Vaccination & epidemic

[Undertoad]

none of that sugarpop shit

As the most informed Cellar poster on this topic, Jinx, you should take a more active role in the discussion.

[jinx]

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings again, Tony.

[Undertoad]

I'm sorry for sucking enough to allow it! Moving on...

[jinx]

Postlicensure Safety Surveillance for Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Recombinant Vaccine

The Risks and Benefits of HPV Vaccination

Information Pertaining to Labeling Revision for Gardasil

Gardasil package insert

[TheMercenary]

Information Pertaining to Labeling Revision for Gardasil

Thanks for that. I am getting ready to give my son's GF her second shot.

[jinx]

Glad to help.

[morethanpretty]

shit i'm due for my 3rd in november

[TheMercenary]

We have gone ahead with it. One of my girls got it, one declined. I personally encourage it. But this is purely a personal decision for each person.

[jinx]

Agreed.
I think it's important to note though, that as well as adverse health events associated with the vaccine, it also has limitations which aren't mentioned in the advertisements. There are 15+ strains of hpv that are considered oncogentic - Gardasil contains recombinant examples of 2 of them (the ones that may cause 50% or more cervical cancers).

Regular pap smears, hpv testing, and especially condoms are still imperative - vaccinated or not.

edit
Marketing HPV Vaccine

The new vaccine against 4 types of human papillomavirus (HPV), Gardasil, like other immunizations appears to be a cost-effective intervention with the potential to enhance both adolescent health and the quality of their adult lives. However, the messages and the methods by which the vaccine was marketed present important challenges to physician practice and medical professionalism. By making the vaccine's target disease cervical cancer, the sexual transmission of HPV was minimized, the threat of cervical cancer to adolescents was maximized, and the subpopulations most at risk practically ignored. The vaccine manufacturer also provided educational grants to professional medical associations (PMAs) concerned with adolescent and women's health and oncology. The funding encouraged many PMAs to create educational programs and product-specific speakers' bureaus to promote vaccine use. However, much of the material did not address the full complexity of the issues surrounding the vaccine and did not provide balanced recommendations on risks and benefits. As important and appropriate as it is for PMAs to advocate for vaccination as a public good, their recommendations must be consistent with appropriate and cost-effective use.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by jinx

Agreed.
I think it's important to note though, that as well as adverse health events associated with the vaccine, it also has limitations which aren't mentioned in the advertisements. There are 15+ strains of hpv that are considered oncogentic - Gardasil contains recombinant examples of 2 of them (the ones that may cause 50% or more cervical cancers).

Regular pap smears, hpv testing, and especially condoms are still imperative - vaccinated or not.

No doubt. But from my readings it was with HPV types 16, 18, 6, 11 and HPV types 16 and 18 currently cause about 70% of cervical cancer cases. HPV types 6 and 11 cause about 90% of genital warts cases. To me that is a pretty big deal and leaves only a chance that you will get one of the remaining 30% that are not covered by the vaccine and only 10% of HPV that causes genital warts, which I see on people all the time. And they are quite disruptive, yet highly contagious. I guess if they ever get a vaccine for Genital Herpes I would encourage them to get that since that is an even more common type of infection.

[jinx]

From the Risk and Benefits JAMA article

The theory behind the vaccine is sound: If HPV infection can be prevented, cancer will not occur. But in practice the issue is more complex. First, there are more than 100 different types of HPV and at least 15 of them are oncogenic. The current vaccines target only 2 oncogenic strains: HPV-16 and HPV-18. Second, the relationship between infection at a young age and development of cancer 20 to 40 years later is not known. HPV is the most prevalent sexually transmitted infection, with an estimated 79% infection rate over a lifetime5-6 The virus does not appear to be very harmful because almost all HPV infections are cleared by the immune system.7-8 In a few women, infection persists and some women may develop precancerous cervical lesions and eventually cervical cancer. It is currently impossible to predict in which women this will occur and why. Likewise, it is impossible to predict exactly what effect vaccination of young girls and women will have on the incidence of cervical cancer 20 to 40 years from now. The true effect of the vaccine can be determined only through clinical trials and long-term follow-up.

