to re-open the dialogue about the cervical cancer jab?

[gonetoseeamanaboutadog]

Read threads about this issue on MN before, but somehow I'm no further along. In light of the tragic death of athlete, Sarah Tait, who died of cervical cancer despite having received the HPV vaccine, the time seems right to ask more questions.

In controlled trials of the cervical cancer vaccine, the evidence suggests that the vaccine actually caused cancerous lesions in girls in the 16-18 age group, even those who had no pre-existing HPV infections.

Now, the NHS considers it more or less impossible to have cervical cancer in the absence of an HPV infection. Even if a smear test shows abnormal cell growth, if there is no HPV infection you're considered 'safe' and no further action is taken. So did these girls get cervical cancer?

There is also research to suggest that while cervical cancer is a common killer in developing countries, this is very rarely the case in developed countries. In fact, the deaths from cervical cancer are several times lower than the rate of adverse reactions (including death) connected with the HPV vaccine. And the adverse reactions can be debilitating, life-limiting and life-long.

Meanwhile, it's claimed that the evidence to show the HPV vaccine actually reduces the cancer rate simply isn't there, especially given the high adverse reactions. There is a school of thought claiming that this vaccine is being routinely administered without properly observing the patient's right to make an informed choice; we are trusting the NHS that the risk of adverse reactions is as tiny as it usually is for vaccines, but this may not actually be the case.

This is all I know. One day, although not soon, I'll have to make this decision with my DD. At the moment, I'm decidedly on the fence.

Look op.

I am an academic researcher. We see plenty of quackish journals. We are invited to write for them. We delete the invitations

The writer of this piece is known for his longstanding views against vaccines. This is - yet another one-of his known long standing anti vaccine opinion pieces. Do you truly not see the context of this piece?

It is an inactive vaccine.

FFS.

But people have provided you with facts - it's in the links! Which you haven't read have you?

That study only accounts for women who had never been screened before vaccination. Australia starts screening at 18 on a two yearly basis so anyone 21+ would not have been included. So, it clearly helps younger girls but there isn't evidence for women post screening age.

On another note, why does the UK have such a long recall gap between smears and start them so late?

You clearly have an agenda OP, as you don't want to listen to any of the sensible posts and seem to be waiting for someone to come and agree with you. What's your real issue? is it that this is sexually related, as that seemed to be where a lot of the objections cake from when the vaccine was launched.

The thing I don't understand about anti vaxx rhetoric is that it always seems to me that there could be 100 studies showing that something is effective and safe (bearing in mind that safe is not the same as totally risk free). And 1 study that disagrees. Yet people are drawn to believe that the one study is right and the other 100 are a cover up.

I'm not a scientist so I can't comment on the science of it all but the one thing that I've ever seen a plausible answer to is the question of why 'they' (they being the government/'big pharma'/the health service etc) would want to vaccinate the population if it were harmful to them. From the government point of view it needs the population to be as healthy as possible because healthy people cost less. If you believe that 'big pharma' are all run by evil monsters who have no interest in developing effective drugs, just in making money, then that doesn't make much sense either because surely they would make more money by waiting for people to become ill and then charging them for the drugs to control (but not cure) the illness? It seems contradictory?

rubyBleu - did you read the study?

"Analyses were conducted for all women and within strata of four age groups (at 2007): 11-14 years, 15-18 years, 19-22 years, and 23-27 years. We restricted our primary analysis to those women who had no cytology tests before their index date (women whose first ever smear test result defined their status as a case or control). This was because the number of previous cytology tests differed between cases and controls. Our secondary analysis comprised cases and controls with one or more cytology tests before their index date. "

IThinkIMadeYou - "These findings are in accord with recent studies indicating that approximately 52% of high grade cervical abnormalities are due to HPV 16 and HPV 18.18 This attributable fraction is the theoretical upper limit of vaccine efficacy, unless cross protection against other HPV types provides additional protection."

Look, I'm very pro Gardasil for younger women. I'm from Brisbane. I had all 3 Gardasil jabs at 25. I will vaccinate future daughters. I'm just querying whether there's any point in vaccinating older women.

To get to 23 (let alone 27) Australia without having been screened is very unusual and would no doubt be largely because you haven't tried to access hormonal contraception through your GP. The study didn't screen on the basis of sexual activity. It doesn't show that there's a point to retrospectively vaccinating adult, sexually active women.

I was addressing your point about it not including women who hadn't been previously screened - it did. They were the secondary analysis. The effectiveness of two doses in this group didn't reach statistical significance.

"The secondary analysis was of women who had one or more cytology tests before their index date. For this analysis the adjusted odds ratios for exposure to three doses of HPV vaccine compared with no vaccine were 0.77 (0.64 to 0.92) for high grade cases and 0.81 (0.72 to 0.91) for other cases (see supplementary table 3 on bmj.com). The adjusted numbers needed to vaccinate were 38 (23 to 104) and 24 (16 to 50), respectively. Effectiveness of two doses did not reach statistical significance. Adjusted effectiveness of one or more vaccine doses against a high grade cervical abnormality was 18% (4% to 30%) and against any other abnormality was 15% (6% to 23%)."

A few years ago, the anti-vaccers on MN were very strident. Then the Andrew Wakefield scandal forced them to wind their necks in. Now they're back with a softly-softly approach but it's the same old shit.

OP, if you don't want the HPV vaccine, don't have it. Unlike MMR, your refusal won't put the wider public at risk. But don't discourage others with your pseudo-science claptrap.

