 8,000 women and is considered the gold standard on health indicators. 

 

I can't tell from that link, when was that written? 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 03:32 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

I can't tell from that link, when was that written? 

2012


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
Old 06-21-2013, 03:37 PM
 
fruitfulmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Between the Rockies and a Flat Place
Posts: 4,198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Quote:
It certainly won't prevent all of them but it will prevent thousands of cases of cancer which will in turn keep thousands of people from dying from that cancer. I have already posted how the study was done earlier in the thread so I won't repeat it. It was a study of over 8,000 women and is considered the gold standard on health indicators.

 

Wait... what??? Are we talking about the study that you posted about in the OP??? It was not a study on cervical cancer. It was also not a study that can tell us conclusively that the drop in HPV rates was from the vaccine. ETA: Thus why the study conclusion was "The estimated vaccine effectiveness was high." (Italics mine.)

fruitfulmomma is online now  
Old 06-21-2013, 03:37 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)

But when? Before or after the recent results from the CDC? I really do not understand pubmed and am not good at interpreting abstract studies.  Is it written by a doctor? was it an actual study? I would need more information than just a paragraph to respond. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 03:48 PM
 
dalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Anyway, I am still waiting to see some statistic that shows that your chance of dying from the vaccine is higher than your chance of dying from cervical cancer. 





You're not going to get that statistic because it doesn't exist. The death rate from the vaccine could go up to 1000 people a year, and still statistically the risk is less to get the vax than to get cervical cancer.

In my opinion, ANY deaths from the vaccine is too big a risk to take. The vaccine is not a treatment for cancer, it's a preventative. You undergo a vaccine to prevent a cancer, which at the time of the vaccination you do not have and you may never get. Therefore, I don't think there should be any risk of death or serious side effect. But there is. We are being asked to take a risk to prevent a disease that we may never contract, a relatively big risk when compared to other vaccines. Also, we have no idea the long term effects.

So, doesn't it make sense to focus more on treatment? To work on helping those who need the help rather than put healthy people at risk? I don't think anyone should suffer from cancer. I don't think anyone should have to suffer with infertility. These things are not okay. But we need to focus on treatment, not profit for pharmaceutical companies.

Wife to one amazing husband superhero.gif, SAHM to DS bouncy.gif 10/09, DS babyboy.gif 10/19,  one furbaby dog2.gif, and lots of chicken3.gif!

 
joy.gif

dalia is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 04:00 PM
 
fruitfulmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Between the Rockies and a Flat Place
Posts: 4,198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
In regards to the study that Mirzam posted, these are the authors...
 

Source

Neural Dynamics Research Group, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia

 

This source - http://www.offtheradar.co.nz/vaccines/325-british-columbia-researchers-advocate-hpv-vaccine-scrutiny.html - states that they are "Neuroscientist Chris Shaw and Lucija Tomljenovic, who has a PhD in biochemistry and is a senior postdoctoral fellow in UBC’s faculty of medicine."

fruitfulmomma is online now  
Old 06-21-2013, 04:07 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)

"Wait... what??? Are we talking about the study that you posted about in the OP??? It was not a study on cervical cancer. It was also not a study that can tell us conclusively that the drop in HPV rates was from the vaccine. " 

 

I disagree. I believe it did show that the drop in HPV rates was to the vaccine. I tend to trust the CDC though and believe that such a dramatic drop in such a short amount of time (it wasn't gradual in other words)  when there isn't really any other explanation that could account for such a sudden drop other than the vaccines is very indicative of its efficacy. 

 

Also, saying it hasn't been shown to reduce cancer rates is technically true but very misleading.  "Virtually all cervical cancers are caused by HPV infections, with just two HPV types, 16 and 18, responsible for about 70 percent of all cases. HPV also causes anal cancer, with about 85 percent of all cases caused by HPV-16. HPV types 16 and 18 have also been found to cause close to half of vaginal, vulvar, and penile cancers." 

 

So considering that HPV causes virtually all cervical cancers and considering the vaccine protects against the two strains that cause over 70 percent of all cervical cancers it is a logical conclusion to say that less HPV= less cancer.  

 

Unless you can show me a study that says something else causes the majority of cases of cervical cancer its a logical leap you are just going to have to concede. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 04:07 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

My main concern with the HPV vax is the time it takes to wear off. It sounds like the vaccine is wearing off and leaving girls unprotected when they still need protection. Even if this first batch of girls has lower HPV infection rates now, what if their vaccines wear off and they don't get revaccinated? What will their status be 10 years from now? When reading about this vax I am glad my daughter is still a toddler and it will be some years before we have to consider the vaccine for her. There will be more data by then on the side effects, the number of cases of cancer prevented, and the longevity of the vaccine. It would be instructive to compare the rate of cervical cancer in 20-something women say 10 years ago (before the vaccine) vs 10 years from now (when those women had the vaccine in their youth). 

