Mothering Forums

Mothering Forums (http://www.mothering.com/forum/)
-   Vaccinations (http://www.mothering.com/forum/47-vaccinations/)
-   -   HPV infections drop by half because of vaccination (http://www.mothering.com/forum/47-vaccinations/1385370-hpv-infections-drop-half-because-vaccination.html)

teacozy 06-20-2013 08:47 AM

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/06/hpv_infections_drop_dramatically_because_of_vaccination_cdc_says.html

 

What do you guys think? I know there have been some reported cases of adverse effects from these vaccines but on balance having 50 percent less HPV will prevent thousands and thousands of people from getting cancer, some of whom who would die from it. 

 

I think from what I am reading the vaccine does more good than harm. 

 

Thoughts? 


fruitfulmomma 06-20-2013 09:59 AM

Have the cancer rates themselves dropped?


teacozy 06-20-2013 10:10 AM

We won't know for a while because HPV causes cancer many years down the line. 

 

HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer so it is logical to assume that less HPV= less cancer. 

 

High-risk HPVs cause virtually all cervical cancers. They also cause most anal cancers and some vaginal, vulvar, penile, and oropharyngeal cancers. " 

 

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV


fruitfulmomma 06-20-2013 10:11 AM

Am I understanding correctly that the study looked at the total number of cases reported before and after vaccine introduction and then compared the two? This particular study was not a study comparing the rates of hpv between vaccinated and unvaccinated women?


Mirzam 06-20-2013 10:25 AM

2 Attachment(s)

Over 90% of HPV infections resolve on their own without any treatment at all and of the remaining 10% only a small percentage ever go on to develop cervical cancer. Cervical cancer is far from being a deadly scourge, and it is among one of the easiest forms of cancer to treat. The vast majority of women beat cervical cancer with good hygiene, a healthy diet and supplementation with vitamin B-12 and folic acid and not smoking.

 

As for Gardasil and Cervarix, they are probably two of the worse vaccines out there.

 

Description     Total
Disabled     947  
Deaths     138  
Did Not Recover     5,977  
Abnormal Pap Smear     527  
Cervical Dysplasia     214  
Cervical Cancer     63  
Life Threatening     559  
Emergency Room     10,479  
Hospitalized     3,026  
Extended Hospital Stay     232  
Serious     4,050  
Adverse Events     30,020

 

 

You only have to look at the publisher of this article to know it is a piece of vaxganda. No mention of the Japanese government no longer supporting HPV vaccines because the numbers of adverse effects.


teacozy 06-20-2013 10:34 AM

I am not sure how the study was conducted but I am sure someone who is better at interpreting these kinds of results can answer you. 

 

The CDC indicates that over 12,000 women get cervical cancer every year and close to 4,000 die from it in the United States alone.  

 

And HPV is not something rare like polio. I believe over 50 percent of sexually active adults will get it in their lifetime.  So not getting the vaccine would not make sense even if you add up every single severe guardasil vaccine reaction it would not come anywhere close to balancing out the dangers and risk of HPV.  I don't think there is an anti vaccine person out there who is claiming that thousands of girls die every year from the HPV vaccine (in fact, I don't think there is even 1 documented case).


teacozy 06-20-2013 10:44 AM

There is more to consider besides just the death rates as well. Even if you survive the cancer, you will most likely never be able to have children. 

 

"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. " 

 

You need to weigh all the possible repercussions of cervical cancer vs the vaccine to make an informed decision and infertility can be devastating.  I am only 25 but I already have three friends who have been told they will most likely never have children due to treatment for early cervical cancer. 

 

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


fruitfulmomma 06-20-2013 10:45 AM

Quote:
(in fact, I don't think there is even 1 documented case).

 

What about the 138 in Mirzam's post?


Mirzam 06-20-2013 10:46 AM

2 Attachment(s)

The other glaring obvious problem with the HPV vaccine is that likely wears off long before cervical cancer develops. To give a girl a vaccine at 11 years old for a cancer she might get at 50 is pointless crazy given the dangers of this vaccine. 

 

The Lead Vaccine Developer Comes Clean So She Can "Sleep At Night": Gardasil and Cervarix Don't Work, Are Dangerous, and Weren't Tested

 

How Effective is the HPV Vaccine at preventing Cancer?

 

 

Quote:
An important issue raised by Diane Harper, an HPV researcher, is how long the vaccine will remain effective. She says the antibody titers in women who receive the vaccine fall off over time—i.e., the vaccine loses effectiveness. “One third of women lose antibody titers and hence protection from HPV by 5 years,” and “at 8.5 years, 15 percent have lost all detectable antibody titers to HPV-16, which leaves them completely unprotected from HPV-16 and -18, the only two cancer-causing strains that Gardasil was supposed to protect against.”

fruitfulmomma 06-20-2013 10:56 AM

Quote:
We won't know for a while because HPV causes cancer many years down the line.