Whether a risk is worth taking depends not only on the absolute risk, but on the relationship between the potential risk and the potential benefit. If the potential benefits are substantial, most individuals would be willing to accept the risks. But the net benefit of the HPV vaccine to a woman is uncertain. Even if persistently infected with HPV, a woman most likely will not develop cancer if she is regularly screened.15 So rationally she should be willing to accept only a small risk of harmful effects from the vaccine.
When weighing evidence about risks and benefits, it is also appropriate to ask who takes the risk, and who gets the benefit. Patients and the public logically expect that only medical and scientific evidence is put on the balance. If other matters weigh in, such as profit for a company or financial or professional gains for physicians or groups of physicians, the balance is easily skewed. The balance will also tilt if the adverse events are not calculated correctly.

Which is what Barbara Loe Fisher was talking about...

[TheMercenary]

The virus does not appear to be very harmful because almost all HPV infections are cleared by the immune system.7-8 In a few women, infection persists and some women may develop precancerous cervical lesions and eventually cervical cancer. It is currently impossible to predict in which women this will occur and why.

This may be true. But current guidelines are that women who develop evidence of abnormal cervical cells, which are then graded in severity, should be treated. This consists of Laser ablation of the cervical cells, or CKC (cold knife cone) bx, or in some cases both. That is why you should get PAP smears yearly. Both of those procedures require anesthesia and should be performed in an OR, unless you are really brave. So we are willing to put you under the knife, or laser, and subject you to an anesthestic for these abnormal cells but we still don't know if you will be one of those who develop cervical cancer. We do 3 or 4 CKC's or Laser Vap of the cervix a week and this is a small but busy practice. 4 or 5 a year come in with near cancerous cells and everyone of these girls is in their 20's or early 30's. The incidence of HPV is common in women in the US, whether or not is causes problems for you is why you get the PAP's (although there are other potential causes of cervical Ca). It is a simple screening tool. Anyone here want to take a chance and just bag it hope that your immune system just catches the bad stuff? I don't think so. This vaccine has the potential to do a lot of good for women's health. It comes down to a personal decision. I think women should be encouraged to get it.

[Clodfobble]

New Research Study Shows Developmental Delays in Monkeys Given Hepatitis B Vaccines

A new research study published today in a leading scientific journal, NeuroToxicology, found that a Hepatitis B vaccine containing the mercury-based preservative thimerosal caused significant delays in the acquisition of critical survival reflexes in newborn rhesus macaque monkeys. In this first-ever study comparing vaccinated animals with unvaccinated controls, thirteen of the animals were given a Hepatitis B vaccine containing a standardized amount of thimerosal to match that given to babies; four received a saline placebo, and three were not given any shots. The unvaccinated animals developed normally. Delays in vaccinated infants involved three critical reflexes associated with feeding, which are essential for survival in the wild.

"Infants of lower birth weight and gestational age were at greater risk" explained Dr. Laura Hewitson of the University of Pittsburgh, one of the principal investigators of the study. "The reflexes affected in this study are controlled by the brainstem, which regulates functions like heart rate, breathing, and intestinal activity, so these findings give us cause for concern, especially for low birth weight and pre-term infants who might be more susceptible to functional brain injury from this vaccine."

According to Hewitson, the study was not designed to determine whether it was the thimerosal preservative or another component of the vaccine that caused the observed delays. Although the FDA and American Academy of Pediatrics recommended in 1999 that thimerosal be removed as soon as possible from vaccines in the US, it is still used as a preservative in flu shots, including the recently licensed H1N1 vaccines. Flu shots are currently recommended for pregnant women and children 6 months of age and older.

Citation:

Delayed Acquisition of Neonatal Reflexes in Newborn Primates Receiving a Thimerosal-Containing Hepatitis B Vaccine: Influence of Gestational Age and Birth Weight.
Hewitson L, Houser LA, Stott C, Sackett G, Tomko JL, Atwood D, Blue L, White ER and Wakefield AJ.
NeuroToxicology, In Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available online 30 September 2009. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuro.2009.09.008.

[Clodfobble]

I have just learned something that makes my heart sing.

The above study is only a very small part of a very large study involving many, many monkeys, which will be testing the entirety of the current vaccine schedule both with and without thimerosal (because as the study notes, while thimerosal has been removed from most childhood vaccines in the US, it is still in wide use in developing countries.) Hep B is the shot given on the day of birth, so it's the first part of the study with conclusive results. The rest is coming. Boy, is it ever coming.

[jinx]

Yes, it is.

"Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with hepatitis B vaccine had a 3-fold greater risk of ASD; risk was greatest for non-white boys." The authors used U.S. probability samples obtained from National Health Interview Survey 1997-2002 datasets.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-..._b_289288.html