Should my daughter get the Gardasil vaccine?

[Doormat]

Addit: The following editorial also discusses the discussion between the two groups and is instructive and interesting. Infections and cancer: debate about using vaccines as a cancer control tool

At least one of the authors has a conflict of interest:

"Dr FM Buonaguro, has been recipient of Merck and GSK support for Conference organization, and is a 2008 Member of the GSK-sponsored PanEuropean HPV Immunology Group."​

And this:

Merck Masked Vioxx Risk, Hired Study Ghostwriters

April 16 (Bloomberg) -- Merck & Co. conducted its own studies on the pain pill Vioxx, then hired companies to ghostwrite reports for medical journals that appeared under the names of scientists who didn't do the majority of the research, court records show.

In many cases, Merck's involvement in producing the data wasn't disclosed, according to two articles in the current Journal of the American Medical Association relying on court papers. The documents disclosed by Merck in two Vioxx lawsuits also suggest the company's control of the data allowed it to downplay the risk of death from Vioxx in patients with Alzheimer's disease, the journal's editors said in an editorial.

About 250 documents show Merck employees worked alone or with publishing companies to write manuscripts and later recruited academic medical experts to put their names as first authors, according to an analysis by researchers from medical schools at Harvard, Brown and Yale Universities, and the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York.

``The academic authors are supposed to be the most objective members of the team,'' said Joseph Ross of Mount Sinai, who led the analysis, in a telephone interview. `To have them involved in the very last stage, and give the impression that they've been involved from the very beginning, is distorting. This is not acceptable.''

Such practices are used throughout the drug industry, though they are hard to document, the authors of the JAMA reports said.​

... So from my perspective, what you offered was drug company propaganda and a Merck-paid response to the questions that didn't really answer the questions.

 

[Nazaroo]

47 now dead from Cervical Vaccine

Now 87 dead, and hundreds disabled from vaccine:

Gardasil being pulled from Market

Market Expansion - No Proper Medical Tests

 

[gcthomas]

According to the vaccine manufacturer Merck, if you already have HPV 16 or HPV 18 prior to vaccination, the vaccination increases your risk of precancerous lesions, or worse, by 44.6%. See the bottom of page 13 of this Merck document at the FDA.

Just saw this claim and checked your source. You might want to know that this page shows no statistically significant difference between vaccine and placebo for lesions.

The incidence in the small subsamples went from 7.7 per 100 to 11 per 100, with any difference between the ficus needing to be at least 6 per 100 to be significant (using binomial theory to find the data variance). The actual difference is half that, and so it is indistinguishable from sampling noise.

Claiming a 44.6% in erase in lesions is not a rational conclusion from this data. The most you can say is 'interesting enough to collect more data'.

 

[Doormat]

Just saw this claim and checked your source. You might want to know that this page shows no statistically significant difference between vaccine and placebo for lesions.

The "placebo" in study 013 contained aluminum adjuvant, hence it was not a placebo.

 

[gcthomas]

The "placebo" in study 013 contained aluminum adjuvant, hence it was not a placebo.

So no evidence to support your claim that the vaccine causes the problem you claimed, then?

 

[Doormat]

So no evidence to support your claim that the vaccine causes the problem you claimed, then?

Don't be obtuse. Subjects (receiving the vaccine) who were seropositive and PCR-positive for the vaccine-relevant HPV types had a greater number of CIN 2/3 or worse. You responded that there is no statistically significant difference between vaccine and placebo for lesions. I then pointed out the "placebo" in study 013 contained aluminum adjuvant, hence it was not a placebo.

 

[gcthomas]

...three YouTube videos...

The first video has Dr Andrew Wakefield who has been struck from the medical register in the UK for fraudulent research, for unprofessional behaviour and for performing unnecessary invasive procedures on autistic children. He is no longer allowed to practise medicine in the UK.

The second video has assertions from a doctor of alternative medicine. Nuff said.

The third revolves around a girl who suffered health problems after a vaccination, even though the paper the doctor had published makes no claim that the vaccine caused the illness.

Who'd have guessed that Naz the Conspiracy Theorist would be an antivaxer?

:chuckle:

So predictable, Naz. So predictable.

 

[Dena]

I probably wouldn't worry about it but would make sure they understand it's important to have a check up every year. That is how you catch cervical issues quickly and can do something about it. Also, make sure they know that if they did get the vaccine that doesn't mean they couldn't ever get cervical cancer. It would still be important to visit the doctor on a regular basis.