 

Quote:
  I am only 25 but I already have three friends who have been told they will most likely never have children due to treatment for early cervical cancer.

 

Are these friends also around 25? The vax became routine 7 years ago and it seems to me that your age group would have been the first ones to start getting it. So, how many more years will it be before we find out if those at the beginning really did have a reduced risk of cancer?


Mirzam 06-20-2013 10:57 AM

2 Attachment(s)

Teacozy, the HPV vax has also been shown to cause early menopause and there has been no research done on the impact of the vaccine on fertility. Frankly, if I were a young woman, I would never consent to this vaccine. 

 

To date the US courts have paid out close to $6 million in conpensation to Gardasil victims with 200 claims filed and barely half adjudicated.

 

 

Quote:

[t]he CDC says Gardasil is licensed, safe, and effective for males ages 9 through 26 years. 

The facts appear to contradict the FDA’s safety statements. 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.

That’s 26 reported deaths of young, previously healthy, girls after Gardasil vaccination in just one year.

 

 


http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/stress-and-health-dr-lind/2013/apr/10/us-court-pays-6-million-gardasil-victims/#ixzz2WmCiBFOB 
 


teacozy 06-20-2013 11:13 AM

"The other glaring obvious problem with the HPV vaccine is that likely wears off long before cervical cancer develops. To give a girl a vaccine at 11 years old for a cancer she might get at 50 is pointless crazy given the dangers of this vaccine. " 

 

She may get the cancer diagnoses at 50 but that doesn't mean she got infected with HPV at 50.  In most cases HPV causes cancer slowly over time.  I also find that the statement "for a cancer she might get at 50" a bit misleading. Sure she could get it at 50. But almost 40 percent of cancer diagnoses are before the age of 44.  

 

"Approximately 0.1% were diagnosed under age 20; 13.8% between 20 and 34; 25.7% between 35 and 44; 24.2% between 45 and 54; 17.0% between 55 and 64; 10.7% between 65 and 74; 5.8% between 75 and 84; and 2.6% 85+ years of age. "  http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/cervix.html

 

Additionally, your statement that giving a young girl an HPV vaccine is "pointless and crazy" to be incorrect as well. HPV peaks at about 25 years of age and cases decrease as you get older "Across all geographical regions, data on HPV prevalence were generally limited to women over 18 years of age. Consistently across studies, HPV infection prevalence decreased with increasing age from a peak prevalence in younger women (< or =25 years of age). Genital HPV infection in women is predominantly acquired in adolescence."   

 

So it makes perfect sense to give a teenager an HPV vaccine. 


fruitfulmomma 06-20-2013 11:19 AM

Reading through the abstract of this study is not giving me any indiation that it has conclusively proved that the vaccine reduces HPV rates....

 

 

It was a review of prevalence of reported HPV cases before and after the vax went to market. I could be missing something, but it does not appear to me that looked into the vax status of those in the study so they weren't able to compare HPV rates among those two groups.

 

 

The group that had the drastic reduction in rates was the 14 to 19 group,. Other age categories did not see this reduction. And they state that the reduction occured despite low uptake in the vaccine.


serenbat 06-20-2013 11:28 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

 

So it makes perfect sense to give a teenager an HPV vaccine. 

I totally disagree with you - as a parent NO!

 

the risks (are they are there and MANY too) vs the tiny benefit (you can STILL get cervical cancer- not all strains are even covered) - NO way - I am not going to risk jeopardizing the long term risks either - we simply do not know how may will have fertility issues down the road, that wayyyyyyy later get linked (after so many have problems), not to mention the vaccine was not designed for young boy but NOW we are erged to give it to them as well

 

if you want to play with your child fertility you are free to do so, apparently many parents do not - it's not going over well at all, they know there is a huge mistrust issue with it - and we are not even talking the small numbers of males, only females with this study


teacozy 06-20-2013 11:39 AM

Yes I think I read that even with just a 30 something percent vaccine uptake it reduced the cases of HPV by 50 percent.  Again, someone who has more time/is better at reading studies should respond. 

 

But no matter how you spin how rare HPV cancer is, the fact is that almost 4,000 women a year die from cervical cancer in the US alone.  Even if you take into account the 138 possible deaths and the 200 claims that is 338 negative reactions in the seven years the vaccine has been routine.  338 vs 4,000 DEATHS from cervical cancer in ONE year. Multiply that number by the seven years that you are counting the 138 deaths and 200 claims and it really is a no brainer. 

 

All this is of course assuming the DCD is correct in reporting that the number of HPV cases halved since the introduction of the vaccine.  The CDC is a reputable source after all, it's not OK magazine for goodness sake. 