 

I do think this vaccine is kind of unique among the vaccines on the schedule in several ways, which makes the decision to vaccinate a little different than with some others. The vaccine is against HPV, but just because someone gets HPV doesn't mean they'll get cancer. And if they do get cancer, it could be soon after infection or not for years. It's not like vaccinating for chicken pox to keep your child from getting chicken pox; an exposure to chicken pox pretty conclusively equals a case of chicken pox, and in the era before the vaccine, most people would be exposed at some point. An exposure to HPV may not equal a case of HPV and a case of HPV may not equal cancer. 

erigeron is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 04:11 PM
 
fruitfulmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Between the Rockies and a Flat Place
Posts: 4,198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Quote:
Unless you can show me a study that says something else causes the majority of cases of cervical cancer its a logical leap you are just going to have to concede.

 

Um, yeah... you have at least twice now told us you have no idea how to read an abstract, after we've brought up information from said abstracts.ETA: Okay if you want to take them at their word, but please don't tell me I have to.

 

Let me know when the CDC concedes the logical leap between SIDS and Vaccination, Autism and Vaccination, and numerous other reactions and vaccinations. Their favorite manta is...

 

Correlation does not equal causation.

 

Quote:
I believe it did show that the drop in HPV rates was to the vaccine.

 

They have shown a correlation and thus have concluded that it is *estimated* to reduce cases of HPV. An estimation is not conclusive.

fruitfulmomma is online now  
Old 06-21-2013, 04:24 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)

"In my opinion, ANY deaths from the vaccine is too big a risk to take. The vaccine is not a treatment for cancer, it's a preventative. You undergo a vaccine to prevent a cancer, which at the time of the vaccination you do not have and you may never get. Therefore, I don't think there should be any risk of death or serious side effect. But there is. We are being asked to take a risk to prevent a disease that we may never contract, a relatively big risk when compared to other vaccines." 

 

Yes it is a preventative vaccine. Preventing a very serious and not all that rare of a cancer is good medicine. If there was a treatment for the cancer that was less invasive than the vaccine then your argument would make sense. But the treatment for the cancer is more often than not a hysterectomy and for advance stages radiation and chemotherapy and there is still a 1/3 overall risk of death from the cancer at 5 years.  

 

Another point I would like to make is that it is not a cancer you can say " Well if I do or don't do this, I cannot get it."  In other words, it is not like this is a cancer that is caused by a rare slug in Mongolia where you could logically say " Well, as long as I don't go to Mongolia I don't have to worry." 

 

You could get raped. You could get drugged at a party. You could marry someone who has HPV. You could have sex with someone who has HPV. Even if you abstain from sex until marriage there is no guarantee your husband did. Nor is there a guarantee he won't have an affair and contract it.  This is a VERY common STD. MOST adults will get HPV at some point in their lives and unless someone is locked away in concrete cell their entire lives there is no way to 100 percent prevent it. Not even pap smears can detect it 100 percent of the time. 

 

I think it is just silly to say that unless something has absolutely zero risk it should not be considered. You have to look at the balance of risk, like I said in a previous post.  What is your risk of dying from the vaccine vs your risk of dying from the disease it is trying to prevent? I hear anti vaccine and pro vaccine people say this all the time and it makes sense.  In this case it is clear that your risk of getting cancer and dying is much much higher than your risk of getting the vaccine and dying from a reaction to it.  Even if you quadruple the number of deaths from the vaccine it doesn't even come close. 

 

Anyway, I have to take a break for a bit, must start getting dinner ready.  It has been fun!  Hopefully other people will jump in ( I know I am not the only pro vaccine person on this board! ) 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 04:41 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)

Ok quick reply.

 

 

"Um, yeah... you have at least twice now told us you have no idea how to read an abstract, after we've brought up information from said abstracts." 

 

So I am guessing the answer is no then? You can't find anything that shows that something other than HPV causes most cervical cancers? A magazine article perhaps? anything? Ok then. 

 

"Correlation does not equal causation." 

 

When there are no other outside factors that can reasonably explain a causation then it is not simply just a case of "correlation does not equal causation".   Again, a 50 percent drop in HPV in a few short years is incredible. It was not a gradual decrease and there isn't anything else that can explain that kind of a drop. There wasn't a 50 percent increase in pap smears, there wasn't some new kind of pill that could explain it, there wasn't a huge uptake in some sort of new birth control, there hasn't been any dramatic changes to sanitation... I could go on but you get what I am saying.  

 

Ok now I really must go! 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 04:42 PM
 
dalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
"Yes it is a preventative vaccine. Preventing a very serious and not all that rare of a cancer is good medicine. If there was a treatment for the cancer that was less invasive than the vaccine then your argument would make sense. But the treatment for the cancer is more often than not a hysterectomy and for advance stages radiation and chemotherapy and there is still a 1/3 overall risk of death from the cancer at 5 years."

Exactly. So, again, why don't we focus on improving treatment of the sick instead of vaccination with risks for the healthy?

