Should my daughter get the Gardasil vaccine?

[CabinetMaker]

I don't see the connection. Did your doctor tell you that because your wife had breast cancer, your daughters would get cervical cancer from an HPV infection?

If you have ever lived through chemo therapy then you would understand why we did want not our daughters to go through that if we could reasonably prevent it.

Here are the risk factors for cervical cancer. While a family history of cervical cancer is included, a family history of breast cancer or any other types of cancer are not.



What risks are associated with the vaccine that you found acceptable? Did you research the ingredients before allowing your daughters to be vaccinated?

My wife is a pharmacist so she read the package inserts and looked into other resources and determined it was safe.

Look at it this way, you don't want to consider the shots because the risk of cancer is low. When my wife looked into the side effects, the rate of Sid effects from the shots were lower than the rates for contracting cancer. Your logic is flawed.

 

[Doormat]

My mother did, and had to have a complete hysterectomy. She is lucky they caught it early.

Cervical cancer, cervical dysplasia and abnormal pap smear are among the adverse events being reported after vaccination with Gardasil. Those are being reported in young women ages 14-26. According to Merck, the manufacturer, the vaccine actually increases risk of precancerous lesions in some women. Were you aware of that?

 

[Jukia]

Cervical cancer, cervical dysplasia and abnormal pap smear are among the adverse events being reported after vaccination with Gardasil. Those are being reported in young women ages 14-26. According to Merck, the manufacturer, the vaccine actually increases risk of precancerous lesions in some women. Were you aware of that?

Do you have a citation to the medical literature for that?

 

[Doormat]

If you have ever lived through chemo therapy then you would understand why we did want not our daughters to go through that if we could reasonably prevent it.

Aren't you merely implying that I would make a decision based on emotion in spite of evidence?

My wife is a pharmacist so she read the package inserts and looked into other resources and determined it was safe.

How did she determine it was safe? Proof? What "other resources" did she look into specifically?

Look at it this way, you don't want to consider the shots because the risk of cancer is low.

That's not the only reason. See the OP for starters.

When my wife looked into the side effects, the rate of Sid effects from the shots were lower than the rates for contracting cancer.

According to Dr. Diane Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at University of Missouri: "The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer."

What is the rate of side effects your wife found lower than the incidence rate of cervical cancer? Sources? You say she is pharmacist, so should I trust your wife's claim second-hand from you or trust Dr. Harper in a published ABC News article.

Your logic is flawed.

In what way? Please explain.

 

[Doormat]

Do you have a citation to the medical literature for that?

The incidence of those adverse events for women ages 14-26 is from VAERS data. You can access the VAERS data yourself.

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.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Aren't you merely implying that I would make a decision based on emotion in spite of evidence?

The side effects of chemo are not emotional, they are facts. There are side effects from chemo that linger to this day some eight years later.

How did she determine it was safe? Proof? What "other resources" did she look into specifically?

She has resources through work. She discussed it with other pharmacists as well.

That's not the only reason. See the OP for starters.



According to Dr. Diane Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at University of Missouri: "The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer."

What is the rate of side effects your wife found lower than the incidence rate of cervical cancer? Sources? You say she is pharmacist, so should I trust your wife's claim second-hand from you or trust Dr. Harper in a published ABC News article.

When we looked into it we knew their were side effects. After my wife looked into it we weighed the risks of the vacine against the risks of cancer. We decided to do the vacine. You can trust who you will but given that I cannot guarantee that my daughters future husband was celibate till the day he was married.

In what way? Please explain.

Seems to me that you are overly afraid of one set of low risks yet willing to ignore another set of low risks. It is always tough to ***** risks.

All I can say is that when looked at the relative risks, we were more concerned about the risks of cancer than the risks of the vacine. My daughters have had no side effects from the vacine.

 

[Doormat]

The side effects of chemo are not emotional, they are facts. There are side effects from chemo that linger to this day some eight years later.

As I've already pointed out, the incidence of cervical cancer is very low, lower than the serious adverse events being reported. Additionally, the vaccine manufacturer provided data that seems to indicate the vaccine increases the risk of precancerous lesions "or worse" in women already infected with HPV types 16 and 18. Presently, cervical cancers are being reported to the VAERS as adverse reactions to the vaccine in young women. At least one cancer-causing HPV type is not only transmitted sexually but also from mother to child.

She has resources through work. She discussed it with other pharmacists as well.