 

Anyway, I must go. My son is up from his nap.  It was fun debating with you guys! I'll check in later. Although it  looks like I am the only pro HPV vaccine person here today ;)   


Mirzam 06-20-2013 11:41 AM

2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

"The other glaring obvious problem with the HPV vaccine is that likely wears off long before cervical cancer develops. To give a girl a vaccine at 11 years old for a cancer she might get at 50 is pointless crazy given the dangers of this vaccine. " 

 

She may get the cancer diagnoses at 50 but that doesn't mean she got infected with HPV at 50.  In most cases HPV causes cancer slowly over time.  I also find that the statement "for a cancer she might get at 50" a bit misleading. Sure she could get it at 50. But almost 40 percent of cancer diagnoses are before the age of 44.  

 

"Approximately 0.1% were diagnosed under age 20; 13.8% between 20 and 34; 25.7% between 35 and 44; 24.2% between 45 and 54; 17.0% between 55 and 64; 10.7% between 65 and 74; 5.8% between 75 and 84; and 2.6% 85+ years of age. "  http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/cervix.html

 

Additionally, your statement that giving a young girl an HPV vaccine is "pointless and crazy" to be incorrect as well. HPV peaks at about 25 years of age and cases decrease as you get older "Across all geographical regions, data on HPV prevalence were generally limited to women over 18 years of age. Consistently across studies, HPV infection prevalence decreased with increasing age from a peak prevalence in younger women (< or =25 years of age). Genital HPV infection in women is predominantly acquired in adolescence."   

 

So it makes perfect sense to give a teenager an HPV vaccine. 

 

The vaccine at best lasts 8.5 years, so that means a girl given it at 9 years old will likely have no antibodies by 17, so by 25 years of age a vaccinated person will probably won't have any vaccine mediated immunity at all.

 

So, no it makes absolutely NO SENSE to give a pre teen or teenager this vaccine. 


Mirzam 06-20-2013 11:44 AM

2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

Yes I think I read that even with just a 30 something percent vaccine uptake it reduced the cases of HPV by 50 percent.  Again, someone who has more time/is better at reading studies should respond. 

 

But no matter how you spin how rare HPV cancer is, the fact is that almost 4,000 women a year die from cervical cancer in the US alone.  Even if you take into account the 138 possible deaths and the 200 claims that is 338 negative reactions in the seven years the vaccine has been routine.  338 vs 4,000 DEATHS from cervical cancer in ONE year. Multiply that number by the seven years that you are counting the 138 deaths and 200 claims and it really is a no brainer. 

 

All this is of course assuming the DCD is correct in reporting that the number of HPV cases halved since the introduction of the vaccine.  The CDC is a reputable source after all, it's not OK magazine for goodness sake. 

 

Anyway, I must go. My son is up from his nap.  It was fun debating with you guys! I'll check in later. Although it  looks like I am the only pro HPV vaccine person here today ;)   

 

Hmm, no the CDC isn't a reputable source when it comes to disease reporting, 36,000 influenza deaths, anyone?

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf


serenbat 06-20-2013 11:48 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

. Although it  looks like I am the only pro HPV vaccine person here today ;)   

In the real world there aren't many of you either biggrinbounce.gif the rush is a mere trickle for this one


Mirzam 06-20-2013 11:51 AM

2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

In the real world there aren't many of you either biggrinbounce.gif the rush is a mere trickle for this one

 

With any luck Merck and GSK will decide continuing to offer their products is bad for the bottom line. Because let's face it, that is all they care about.


mamapigeon 06-20-2013 11:54 AM

Don't the vaccines only protect against 4 types of HPV? I feel like more than 4 strains can cause cervical cancer.... That, plus the risks associated with the vaccines make me think that at this point in time it is not worth it to get them.

 

Also, one thing that has bothered me since the vaccines came out is that most people don't bother learning about vaccinations and many, many people will think that this kind of vaccination will protect them from ALL HPV. I actually think HPV rates will go up because people will feel like they don't need to use protection... We'll see, I guess.


fruitfulmomma 06-20-2013 11:55 AM

Correlation does not equal causation. We hear that a lot around here. It needs to be applied to this study.

 

If less than 40% of the population was vaccinated, then how was there a 50% reduction in cases of HPV across he board? Was the vaccinated population at high risk and the unvaxxed population at low risk? Was there a difference among reduction rates among vaxxed vs unvaxxed? 


serenbat 06-20-2013 12:00 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

 

With any luck Merck and GSK will decide continuing to offer their products is bad for the bottom line. Because let's face it, that is all they care about.

we can hope - some of us do!

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma View Post

Correlation does not equal causation. We hear that a lot around here. It needs to be applied to this study.

 

If less than 40% of the population was vaccinated, then how was there a 50% reduction in cases of HPV across he board? Was the vaccinated population at high risk and the unvaxxed population at low risk? Was there a difference among reduction rates among vaxxed vs unvaxxed? 

