Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The amount of money that Merck stands to make on this really scares me. I believe it's the most expensive vaccine on the market right now.
Here's a more recent article.
UPDATE: FOIA uncovers 16 new Gardasil-related deaths | Barbara Hollingsworth | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/update-foia-uncovers-16-new-gardasil-related-deaths - broken link)
This is insane. Why are we pushing this vaccine? It MAY prevent getting a virus that MAY result in you getting cancer years down the road. It's not like we're stopping a disease like measles that can spread through the population like wildfire. Why are they experimenting on our daughters? I am so glad our pediatrician didn't push this when I raised concerns. I think I'll take a permanent pass on this one.
"The National Vaccine Information Center, a private vaccine-safety group, compared Gardasil adverse events to another vaccine, one also given to young people, but for meningitis. Gardasil had three times the number of Emergency Room visits - more than 5,000. Reports of side effects were up to 30 times higher with Gardasil."
This last part is scary since I hesitated on the meningitis vaccine because it is considered risky but what it prevents is worth the risk. I'm not convinced that's the case with Guardasil.
Quoting myself from another thread in which purehuman posted the same link:
Interestingly enough, this link goes to NVIC, which is anti - vax.
Many of the reports of deaths on this list sound like urban legends, and the none of them really appear to be vaccine related.
for example:
* A physician's assistant reports a death from a blood clot 3 hours after vaccination. Patient not vaccinated at the P. A.'s office.
It is not biologically plausible for a blood clot to form within 3 hours of the vaccination and cause death. The clot was already present when the vaccine was given.
* Report from a licensed visiting nurse via a nurse practitioner. Blood clot 2 weeks after vaccine.
Why did the patient require home health nursing? That implies something that is confining the patient to bed, predisposing to blood clots. Highly unlikely the clot was due to the vaccine.
* Report from a nurse who got her information from an ER nurse that an 11 year old patient came to the ER 3 days after vaccination and experienced cardiac arrest. Nurse says ER doc says it was due to anaphylaxis from the vaccine.
Again, more third hand information. Anaphylaxis after three days? Highly unlikely.
* Report from a physician who went to a conference and "heard about" two deaths. No details.
Totally irresponsible reporting of hearsay.
* Nurse reports 22 year old died 2 days after vaccine. Autopsy: multiple drugs, death not related to vaccine.
Why was this drug overdose reported in the first place?
* Death 50 days after receiving vaccine. Cause of death: diabetic ketoacidosis in a known severe diabetic.
Another irresponsible report.
I could go on, but the rest are in the same vein.
The fact is that there have been no confirmed reports of deaths actually caused by the HPV vaccine.
I'll say that again: NO confirmed deaths directly related to HPV vaccine.
If you read the stories of the patients whose parents firmly believe the vaccine caused their deaths, what is overwhelmingly obvious is that those grieving parents are desperately looking for something to blame, frequently after an autopsy fails to define a cause for the death. I can see how tempting a target the vaccine would be.
But there has to be a plausible biologic mechanism in order to say a vaccine caused an injury. The fact that the alleged injury occurred after the vaccine was given is not sufficient evidence for cause and effect.
Many of the cases involve blood clots. The CDC is continuing to investigate these reports. But many of the women who had blood clots were also taking birth control pills. The link between estrogen and blood clots is well established, with an absolute risk of thrombosis from estrogen of 20 to 30 per 100 000. Smoking increases the risk. It is therefore more biologically plausible to link the clots to the birth control pills than to the vaccine.
The HPV vaccine is safe and effective, with the potential to prevent up to 70% of cervical cancers, prevent untold misery related to warts caused by the specific strains covered by the virus,and reduce the cost of evaluating abnormal Pap smears --- and the pain and anxiety that those evaluations produce.
The HPV vaccine is safe and effective, with the potential to prevent up to 70% of cervical cancers, prevent untold misery related to warts caused by the specific strains covered by the virus,and reduce the cost of evaluating abnormal Pap smears --- and the pain and anxiety that those evaluations produce.
And it should also be stated that the drug companies stand to make a lot more money treating these conditions than preventing them. If the naysayers are in fact saying that Merck's only motivation is profit, the logic is flawed.