Tell me, did she think VIOXX was safe when she was filling those prescriptions and instructing patients to take what turned out to be a deadly drug?

When we looked into it we knew their were side effects.

Like the people who were prescribed VIOXX, right?

After my wife looked into it we weighed the risks of the vacine against the risks of cancer. We decided to do the vacine. You can trust who you will but given that I cannot guarantee that my daughters future husband was celibate till the day he was married.

Have you ever heard of an HPV test?

Seems to me that you are overly afraid of one set of low risks yet willing to ignore another set of low risks.

I've clearly considered both risks, and the risk of a serious adverse event outweighs the slim chance my daughters will ever develop cervical cancer. You seem to be ignoring the greater risk while worrying over a lower risk of cervical cancer because you had a personal experience with chemotherapy for a different, unrelated disease. And you made that decision based on the analysis of your wife who works in the profession that once filled prescriptions for the deadly medication VIOXX, interestingly also manufactured by Merck.

It is always tough to ***** risks.

In this particular case it is easy to assess the risks using published data from the government, the medical scientific community, and from the vaccine manufacturer. There is an extremely low risk of contracting cervical cancer from HPV infection and there is a greater risk of a serious adverse reactions to the vaccine.

All I can say is that when looked at the relative risks, we were more concerned about the risks of cancer than the risks of the vacine. My daughters have had no side effects from the vacine.

That's great. Hopefully over next years they will not join the increasing numbers in the VAERS reporting cervical cancers following the vaccination.

 

[Doormat]

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.

And when you look at that table, keep in mind that the "placebo" in study 013 contained an undisclosed amount of the same aluminum adjuvant that is in Gardasil, amophous aluminum hydroxide sulfate. See table 7 on page 6 of this document which proves that. What that means is their "placebo" for that study was not a placebo according to the definition of placebo.

 

[gcthomas]

"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

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. These 'adverse event' reports can be made months or years after having the injection, and are made to allow statistical and clinical judgements about safety of the jab, not because they have been linked to the jab.

They are NOT definitive statements of side effects, so don't assume that are. The fact at adverse event reports outnumber cancer reports just shows that people suffer from other health issues at the same time. Some may be linked, but the report quoted does not show that.

Unless you are yourself a medical expert, you are more likely to be mistaken than they are, as a general rule.

 

[Rusha]

In regards to the OP, yes I would, and in fact, had both of my daughters vaccinated. For me, their health was too important to trust anyone they might be involved with in the future (husband included).

 

[Doormat]

And when you look at that table, keep in mind that the "placebo" in study 013 contained an undisclosed amount of the same aluminum adjuvant that is in Gardasil, amophous aluminum hydroxide sulfate. See table 7 on page 6 of this document which proves that. What that means is their "placebo" for that study was not a placebo according to the definition of placebo.

As you can see from table 7 on page 6 of that document, only one of the studies used a saline placebo, all the other studies used "placebos" containing undisclosed amounts of the vaccine's aluminum adjuvant. That should be enough to convince any rational person that Gardasil was not properly tested for safety.

 

[CabinetMaker]

As I've already pointed out, the incidence of cervical cancer is very low, lower than the serious adverse events being reported. Additionally, the vaccine manufacturer provided data that seems to indicate the vaccine increases the risk of precancerous lesions "or worse" in women already infected with HPV types 16 and 18. Presently, cervical cancers are being reported to the VAERS as adverse reactions to the vaccine in young women. At least one cancer-causing HPV type is not only transmitted sexually but also from mother to child.

Good thing my children are not yet sexually active ans are HPV free. What else is there to say. We took a prevenitivev step at a time in their lives when risks are low.

Tell me, did she think VIOXX was safe when she was filling those prescriptions and instructing patients to take what turned out to be a deadly drug?



Like the people who were prescribed VIOXX, right?

My wife was on Vioxx and it was very effective for her. She misses it. In any case, Vioxx was not the first drug to pass FDA testing only to be recalled when released to the general public. The sad fact of testing is that the sample population cannot accurately represent the entire population. You go with the best information you have at the time.

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?

I've clearly considered both risks, and the risk of a serious adverse event outweighs the slim chance my daughters will ever develop cervical cancer. You seem to be ignoring the greater risk while worrying over a lower risk of cervical cancer because you had a personal experience with chemotherapy for a different, unrelated disease. And you made that decision based on the analysis of your wife who works in the profession that once filled prescriptions for the deadly medication VIOXX, interestingly also manufactured by Merck.