 

 

I didn't understand that math either when I heard it

 

I did hear NPR and how they ended their segment - http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/06/19/193478716/vaccine-against-hpv-has-cut-infections-in-teenage-girls

 

 

 

The CDC has investigated 42 reports of deaths among HPV vaccine recipients.

"The cause of these deaths has been very varied," Weinbaum says. "It's everything from cardiovascular to infectious, neurologic and hematologic. Again, there's no consistent pattern of deaths that have occurred after vaccination that would give us any cause to be concerned" that the vaccine was responsible.  

greensad.gif sure those parents feel the same way-NO????


teacozy 06-20-2013 12:07 PM

OK one quick reply. I found this to the PP who was asking how the CDC got the results. 

 

"The findings, published online Wednesday in The Journal of Infectious Diseases, covered the years 2003 to 2010 and were based on a national survey that is conducted every two years and is considered the gold standard on health indicators. Government health workers interviewed more than 8,000 girls and women ages 14 to 59 and collected vaginal swabs that were evaluated by the C.D.C.

The infection rate for girls fell even further when the two strains of the virus that cause genital warts were included, with a 56 percent drop over the period of the study. The rate was flat in the years before the vaccine was introduced, giving researchers even more assurance that the vaccine was driving the decline. Health officials began monitoring HPV prevalence in boys only this year. The first data will be available in 2015." 

@ Fruitful as to the reasons why there was such a reduction here are some possible explanations. "  One possible reason is a phenomenon known as herd immunity, in which people who are vaccinated reduce the overall prevalence of the virus in society, decreasing the chances that unvaccinated people would be exposed to someone who is infected. Another is the unexpected effectiveness of a partial dosage of the HPV vaccine, said Dr. Lauri E. Markowitz, a medical epidemiologist at the C.D.C. and the lead author of the study. About half of teenage girls in the United States have received at least one dose of the vaccine. Because girls and women who got vaccinated tended to be more sexually active, compared with those who were not vaccinated, researchers suggest that those who had been contributing most to the prevalence of the infection were no longer infecting others." 

Ok now I really have to go!  


fruitfulmomma 06-20-2013 12:19 PM

Well, yes that is what they are assuming based on their findings and it may in fact be a correct assumption, but still it was just an assumption. This study, the way it was designed according theabstract can not prove that the reduction rate was caused by the vax. Yet, that is how the media will continue to spin it.


dalia 06-20-2013 12:25 PM

I have HPV. There is no way I would give this vaccine to my children. Too many side effects. Even though I don't vax there are some shots that I vacillate about. Not this one.

It seems to me that we need to put our money into finding better treatment to improve cancer outcome, rather than put our energy into this vax that has so many risks. Even if you look at the whole picture and feel that the people that died from the vaccine are minimal compared to those that died from the cancer, it still make sense to focus on treatment rather than offer something that comes with it's own risk.

If cervical cancer is relatively easy to treat, then we need to ask ourselves what the common denominator is among those who die from the disease. Are they folks without insurance? Do the screenings need improvement? Is there some kind of environmental factor we aren't looking at?

I don't think the supposed "treatment" should come with such a high risk. Do no harm...

Katie8681 06-20-2013 12:40 PM

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.

kathymuggle 06-20-2013 01:43 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalia View Post


If cervical cancer is relatively easy to treat, then we need to ask ourselves what the common denominator is among those who die from the disease. Are they folks without insurance? Do the screenings need improvement? Is there some kind of environmental factor we aren't looking at?
 

I was reading up on this in the last few minues, and ethnicity plays a role in how often you get cervical cancer, as well as the mortality rate.

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/statistics/race.htm

 

smoking was listed as doubling the risk for cervical cancer. 

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cervicalcancer/detailedguide/cervical-cancer-risk-factors

 

Just an FYI


minerva23 06-20-2013 02:22 PM

For now it is still unclear whether this vaccines prevents cervical cancer since it is a very slow type to develop. Maybe we will know more 15-20 years time from now. I read an article were it stated that it lowered the risk of having genital warts which would be good. There are actually 2 vaccines ou.t: Gardasil (covering HPV strains 6, 11, 16, 18) and Cervarix (16, 18 - induces more memory B cells than Gardasil, cross-reactive protection against strains 31 and 45). In what why would these vaccines affect fertility in women? Has the first generation being vaccinated seen pregnancies yet? Does anybody have information on it? Would be nice to know
 


emmy526 06-20-2013 03:07 PM

just another article i found on the subject.

http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2013-04-18/supreme-court-suit-filed-over-hpv-vaccine-tragedy-in-india/

 

 

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/06/18/infdis.jit192.abstract?sid=8cecfc26-7a2a-46cc-bab3-04d90cc5c683


fruitfulmomma 06-20-2013 03:21 PM

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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.