I honestly think it's because there is not the same level of profit in curing the sick. And I know the risks of getting HPV, like I said, I have it.

Wife to one amazing husband superhero.gif, SAHM to DS bouncy.gif 10/09, DS babyboy.gif 10/19,  one furbaby dog2.gif, and lots of chicken3.gif!

 
joy.gif

dalia is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 04:49 PM
 
fruitfulmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Between the Rockies and a Flat Place
Posts: 4,198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Quote:
So I am guessing the answer is no then? You can't find anything that shows that something other than HPV causes most cervical cancers? A magazine article perhaps? anything? Ok then.

I am not talking about whether or not hpv leads to cervical cancer. I have never said otherwise. I am talking about the limitations of this study and I am not going to concede that this study proved conclusively that the vaxx reduces the risk of hpv.

Quote:

 

When there are no other outside factors that can reasonably explain a causation then it is not simply just a case of "correlation does not equal causation".   Again, a 50 percent drop in HPV in a few short years is incredible. It was not a gradual decrease and there isn't anything else that can explain that kind of a drop. There wasn't a 50 percent increase in pap smears, there wasn't some new kind of pill that could explain it, there wasn't a huge uptake in some sort of new birth control, there hasn't been any dramatic changes to sanitation... I could go on but you get what I am saying. 

 

Again, the abstract from the study itself states that their conclusion is an estimation. According to a poster up thread, we don't even have the data on hpv for years prior to the beginning of the study, not on a national level anyway, so there is no way to know if there had been drops similar to this prior to the start of the study. If you have knowledge of data on the rates prior to the beginning of the study feel free to share.

fruitfulmomma is online now  
Old 06-21-2013, 05:00 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)

"According to a poster up thread, we don't even have the data on hpv for years prior to the beginning of the study, not on a national level anyway, so there is no way to know if there had been drops similar to this prior to the start of the study. If you have knowledge of data on the rates prior to the beginning of the study feel free to share." 

 

You mean like this graph right here that shows the prevalence of HPV in women ages 14-59 years from the years 2003-2006 before the vaccine was introduced? http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats11/figures/52.htm

 

"The study by Dr. Lauri Markowitz and colleagues at the CDC used the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data to compare prevalence—or proportion of girls and women aged 14-59 years with certain types of HPV—before the start of the HPV vaccination program (2003-2006) with the prevalence after vaccine introduction (2007-2010). As expected from clinical trials before the vaccine was licensed, the study also showed that the vaccine is highly effective." 

 

http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/p0619-hpv-vaccinations.html


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 05:02 PM
 
fruitfulmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Between the Rockies and a Flat Place
Posts: 4,198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)

Back to the study... I find it interesting that the massive drop only occurred in one age group - the 14 to 19 years. I wonder why that is? Was the uptake among other age groups significantly lower?

 

Also, what about other strains? I think they only studied vax specific strains, I wonder what a study on other strains of hpv would show? Would they show a similar reduction in incidence, a higher rate, the same?

fruitfulmomma is online now  
Old 06-21-2013, 05:05 PM
 
fruitfulmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Between the Rockies and a Flat Place
Posts: 4,198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Quote:
You mean like this graph right here that shows the prevalence of HPV in women ages 14-59 years from the years 2003-2006 before the vaccine was introduced? http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats11/figures/52.htm

 

Nope. I want to know what the rates were *before* that. Three years of data on the rates doesn't give us a big enough picture as to whether or not the rates had always been where they were in that brief period before the vaxx came out or if rates may have been cyclical or if there had been other big drops or jumps in the rates prior to 2003.

fruitfulmomma is online now  
Old 06-21-2013, 05:07 PM
 
fruitfulmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Between the Rockies and a Flat Place
Posts: 4,198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)

And what about the years post study? Would also like to see that. Have the rates continued to remain at the 5.1%? Have they gone down even further? Gone higher?

fruitfulmomma is online now  
Old 06-21-2013, 05:19 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)

Oh for pete's sake eyesroll.gif  

 

If there were 10 years worth of information anti vaxxers would say there needs to be 20. If there were 20 years worth of data, you would say there needs to be 30. It is never ending. 

 

There is no reason to believe that for some reason the years 2003-2006 are some anomaly bracket that somehow was not indicative of the average rates of HPV.   Were teenagers just have an extra amount of sex during those three years or something? eyesroll.gif  Again there needs to be a reason you believe those numbers aren't accurate. Or a valid reason why you think that the ten years before 2003 would have lower rates of HPV than 2003-2006.  Was there an increase in some sort of drug program that would make them lower?  Were people having 50 percent less sex during those years before? Were people using condoms 50 percent more?  The point is you can't just say that you think previous years would have shown a different result if none of the outside factors are different. 

 

Sure comparing the HPV rates 1960s vs 2012 would be ridiculous. Pap smears and better public education and awareness drastically reduced the prevalence of HPV and cervical cancer. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not 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