And it should also be stated that the drug companies stand to make a lot more money treating these conditions than preventing them. If the naysayers are in fact saying that Merck's only motivation is profit, the logic is flawed.
No. The percentage of women who have issues is small and pap smears are still required by all even if you have the shot. If Merck can get Guardasil required then every girl will be given a 3 shot series costing over $300. The profit they will make if this happens far exceeds what they'll make testing the small percentage of the population that will require testing beyond a normal pap.
The beauty of this one is they get both the profits from the vaccine AND the profits from testing pap smears (if they even do testing of pap smears - I wasn't aware that big drug companies, like Merck, were involved in such testing but I'll take you at your word on that one until I can verify they are involved in the testing process and stand to lose that revenue if girls are vaccinated.) as this vaccine doesn't eliminate the need for testing.
Quoting myself from another thread in which purehuman posted the same link:
I'll say that again: NO confirmed deaths directly related to HPV vaccine.
If you read the stories of the patients whose parents firmly believe the vaccine caused their deaths, what is overwhelmingly obvious is that those grieving parents are desperately looking for something to blame, frequently after an autopsy fails to define a cause for the death. I can see how tempting a target the vaccine would be.
But there has to be a plausible biologic mechanism in order to say a vaccine caused an injury. The fact that the alleged injury occurred after the vaccine was given is not sufficient evidence for cause and effect.
Many of the cases involve blood clots. The CDC is continuing to investigate these reports. But many of the women who had blood clots were also taking birth control pills. The link between estrogen and blood clots is well established, with an absolute risk of thrombosis from estrogen of 20 to 30 per 100 000. Smoking increases the risk. It is therefore more biologically plausible to link the clots to the birth control pills than to the vaccine.
The HPV vaccine is safe and effective, with the potential to prevent up to 70% of cervical cancers, prevent untold misery related to warts caused by the specific strains covered by the virus,and reduce the cost of evaluating abnormal Pap smears --- and the pain and anxiety that those evaluations produce.
Obviously, you missed this part "The National Vaccine Information Center, a private vaccine-safety group, compared Gardasil adverse events to another vaccine, one also given to young people, but for meningitis. Gardasil had three times the number of Emergency Room visits - more than 5,000. Reports of side effects were up to 30 times higher with Gardasil"
30 times higher with guardasil than the meningitis vaccine. A vaccine that our pediatrician warned was risky. In the case of meningitis, however, the risk outweighs the benefit since the outcome will be paralysis or death if you contract the disease.
What percentage of the population will be spared "untold misery" (resorting to hyperbole I see...) and just how many tests will be eliminated? Last time I looked, you still have to go through a yearly pap smear with or without guardasil.
The fact is the percentage of the population that will benefit from this vaccine is small. All forms of cervical cancers are on the decrease due to better and earlier detection. I don't know about warts. Seriously, I wasn't aware that a significant number of women have them or have issues with them.
BTW, I test positive for HPV and like most women who have it, have no issues with it. This is a vaccine for a virus that most of us will never have an issue with and when you do, they can be detected early and treated.
Seriously, we need some numbers here. I'm headed into finals week so I can't research this now but if anyone has time, we need the % of women who get cervical cancer specically caused by HPV and the percent of women who get warts from HPV and the percent of HPV caused cancer deaths not due to late diagnosis due to failure to have a routine pap.
We are not talking about a disease that is running rampant through our society like measles.
No. The percentage of women who have issues is small and pap smears are still required by all even if you have the shot. If Merck can get Guardasil required then every girl will be given a 3 shot series costing over $300. The profit they will make if this happens far exceeds what they'll make testing the small percentage of the population that will require testing beyond a normal pap.
The beauty of this one is they get both the profits from the vaccine AND the profits from testing pap smears (if they even do testing of pap smears - I wasn't aware that big drug companies, like Merck, were involved in such testing but I'll take you at your word on that one until I can verify they are involved in the testing process and stand to lose that revenue if girls are vaccinated.) as this vaccine doesn't eliminate the need for testing.
I was talking about the treatment of HPV and cervical cancers.