You ignore the fact that we lived through cancer treatments. Twice. We have an additional set of facts that weighed heavily in our decision. You seem to think that our experiance reduces to an emotional decision. I can tell you from experiance, the facts of chemo are very, very real.

In this particular case it is easy to assess the risks using published data from the government, the medical scientific community, and from the vaccine manufacturer. There is an extremely low risk of contracting cervical cancer from HPV infection and there is a greater risk of a serious adverse reactions to the vaccine.

Good, then you've made a decision. No need to second your decision, or mine, just go forward with your and your daughters lives. By happy.

That's great. Hopefully over next years they will not join the increasing numbers in the VAERS reporting cervical cancers following the vaccination.

That is our prayer as well.

 

[Nazaroo]

I don't see the connection. Did your doctor tell you that because your wife had breast cancer, your daughters would get cervical cancer from an HPV infection?

Here are the risk factors for cervical cancer. While a family history of cervical cancer is included, a family history of breast cancer or any other types of cancer are not.



What risks are associated with the vaccine that you found acceptable? Did you research the ingredients before allowing your daughters to be vaccinated?

You are rightly applying common sense to this issue.

 

[Tyrathca]

Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety, 12-13 June 2013. Weekly Epidemiological Record. 88.29 (July 19, 2013): p301 The data from VAERS now includes >50 million doses distributed and the profile has not changed since the review in 2009. Reported adverse events not identified at the time of the first review, namely syncope and venous thromboembolism (VTE), were further investigated. Syncope continues to be reported but remains an event with a plausible relationship given the population and settings in which HPV vaccine is used. Adherence to a 15-minute observation period following vaccination has thus been strengthened as a recommendation. For VTE, while a rapid cycle analysis in the VSD did not find an increased risk, this is being further investigated with appropriate control for confounders such as oral contraceptive use, smoking and other risk factors in this population. Similarly, the VSD did not find any increased risk of Guillain-Barre syndrome or stroke. In Australia, safety surveillance has been enhanced and an expert group evaluated early reported events, including a signal regarding anaphylaxis. To date, with almost 7 million doses distributed, the previously investigated concern of increased anaphylaxis was not confirmed. Following the extension of the vaccination programme in males and enhanced surveillance since 1 February 2013, preliminary results show the safety profile of Gardasil[R] to be similar to the profile among females. Finally, there have been no further concerns regarding demyelinating disease or other chronic conditions also investigated earlier by the expert group.

(Emphasis mine)

 

[Doormat]

(Emphasis mine)

Answer the following questions:

To those who wish to promote HPV vaccination as a means for reducing cervical cancer burden, perhaps the following should be asked:

1. HPV vaccines have not been demonstrated to prevent any cervical cancers so why are they being promoted as cervical cancer vaccines?

2. If the majority of HPV infections and a great proportion of pre-cancerous lesions clear spontaneously and without medical treatment and are thus not a reliable indication of cancer later in life, then how can these end-points be used as a reliable indicator of the number of cervical cancer cases that will be prevented by HPV vaccines?

3. How can the clinical trials make an accurate estimate of the risk associated with HPV-vaccines if they are methodologically biased to produce type-2 errors (false negatives [2,4,13])?

4. Can a passive monitoring system such as that used by most vaccine surveillance systems world-wide allow the medical regulatory agencies to make accurate estimates on the real frequency of HPV-vaccine related adverse reactions?

5. Can an accurate estimate of the real frequency of HPV-vaccine related adverse reactions be made if appropriate follow-up and thorough investigation of suspected vaccine related ADRs is not conducted but instead, these cases are a-priori dismissed as being unrelated to the vaccine?

6. Why are women not informed of the fact that in some circumstances (i.e., prior exposure to vaccine-targeted and non-targeted HPV types), HPV vaccination may accelerate the progression of cervical abnormalities [4,26-28]?

7. How can women make a fully informed decision about whether or not to consent to vaccination if crucial information regarding HPV vaccine efficacy and safety is not being disclosed to them?

8. Should the medical health regulators and authorities rely solely on data provided by the vaccine manufacturers to make vaccine-policy decisions and recommendations [12,29]?​

Source: HPV vaccines and cancer prevention, science versus activism

 

[Tyrathca]

Answer the following questions:


To those who wish to promote HPV vaccination as a means for reducing cervical cancer burden, perhaps the following should be asked:

Given those are lifted straight from the source article maybe we should just use the published response to said article?

