Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: HPV infections drop by half because of vaccination Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
07-01-2013 10:36 PM
dalia In all honesty I wouldn't want to be in the minority either. I think we can all agree that this board is really tough and especially if you're basically the only one arguing your point. I mean, we CAN agree on that, can't we??
07-01-2013 06:00 PM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

>


I need to take a break from this thread. If any other pro vaccine people have something useful to add I'd love to hear it!  I just don't like being virtually the only pro vaccine person arguing against 10 anti vaccine people.  Very tiresome.

So questioning and criticizing vaccines makes us "anti-vaccine?" And you only want to debate the issue if you're in the majority?

Well. That's convincing.
07-01-2013 08:38 AM
teacozy

Like I said in the other thread, "Nope.  At least two people asked why there weren't any pro vaccine people debating in the thread. I answered and used HPV as an example and someone tried to argue that perhaps Mayo Clinic didn't think HPV caused almost all cervical cancer so I responded.  " 

 

I need to take a break from this thread. If any other pro vaccine people have something useful to add I'd love to hear it!  I just don't like being virtually the only pro vaccine person arguing against 10 anti vaccine people.  Very tiresome. 

07-01-2013 08:24 AM
kathymuggle

Teacozy…. you were bringing up stuff on anther thread on HPV, so I thought I would revive this one.  

 

You could be right - it is possible this decrease in HPV will lead to decrease in cervical cancer.  Time will tell.

 

Here are the issues I see that could throw a monkey wrench into the above.

 

1.  Timing.  The study looked at girls from 14-19.  We have no idea how long the vaccine lasts.  If it wears off before people choose what is meant to be one life partner  (which the researchers are saying is around 26), it isn't going to do much good.  Some places are pushing for the vaccine to be given as young as 9; it is given around 13 here.  

 

2.  any disease that has strains can change when vaccines are used.  The HPV vaccine protects against certain strains - when we start to vaccinate heavily, the disease can change as a result and strains that are not in the vaccine canbecome more dominant.  I can think of several (IIRC) where this or something like this happened - pertussis, prevnar, Hib…..  Google serotype replacement and HPV vaccine.

06-21-2013 05:19 PM
erigeron

I was offered it by a GP when I was 24, not too long after it came out, but since I was about to get married at that point it seemed sort of pointless; I figured I was with the last sexual partner I intended to have so any damage had already been done. Then I aged out of it so there weren't any subsequent offers. Anyway, kind of off topic. 

 

Also, there has been so much emphasis on getting it before you become sexually active, that I wonder if the older teens/young adults who are already sexually active were less likely to be interested partly because of that. And, of course, some of them doubtless already had HPV anyway. 

06-21-2013 05:14 PM
Mirzam
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post

 

My guess would be that the 14-19 year olds had a higher uptake of the vaccine prior to becoming sexually active. In older age groups, even if they got the vaccine, it might be too late--they might have already gotten HPV. The vaccine has been especially pushed for preteen and young teen girls. When it first came out there was some encouragement towards older teens and young women--not sure if there still is--but not to the same extent. Those groups also may not be visiting a doctor who encourages the vaccine. Pediatricians are used to vaccinating many of their patients; gynecologists probably not so much. I'd imagine many/most women 18-25 see a gynecologist but if gynecologists aren't pushing the vaccine much the uptake in that group will be lower. 

 

It was offered five years ago to my eldest DD when she was 18, (now 23), by a gynecologist, she declined. I haven't asked her if she has been offered it since, but her answer would be identical.

06-21-2013 04:54 PM
erigeron
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma View Post

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?

My guess would be that the 14-19 year olds had a higher uptake of the vaccine prior to becoming sexually active. In older age groups, even if they got the vaccine, it might be too late--they might have already gotten HPV. The vaccine has been especially pushed for preteen and young teen girls. When it first came out there was some encouragement towards older teens and young women--not sure if there still is--but not to the same extent. Those groups also may not be visiting a doctor who encourages the vaccine. Pediatricians are used to vaccinating many of their patients; gynecologists probably not so much. I'd imagine many/most women 18-25 see a gynecologist but if gynecologists aren't pushing the vaccine much the uptake in that group will be lower. 

06-21-2013 04:40 PM
Mirzam

HPV vaccines and cancer prevention, science vs activism

 

 

Quote:
Abstract
The rationale behind current worldwide human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination programs starts from two basic
premises, 1) that HPV vaccines will prevent cervical cancers and save lives and, 2) have no risk of serious side
effects. Therefore, efforts should be made to get as many pre-adolescent girls vaccinated in order to decrease the
burden of cervical cancer. Careful analysis of HPV vaccine pre- and post-licensure data shows however that both of
these premises are at odds with factual evidence and are largely derived from significant misinterpretation of
available data.

 

06-21-2013 04:19 PM
teacozy

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. 

06-21-2013 04:07 PM
fruitfulmomma

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?

06-21-2013 04:05 PM
fruitfulmomma
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.

06-21-2013 04:02 PM
fruitfulmomma

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?

06-21-2013 04:00 PM
teacozy

"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

06-21-2013 03:49 PM
fruitfulmomma
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.

06-21-2013 03:42 PM
dalia "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.
06-21-2013 03:41 PM
teacozy

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! 

06-21-2013 03:24 PM
teacozy

"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! ) 

06-21-2013 03:11 PM
fruitfulmomma
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.

06-21-2013 03:07 PM
erigeron

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. 

06-21-2013 03:07 PM
teacozy

"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. 

06-21-2013 03:00 PM
fruitfulmomma
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."

06-21-2013 02:48 PM
dalia

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.
06-21-2013 02:37 PM
teacozy

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. 

06-21-2013 02:37 PM
fruitfulmomma
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.)

06-21-2013 02:32 PM
Mirzam
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

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

2012

06-21-2013 02:26 PM
teacozy

"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? 

06-21-2013 02:20 PM
Mirzam
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.

 

 

 

06-21-2013 02:16 PM
teacozy

"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. 

06-21-2013 02:05 PM
Gryphonn
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. :)

06-21-2013 01:52 PM
fruitfulmomma
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. 

This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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