Obviously, you missed this part "The National Vaccine Information Center, a private vaccine-safety group, compared Gardasil adverse events to another vaccine, one also given to young people, but for meningitis. Gardasil had three times the number of Emergency Room visits - more than 5,000. Reports of side effects were up to 30 times higher with Gardasil"
30 times higher with guardasil than the meningitis vaccine. A vaccine that our pediatrician warned was risky. In the case of meningitis, however, the risk outweighs the benefit since the outcome will be paralysis or death if you contract the disease.
What percentage of the population will be spared "untold misery" (resorting to hyperbole I see...) and just how many tests will be eliminated? Last time I looked, you still have to go through a yearly pap smear with or without guardasil.
The fact is the percentage of the population that will benefit from this vaccine is small. All forms of cervical cancers are on the decrease due to better and earlier detection. I don't know about warts. Seriously, I wasn't aware that a significant number of women have them or have issues with them.
BTW, I test positive for HPV and like most women who have it, have no issues with it. This is a vaccine for a virus that most of us will never have an issue with and when you do, they can be detected early and treated.
Seriously, we need some numbers here. I'm headed into finals week so I can't research this now but if anyone has time, we need the % of women who get cervical cancer specically caused by HPV and the percent of women who get warts from HPV and the percent of HPV caused cancer deaths not due to late diagnosis due to failure to have a routine pap.
We are not talking about a disease that is running rampant through our society like measles.
The NVIC is an anti-immunization organization that picked a name to make it sound like they know what they're talking about. They don't. Here's an interesting tidbit of anti-vaccine literature:
Religious arguments against inoculation were advanced even before the work of Edward Jenner; for example, in a 1772 sermon entitled "The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation" the English theologian Rev. Edmund Massey argued that diseases are sent by God to punish sin and that any attempt to prevent smallpox via inoculation is a "diabolical operation".
Obviously, you missed this part "The National Vaccine Information Center, a private vaccine-safety group, compared Gardasil adverse events to another vaccine, one also given to young people, but for meningitis. Gardasil had three times the number of Emergency Room visits - more than 5,000. Reports of side effects were up to 30 times higher with Gardasil"
Those numbers are meaningless without knowing the absolute number of people given each vaccine. Get back to me when you have denominators to go with your numerators.
Quote:
30 times higher with guardasil than the meningitis vaccine. A vaccine that our pediatrician warned was risky. In the case of meningitis, however, the risk outweighs the benefit since the outcome will be paralysis or death if you contract the disease.
Why does your pediatrician classify the meningitis vaccine as "risky"? It also appears to be safe and effective.
Quote:
What percentage of the population will be spared "untold misery" (resorting to hyperbole I see...) and just how many tests will be eliminated? Last time I looked, you still have to go through a yearly pap smear with or without guardasil.
The fact is the percentage of the population that will benefit from this vaccine is small. All forms of cervical cancers are on the decrease due to better and earlier detection. I don't know about warts. Seriously, I wasn't aware that a significant number of women have them or have issues with them.
BTW, I test positive for HPV and like most women who have it, have no issues with it. This is a vaccine for a virus that most of us will never have an issue with and when you do, they can be detected early and treated.
Seriously, we need some numbers here. I'm headed into finals week so I can't research this now but if anyone has time, we need the % of women who get cervical cancer specically caused by HPV and the percent of women who get warts from HPV and the percent of HPV caused cancer deaths not due to late diagnosis due to failure to have a routine pap.
We are not talking about a disease that is running rampant through our society like measles.
"About 55 million Pap tests are performed each year in the United States. Of these, approximately 3.5 million (6 percent) are abnormal and require medical follow-up."
That follow-up includes a procedure called colposcopy, biopsies where indicated, possibly more extensive biopsies (some of which can cause problems with pregnancy later) and more frequent Pap smears.
"We estimated an overall annual decrease of 1.2 million Pap tests for young women aged 15 to 26 years, with a corresponding reduction in screening costs of $77.6 million (range, $39.9 million-$174.1 million) after routine HPV vaccination and HPV DNA testing. Among female subjects 15 years and older, the estimated potential decrease in Pap tests was 6.3 million (range, 5.7 million-9.7 million), with an estimated $403.8 million (range, $207.6 million-$906.3 million) reduction in screening costs."
