Quote:

This is all basic immunology. By all means ask the doctors why a vaccine is needed, but unless you take the time to read and understand the scientific literature, take the lay literature with a very large grain of salt, whether it is the NYTimes or a New Age publication.

I did, and it didn't pass the proverbial sniff test to me. and then I started to see how it wasn't researchers and doctors that were pushing this vaccine it was lobbyists and advertisers. Kind of interesting that the first state TX to mandate this vaccine was done so by executive order by the governor of TX.

This bypassed the normal route for making something mandatory and put it right on the books that every school aged girl needed this vaccine. It should also be noted that Mike Toomey (the former chief of staff to the TX governor) is now a principle lobbyists for Merk, the maker of Gardasil. and merk doubled its lobbying budget in TX and given money to advocacy groups made up of state legislators. HMMMMMMM something doesn't smell right.

Like I said, anybody can make up their own mind, BUT they must be given ALL the info. Sadly they aren't. They are only told what those in charge want us to hear.

Connie,

The problem I have is that Eric is presenting his opinions as facts, and many of them are inaccurate. Like most people who have no advanced training in science, he cannot differentiate between the reliability of sources. He made assumptions on the natural history of the disease, the nature of immunization, etc, that are not supported by the data. And this is not data from Merck. I am talking about 100 years of immunology. Since I know a fair amount about clinical trials in general, and vaccine trials in particular, having been involved (as a scientist, not a clinician) in several trials at a major cancer center, I think I am in a position to explain some things in some detail. Further, I attend scientific meetings at which trials are discussed, and review grants for the US government to evaluate planned clinical trials, and also new grants based on data from past trials. My particular specialty is tumor immunology.

As such, I tried to correct some of Eric's statements, but my feeling is that there are a lot of people I have met on-line who are fundementally against immunization. It is almost like discussing religion. This is why I think it goes beyond POV. For example, Eric states that there was no difference in the rates of HPV infection in Gardasil and control groups in the Merck study. I just read a description of the study, and Eric is incorrect. A large number of women were enrolled in the study, over 10,000. There were 36 patients in the control group who developed dysplasia or cancer in the three years following vaccination, and only one in the vaccinated group. This is statistically significant. No-one discontinued vaccination due to adverse events.

A search in pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez) with the words Gardacil efficacy gave me 25 papers from all over the world, none by Merck, by the way. I will admit that tonight I only read the abstracts. I do have to sleep before tomorrow. The support for the HPV vaccines (there are two commercial vaccines mentioned) is pretty universal, and I know that one paper where the need for improvement is cited was written by a man who is developing his own vaccine. This is not dishonest, it is always better to improve things, but from a lay prospective, you might think this means the current vaccines are not good.

Scientists discuss, we certainly disagree, but we have to prove our points, no-one is interested solely in our opinions. In a scientific paper, after introducing the field, we present our results. This is the heart of the paper. They have to show statistical validity to be published in any decent journal. Then after results are presented, we have a half page or so to describe how our results fit in with the rest of the field, where it extends the field, and our opinions as to the significance of the work. When I am asked to review a paper for a scientific journal (these are all cancer vaccine articles) I read the figures first. If the data is good, I read the rest carefully, if not, I reject the paper, obviously listing my reasons.

I will not argue that Merck is perfect, I will not argue that they have all our best interests at heart, and never look to the bottom line. But I will tell you that all my colleagues are very happy that we have a vaccine that greatly reduces the incidence of dysplasia and cancer caused by HPV. In addition, there is some protection afforded to women already infected, it is just well below the protection for HPV naive women (HPV negative).

Eric, please believe me, I am not trying to put you down. There is a lot of hysteria in the media about vaccines, about the medical establishment, and about big Pharma. The vast majority of people have no way to make easy choices in the face of this information. The stuff I read is very technical, and the anti-vaccine stuff on the web is far easier to find, and far easier to understand. I understand your irritation with Pharma ads, even though I never see them. It is like seeing lawyers advertise on the subway, it is unseemly, it doesn't make a good impression on me. You have to have a good doctor, there is no substitute. Believe me, when I have a medical decision to make, I do read, and bring questions but then I listen to the doc. I know very well that I am not a clinician. The people I know at work know so much more then I do, it isn't funny. I know my limitations, I hope.