 

[Doormat]

The herd mentality is typically pushing herd immunity.

Are those of you who believe the HPV is safe and effective going to get vaccinated, too? If not, why not?

 

[Doormat]

Also, make sure they know that if they did get the vaccine that doesn't mean they couldn't ever get cervical cancer. It would still be important to visit the doctor on a regular basis.

The problem is (in the U.S.) that the guidelines have been changed. Now, routine cervical cancer screening for women under 21 and over 65 is no longer recommended. Between 21 and 65, the current recommendation is every three years.

 

[Doormat]

"What is an adverse event?
An adverse event is a health problem that occurs after someone receives a vaccine or medicine. It may or may not have been caused by the vaccine or medicine. For example, the person might get a headache after getting a vaccine. This might be caused by the vaccine or it might be caused by something else." CDC faqs

Right. It might be caused by the vaccine. You seem to favor it not being caused by the vaccine with no evidence. In contrast, I see evidence, like the toxicity of the aluminum adjuvant, that causes me to question the safety of the aluminum adjuvant. That Merck used the aluminum adjuvant in the "placebo" that wasn't a placebo heightens my concern.

For example, 90% of blood clot reports were in people who smoked, were obese or were taking oral contraceptives, all of which have a known clotting risk.

Why do you overlook the aluminum adjuvant? Aluminum is a flocculant that causes blood agglomeration.

 

[Tyrathca]

The problem is (in the U.S.) that the guidelines have been changed. Now, routine cervical cancer screening for women under 21 and over 65 is no longer recommended. Between 21 and 65, the current recommendation is every three years.

And? Why do you consider this a problem. I was under the impression that this change is unrelated to the vaccine but due to the risks of over-investigation of the previous regime. Given that women over 65 clearly haven't gotten the vaccine why do you assume it is related and relevant to discussions about the vaccine? Why do you assume that that the 3 yearly testing is worse than the previous regime?

 

[Dena]

And? Why do you consider this a problem. I was under the impression that this change is unrelated to the vaccine but due to the risks of over-investigation of the previous regime. Given that women over 65 clearly haven't gotten the vaccine why do you assume it is related and relevant to discussions about the vaccine? Why do you assume that that the 3 yearly testing is worse than the previous regime?

I think he's saying women aren't going to get as many checkups because the government says it isn't necessary. That's what I thought he was saying anyway.

 

[Doormat]

I think he's saying women aren't going to get as many checkups because the government says it isn't necessary. That's what I thought he was saying anyway.

You are correct, Dena. However, it was the ACOG recommendation I was referring to.

 

[Doormat]

The problem is (in the U.S.) that the guidelines have been changed. Now, routine cervical cancer screening for women under 21 and over 65 is no longer recommended.

And? Why do you consider this a problem.

In the U.S. the vaccine is recommended for girls under 21. These girls are not tested for existing HPV infection prior to vaccination. From the Gardasil clinical trials we learn:

There were two important concerns that were identified during the course of the efficacy review of this BLA. One was the potential for Gardasil to enhance disease among a subgroup of subjects who had evidence of persistent infection with vaccine-relevant HPV types at baseline. The other concern was the observations of CIN 2/3 or worse cases due to HPV types not contained in the vaccine. These cases of disease due to other HPV types have the potential to counter the efficacy results of GardasilTM for the HPV types contained in the vaccine.

In light of the above, it seems prudent to regularly screen all girls under the age of 21 who receive Gardasil vaccination, and the ACOG recommendations appear problematic for that reason.

 

[gcthomas]

Don't be obtuse. Subjects (receiving the vaccine) who were seropositive and PCR-positive for the vaccine-relevant HPV types had a greater number of CIN 2/3 or worse. You responded that there is no statistically significant difference between vaccine and placebo for lesions. I then pointed out the "placebo" in study 013 contained aluminum adjuvant, hence it was not a placebo.

Then why did you raise the percentage difference from the placebo as your argument?

As for aluminium, we all have more in our blood naturally than youll get from a vaccine. A baby will get much more aluminium salt from breast milk than they get from vaccinations, and older children have more aluminium in their blood than babies so an injection has proportionately less effect on the aluminium levels they naturally have anyway. Only those with severely compromised kidney function need to be kept away from these vaccines.

You seem to have a pre existing belief that the vaccines are bad, then you go hunting for info from antivaxers for support. Unless you believe in a worldwide vaccine conspiracy, then the various independent experts are the ones to believe in general.