" Approximately 20 million Americans are currently infected with HPV. Another 6 million people become newly infected each year. HPV is so common that at least 50% of sexually active men and women get it at some point in their lives."
"Preliminary results from the sentinel surveillance project from 2003-2004 also report PCR-based HPV type-specific prevalence estimates for types 16 and 18. Overall prevalence of infection with HPV types 16 or 18 was 8%. Prevalence of HPV 16 or 18 by age group was: 16% in 14 to 19 year olds; 10% in 20 to 29 year olds; 3% in 30 to 39 year olds; 2% in 40 to 49 year olds and 1% in 50 to 65 year olds.
(Sorry, I cannot get the bold type to turn off for some reason.)
That means 16 out of 100 14 to 19 year olds have high risk HPV infections.
In addition, HPV is associated with cancers of the external genitalia and anus and mouth and throat --- none of which will be picked up by a Pap smear.
Although uncommon, it is also possible too pass HPV to a newborn.
By emphasizing cervical cancer --- truly life threatening invasive cancer --- you underestimate the financial costs and the pain and inconvenience associated with evaluation of abnormal Pap smears and the diagnosis and treatment of pre-cancerous cervical conditions. You downplay the difficulties associated with false positive and false negative smears.
What I cannot understand is why you are so vehemently opposed to preventing HPV infections rather than diagnosing and treating them after they occur, when the science indicates the vaccine is safe and effective.
"We estimated an overall annual decrease of 1.2 million Pap tests for youngwomen aged 15 to 26 years, with a corresponding reduction in screening costs of $77.6 million (range, $39.9 million-$174.1 million) afterroutine HPV vaccination and HPV DNA testing.Among female subjects 15 years and older, the estimated potential decrease in Pap tests was 6.3 million (range, 5.7 million-9.7 million), with an estimated $403.8 million (range, $207.6 million-$906.3 million) reduction in screening costs."
" Approximately 20 million Americans are currently infected with HPV. Another 6 million people become newly infected each year. HPV is so common that at least 50% of sexually active men and women get it at some point in their lives."
"Preliminary results from the sentinel surveillance project from 2003-2004 also report PCR-based HPV type-specific prevalence estimates for types 16 and 18. Overall prevalence of infection with HPV types 16 or 18 was 8%. Prevalence of HPV 16 or 18 by age group was: 16% in 14 to 19 year olds; 10% in 20 to 29 year olds; 3% in 30 to 39 year olds; 2% in 40 to 49 year olds and 1% in 50 to 65 year olds.
(Sorry, I cannot get the bold type to turn off for some reason.)
That means 16 out of 100 14 to 19 year olds have high risk HPV infections.
I understand the part of the potential cost savings in terms of reduced screenings down the road for young women. I also see the benefit in preventing a disease vs. treating/screening for it.
But 16% of teenagers (14 to 19 year olds!) have high risk HPV infections vs. only 10% of twenty somethings and 3% of 30 somethings?? That doesn't sound right. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the findings..
FWIW, I don't have a daughter so this is not a decision that I will be making.
Last edited by springfieldva; 01-24-2011 at 02:06 PM..
I understand the part of the potential cost savings in terms of screenings down the road for young women..
But 16% of teenagers (14 to 19 year olds!) have high risk HPV infections vs. only 10% of twenty somethings and 3% of 30 somethings?? That doesn't sound right. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the findings..
FWIW, I don't have a daughter so this is not a decision that I will be making.
I suspect the numbers reflect the number of partners. Teens tend to be serially monogamous, but change partners relatively frequently. That increases the risk of exposure.
Also, some HPV infections will clear spontaneously. Some of the 20 somethings and 30 somethings may have had infections that cleared. The problem is that we have no way to predict who will clear any HPV infection, high or low risk.
I suspect the numbers reflect the number of partners. Teens tend to be serially monogamous, but change partners relatively frequently. That increases the risk of exposure.
Also, some HPV infections will clear spontaneously. Some of the 20 somethings and 30 somethings may have had infections that cleared. The problem is that we have no way to predict who will clear any HPV infection, high or low risk.
Do people also tend to develop an immunity to HPV infection as they get older?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