 Quote: Polly Gregor

... Eric, please believe me, I am not trying to put you down. There is a lot of hysteria in the media about vaccines, about the medical establishment, and about big Pharma. The vast majority of people have no way to make easy choices in the face of this information. The stuff I read is very technical, and the anti-vaccine stuff on the web is far easier to find, and far easier to understand. I understand your irritation with Pharma ads, even though I never see them. It is like seeing lawyers advertise on the subway, it is unseemly, it doesn't make a good impression on me. You have to have a good doctor, there is no substitute. Believe me, when I have a medical decision to make, I do read, and bring questions but then I listen to the doc. I know very well that I am not a clinician. The people I know at work know so much more then I do, it isn't funny. I know my limitations, I hope.

I appreciate the fact that both scientists and lay people have weighed in.

I'd like to mention that those of us (probably most of us) who are subjected to a deluge of big pharma ads for every possible human ailment or irritation, including ailments that we never knew were ailments until we saw the ad, have often developed a cynicism the depth of which would probably astonish you.

This: The vast majority of people have no way to make easy choices in the face of this information.... is what's so good about such a thread with many POVs such as this one.

 Quote:

The problem I have is that Eric is presenting his opinions as facts, and many of them are inaccurate. Like most people who have no advanced training in science, he cannot differentiate between the reliability of sources.

Excuse me, no advanced training in science? OK, not that my education should matter at all because the questions would still remain the same, but I am not going to put my education or experience on trial to help my POV seem valid or not. People have brains and should use them to think critically for themselves. Just so you know ALL of my info considering the studies done on Gardasil came directly from the package insert that was available in Feb or March of last year. but you're probably right, since it has been noted since then that Merk has used Ghost writers to write their studies it probably wasn't a reliable source, but I digress.

 Quote:

He made assumptions on the natural history of the disease

and what assumptions are those and why are they flawed? Is it because I said most people around will clear the infection on their own?? Because that is true, 100% true

When that high of a percentage of a population can clear an infection naturally on their own with no help, there's a pretty high likely hood that population has been exposed to it for a rather long time and have adapted. It's not like we're bringing small pox to the natives here, HPV has been spread and cleared naturally for a long time, pardon my assumption, but I think most critical thinkers will come up with the same assumption, "advanced" minds as well.

 Quote:

the nature of immunization

What false assumptions have a made about immunization? I gave a very simplistic explanation, it tricks the body into thinking its infected so it creates an immune response. In case you missed it, you agreed with me and typed almost the exact same thing All vaccines "trick" you into thinking you are infected, by various means.

I asked is there a need to mandate a vaccine to everyone when most of us can and will rid our bodies on its own.

You said this

 Quote:

People do clear the virus after a natural infection, and yet they come down with cancer 20 years later. Why is this? Because the virus hides in your cells and can re-emerge. The current vaccine does not prevent that, future vaccines are in development for that, and treatment of active infection.

WOW great vaccine, where do I sign up. you know people that get the chicken pox vaccine can still get shingles, why is that???? Probably because as I stated before that vaccine doesn't prevent exposure, it increases the body's ability to deal with it.

Over time it may decrease your chance of exposure, but there are more than a few educated minds that believe whiping out all natural forms of exposure to various pathogens is bad short term and for the long term survival of a species.

 Quote:

I just read a description of the study, and Eric is incorrect. A large number of women were enrolled in the study, over 10,000. There were 36 patients in the control group who developed dysplasia or cancer in the three years following vaccination, and only one in the vaccinated group. This is statistically significant. No-one discontinued vaccination due to adverse events.

I'd like to see that because you did NOT read the same studies that I did, in fact right in the product label they state that in one set out of just under 8900 girls about 9 of them quit because of adverse reactions and out of the total 20+ thousand over 230 reported a serious systemic adverse reaction. Not a high rate, but not zero either.

and there were ZERO cases of cervical cancer in either group, vaccinated or not. I never made any mention of HPV rates, as the commercials don't claim "one less HPV infection" they claim One less that will die from Cervical Cancer.