 

[Tyrathca]

In light of the above, it seems prudent to regularly screen all girls under the age of 21 who receive Gardasil vaccination, and the ACOG recommendations appear problematic for that reason.

Really? You're going to make that call on such limited information with such limited experience? In light of above you can determine the number needed to treat, whether the risks and of costs of over investigation are outweighed by the catch rate and QALY's gained, etc?

There is the "potential", a potential which I believe the consensus is has been ruled out on further research and certainly hasn't been confirmed. Furthermore how significant is this suspected increase and even if present would it warrant the increased surveillance?

You complain that the evidence hasn't been properly examined and yet you propose this on such little data in contradiction to multiple expert panels reviewing the vaccine with more data and experience in how to analyse it than you will ever have. It screams of hypocrisy.

 

[Doormat]

Then why did you raise the percentage difference from the placebo as your argument?

Because, in light of that percentage difference, the efficacy review I quoted raised concerns regarding "the potential for Gardasil to enhance disease among a subgroup of subjects who had evidence of persistent infection with vaccine-relevant HPV types at baseline," and "the observations of CIN 2/3 or worse cases due to HPV types not contained in the vaccine."

Answer the following:

1. Do you concede the "placebo" in 9 of the 10 study groups was not a placebo because it contained aluminum adjuvant? If not, explain why.

2. Do you concede the alleged saline "placebo" in the remaining study was also not a placebo because it was not normal saline but the vaccine carrier solution that contains 9.56 mg of sodium chloride, 0.78 mg of L-histidine, 50 mcg of polysorbate 80 and 35 mcg of sodium borate? If not, explain why.

To help you answer question 2, I have attached (below) a copy of the Merck document showing the placebo in study 018 was the vaccine carrier solution. See the table in the middle of page 4.

As for aluminium, we all have more in our blood naturally than youll get from a vaccine. A baby will get much more aluminium salt from breast milk than they get from vaccinations, and older children have more aluminium in their blood than babies so an injection has proportionately less effect on the aluminium levels they naturally have anyway. Only those with severely compromised kidney function need to be kept away from these vaccines.

1. You fail to distinguish between ingested aluminum and injected aluminum adjuvants.
2. You ignore aluminum toxicology.
3. You fail to recognize that aluminum adjuvants are added to vaccines to enhance the recipient's immune response to the vaccine antigen.
4. You fail to recognize that aluminum is an antigen.

I suggest you find and watch Dr. Chris Exley’s lecture on aluminum in vaccines. He is an expert on the toxicology of aluminum.

You seem to have a pre existing belief that the vaccines are bad, then you go hunting for info from antivaxers for support.

That is merely your irrational opinion. You have not found fault in the OP and cannot address the "placebo" problem, so you resort to mostly logical fallacies and act like a rabid vaccine apologist trying to defend his religion and "priests." It's quite sad.

Unless you believe in a worldwide vaccine conspiracy, then the various independent experts are the ones to believe in general.

Another irrational statement on your part.

Can we not believe a principle investigator in the clinical trials for Gardasil who is an international expert in HPV science and was a paid consultant for Merck and GSK? If we can believe her, then perhaps you should read this interview that supports my reasons for not allowing my daughters to receive the vaccine.

If you can't refute her claims in the interview, perhaps you should keep your irrational opinions to yourself.

 

[gcthomas]

You have moved from technical attacks on one vaccine to a generalised attack on the whole vaccine industry and science, claiming that since you must be right (along with the hand picked minority objectors) then all arguments in favour of the vaccinations must be illogical, fallacious, belief inspired ...

You have fatally undermined your attempt at a scientific argument with your virulent conspiracy theory. Stick to the 'it spooks me out, I don't understand it, so I won't have it' approach. At least that would be honest.

 

[Doormat]

Have you ever heard of an HPV test?

Sure! Do we have potential boyfriends take a test before they date or after they have fallen in love?

How about before they have sexual intercourse!

Boyfriends? I pray you will counsel your daughter to remain abstinent until she is married, but failing to convince her that's wise I would hope you would counsel her to always have her sexual partners tested for STDs prior to sexual intercourse.

You ignore the fact that we lived through cancer treatments. Twice.

As I've explained, it's irrelevant because we are discussing a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. Your wife suffered from breast cancer. The only link you offer is the experience of chemotherapy for breast cancer and wanting to avoid that. Using that rational, I have to wonder if next you will be encouraging your daughter to have an elective double mastectomy.