Bumbleymummy, you're quoting a single study. My figures are from multiple sources and they're also the figures on which public health policy is based.

I actually don't have an agenda, unless it's an agenda to discuss the issue sensibly without prejudice.

There could be many studies suggesting something is safe, but the studies suggesting it isn't are the ones that we should be pausing over, not dismissing.

My children have received most vaccines and I'm thankful they were able to do so. I do, however, have a friend with POTS, one of the conditions that can be an adverse reaction to the vaccine. Having seen her at her worst, when she was driven to a suicide attempt by what can only be described as a life of torment, I'm not convinced that she wouldn't have preferred to have died of cervical cancer.

The one thing that no one in this country should be expected to do is shut up about an issue that concerns them. I'm concerned about a mentality that believes these issues shouldn't be discussed at all, and about a community of scientists who are willing to disparage work before they've read it. If the article is from a professional scientist and it's a reputable journal, you talk about Andrew Wakefield. If it's in a small journal about which nothing much is known, you diminish it for being there too. The problem is not the journal but the fact that it's feeding into the other side of an argument about which people have become polarised and militant. That's not science.

Goneto - if there were 100 trials of a medicine and 2-3 suggested a problem whereas the rest suggested things were fine it is likely that those trials are outliers where the results arose by chance. Of course the next step would be to look at the quality of all those trials and put most weight by the better run ones with the highest numbers of participants. You might do a meta analysis to combine results. To say we should give most prominence to those trials which show a problem is not good science unless they are they are of substantially higher quality than the rest.

POTS is not something that 'can be an adverse reaction to the vaccine'. It is a syndrome that has been raised as a possible adverse reaction to the vaccine in Denmark, by a medical team working with girls who have been referred to them for symptoms of POTS. The European Medicines Agency suggest that there has been no increase in POTS since vaccination against HPV was widely introduced. Research continues.

And on either side anecdote is not data. I actually have a relative who had a recognised very rare but serious reaction to a vaccine. It has not made me against vaccines because I know the likelihood of serious morbidity and mortality of the disease in the at risk population is higher.

I actually don't have an agenda

Yeah you do.

Classic anti-vax tactics of using science when it's convenient - "Here is a paper [usually in a non-reputable, non-peer review journal] that supports my views" but refusing to engage with the massive weight of data that contradicts it.

If you really understood science, you'd know that, purely by chance, you will occasionally get studies that produce outlying results. If they are contradicted by a vast weight of well-constructed trials and other conflicting evidence, a good scientist accepts that they are chance outliers and discards them. But anti-vaxers seize on them to try to "prove" that black is white.

Throughout this thread, you have refused to engage with posters providing you with evidence that you are wrong. It's all straight from the anti-vax playbook so you might as well stop being disingenuous.

Regarding Sarah Tait:

1. She very likely already had HPV by the time she was vaccinated, since the vaccine is fairly new.

1. The vaccine does not cover every single one of the strains of HPV which can cause cervical cancer, but nearly all of them.

A close friend of mine developed HPV-related throat cancer in his mid-40s. It was cured, luckily, but he suffered terribly. You can be sure that all four of my kids received the vaccine.

Sarah Tait is a meaningless red herring.

It's very sad that a young woman has died, but it indicates nothing that we did not already know to be true about the vaccine.

The vaccine makes it less likely that you will get cervical cancer.

"Less likely" is not the same as "Impossible".

We already knew that some people who had the vaccine would still get cervical cancer.

Genuinely surprised and deeply unimpressed by the militant attitude. I had not heard the term 'anti-vax' before and obviously I don't identify because I've accepted most vaccines for my children.

This is such an important issue that no one can afford to dismiss any evidence, any evidence at all. That vaccines are safe is the majority view and there's clearly good reason to think so. If that's the case, objective hard evidence can be discussed without the antipathy and polemic.

Anti-Vax seems a bit like a conspiracy theory. And they're usually without substance. But no one ever squashed a conspiracy theory with hostility and making it taboo to talk about it.

If I had this issue at my finger tips and believed I was talking to a non-sciencey audience about an important subject, I wouldn't say 'well these anti vaccers will say anything you know' and stick an obscure link. I'd pleasantly and objectively engage with the concerns and break my knowledge down to dispel them. If you want to get a message across, that's the way to do it. But clearly this is an issue about feelings run high. However, don't make assumptions about who I am, don't suggest people don't have a right to discuss freely on a public forum, and don't use unscientific, circular reasoning to 'win' while accusing the other side of doing the same.

I tell you what Op you'd make a fantastic politician. You spout a load of important sounding words with no actual substance or facts behind them.

IThinkIMade - the figures came from this meta-analysis.

Just thought I'd weigh in on POTS - it's a condition that often shows itself during mid-late teens (it's associated with a condition I have), so around the time when girls are having the HPV vaccine, and is starting to be more widely diagnosed now that awareness of related conditions like EDS is also slowly growing - possibly accounting for the supposed "link" to the HPV vaccine.

And having seen my aunt die of cervical cancer leaving 3 children, the youngest a baby, when she was younger than I am now, I am fairly certain your friend wouldn't have actually picked it as a better option. Jesus wept.

Actually Alconleigh, I think at that point she probably would have picked anything that had an end point. POTS can be that bad.

OP, I don't understand a lot of what you are saying here.
Yes, I am biased towards the vacination, because my DD's are now 16 and 18 so several years since I researched and decided that having the injection was the sensible option for them.
Can you show us where the evidence of deaths from the vacination has been published please? I can't find any anywhere.