Is the rate expected for a group of woman and girls 9-26 for cervical cancer less than 1 out of every 100,000 or so ????? They studied less than a fourth that number. why would they find any cases at all or prevent what wouldn't be there in the first place. Again I state the population size studied was too small and for not a long enough period. Even the CDC states that HPV infection alone is NOT enough to cause cervical cancer, as with any cancers the variables are many.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol10no11/04-0623_09.htm

 Quote:

However, infection alone is insufficient to cause cancer, and additional factors are required for neoplasia.

The CDC estimates that as many as 80% of women get HPV infections in their life. That's a whole lotta people with HPV and really not very many dying from cervical cancer. I don't want to make light of it or make it seem unimportan becaue any cancer is life changing and devastating, but...

I'm figuring 300 million people in the US with around 102 million being woman between the ages of 15 and 64. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html) at an 80% infection rate that leaves around 81.5 million that are infected with HPV. Of those around 4,000 will die from cervical cancer, so your chance of dying from cervical cancer is between 2 and 3 hundredths of a percent.

Devestating for those involved, but hardly a reason to mandate it. If you want to save your life get regular PAP smears, at least that has been proven.

 Quote:

The vast majority of people have no way to make easy choices in the face of this information.

no they sure don't, and being fed only half the information from sources that stand to gain billions is not a step in the right direction.

Polly,

#1. Eric is a practicing medical professional with advanced academic training in "science".

#2. He's right about the irrelevancy of it anyway.

Read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Polly, you're right that talking about vaccinations is similar, in some cases, to talking about religion!! Or politics.

Eric, very well put! Thank you for taking the time to so thoughtfully argue this point.

Eric,

I need a little time to read up and answer you point by point. My info did not come from the product insert at all, only from the science literature. When I research a drug for a family member, I do usually read the product insert, but rely more on the independent work of clinicians and scientists, because they show more data, and it is more up-to-date. The product insert must include info on reactions to the drug, but the literature gives a more complete description of these reactions. Just as in a scientific meeting, the scientists and clinicians give very different presentations then the drug companies, by and large. I will read and get back to you soon.

I do agree that Pharma does harm by running the ads they do (from the few I have seen). But that does not mean that all drugs are bad.

 Quote: Polly Gregor

A pharma is suppossed to make money, the government, the FDA, is suppossed to keep dangerous drugs from the market, and a doctor is suppossed to know what is safe and what is questionable, and what the patient needs and will tolerate.

For 30 years, the vaccination for anthrax was labled, by the FDA, to protect ONLY against cutaneous anthrax- that is, anthrax contracted through the skin.

Then, a soldier refused to take the anthrax vaccine, and took the fight all the way to the supreme court, and had the Army's policy re: mandatory anthrax vaccines overturned. His fight was on the basis that since the vaccine did not protect against inhaled anthrax, the likely route of NBC attack delivery, it was unlawful for him to be forced to take the vaccine.

A year later? The FDA, without any additional studies, research or scientific proof, suddenly ruled that the vaccine was now effective against inhaled anthrax- something that for 30+ years the vaccine was never tested for.
Within 30 days, the Army reinstated the mandatory anthrax vaccine program.


Makes you scratch your head a little, doesn't it?
You trust the FDA if you want.

I know better.

 Quote: Alyssa Myracle

Makes you scratch your head a little, doesn't it?
You trust the FDA if you want.

I know better.

 Quote:

I do agree that Pharma does harm by running the ads they do (from the few I have seen). But that does not mean that all drugs are bad.

I don't think all drugs are bad either, nor all vaccines. I do think the protocol for humans and animals could use some work, but that's another thread. I just have big problems with this vaccine, the way it was tested, and especially the way it has been marketed, and how it is being pushed as a mandatory shot for all young girls in over 30 states, probably closer to 40 by now.

Those are the things I take big issue with.