I've given my edited versions of the responses for brevity. Please read the full article for the original response and wording.

Also note the responses comment: "When trying to respond to the 8 questions that the authors bring forward I realized that Tomljenovic are questioning the whole system of how the public health stake holders are evaluating research, take decisions and monitor the safety of the population. It is thus difficult to counter argue so many queries from the part of one researcher."

1. HPV vaccines have not been demonstrated to prevent any cervical cancers so why are they being promoted as cervical cancer vaccines?

Several clinical trials have all been consistent of an enormous efficacy in the reduction of HPV and related pre-neoplasic lesions. Given the robust data if we remove the etiological factor in the long run this should lower the burden of invasive cervical cancer.

2. If the majority of HPV infections and a great proportion of pre-cancerous lesions clear spontaneously and without medical treatment and are thus not a reliable indication of cancer later in life, then how can these end-points be used as a reliable indicator of the number of cervical cancer cases that will be prevented by HPV vaccines?

By the same rationale that screenings effectiveness is based on.

3. How can the clinical trials make an accurate estimate of the risk associated with HPV-vaccines if they are methodologically biased to produce type-2 errors (false negatives [2,4,13])?

This does not represent all the monitoring for side affects.

4. Can a passive monitoring system such as that used by most vaccine surveillance systems world-wide allow the medical regulatory agencies to make accurate estimates on the real frequency of HPV-vaccine related adverse reactions?

This system is deemed sufficient and is heavily used and critiqued for most other interventions, why should this vaccine be singled out as different given its good record in trials?

5. Can an accurate estimate of the real frequency of HPV-vaccine related adverse reactions be made if appropriate follow-up and thorough investigation of suspected vaccine related ADRs is not conducted but instead, these cases are a-priori dismissed as being unrelated to the vaccine?

This is an innacurate summary of the process, appropriate follow up and investigation has been performed in many countries.

6. Why are women not informed of the fact that in some circumstances (i.e., prior exposure to vaccine-targeted and non-targeted HPV types), HPV vaccination may accelerate the progression of cervical abnormalities [4,26-28]?

Further data has contradicted this initial concern and indicates the vaccine is still beneficial for these people.

7. How can women make a fully informed decision about whether or not to consent to vaccination if crucial information regarding HPV vaccine efficacy and safety is not being disclosed to them?

The author disagree that information is not provided.

8. Should the medical health regulators and authorities rely solely on data provided by the vaccine manufacturers to make vaccine-policy decisions and recommendations [12,29]?

They have not relied solely on such data and further new independent data is still being generated.






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

 

[gcthomas]

Answer the following questions:
...
Source: HPV vaccines and cancer prevention, science versus activism

If you read the source paper (an opinion piece, not research), you'd see that it was written by a pair of Ophthalmologists with a long history of anti-vax papers (ie not their day job), and the paper was funded by an anti-vaccine charitable group that considers there to be a major, international conspiracy to cover up vaccine shortcomings.

Given the journal responses published and the opinion of non-ophthalmologists, it seems like the fears are unfounded. If the initial target of a 70% reduction in cancer load is achieved, then you have tripled the future risk for your family by rejecting the vaccine. That's your call, of course.

But generally antivaxers are not necessarily the best source of information about health issues, imo.

 

[Doormat]

If you read the source paper (an opinion piece, not research) ...

It was supported by cited research as evidence for the claims made. The response was not supported by evidence and didn't really answer several of the questions adequately, if at all. Furthermore, the response, which is also an opinion, was written by someone who works for the vaccine manufacturers.

Silvia de Sanjose has declared that her research unit is involved in vaccine trials organized by GlaxoSmithKline and Merck/Sanofi Pasteur MSD and investigator-driven research partially sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline and Merck/Sanofi Pasteur MSD; travel funds to conferences/symposia/meetings were occasionally granted by either GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur MSD or Qiagen.​

Conflict of interests!

What is your conflict of interests? Declare it.

 

[MarkA]

I'm against all vaccines.

I have my reasons.

 

[Nazaroo]

Why governments and vaccines can't be trusted:

Soldiers Poisoned

History of Vaccination

Flu Vaccine Danger