HPV Vaccination Programme

[AnneWiddecomesArse]

I'm a bit side swiped by this.
I've read some stuff in papers etc. but now my DD has been offered the vaccine in this school year (she's 12 years old); and it's time for a decision.
What are your thoughts/research on this ?

I have done exactly the same as FifiMac13 and for the same reasons, to my mind I have at least 3 years before DD goes anywhere near a willy, so that gives another 3 years for any problems to arise. Provided they don't she will have the jab aged 15.

Yes, I'm right.

Cervarix control test groups were given the Hepatitis vaccine Havrix containing an aluminum hydroxide adjuvant.

So "background" events, against which adverse events reports are compared, are potentially adverse reactions themselves.

This is what I mean about stats being trustworthy. It's predictable.

"One, the quality evidence is of a very high standard and volume of evidence and also high" - But there was no true control in the safety studies.

"Two, there is a lack of pathological disease in the adverse cases i discussed." See my links above.

"Three, no causative statistical link to show increased risk of any serious reactions" See my links above

"Four, no causative risk found on thorough review of serious reactions reported" See my links above.

You must see that when you investigate by looking for patterns, you need a true control pattern. The safety studies talked about here don't have one, and yet pattern investigation is used here as the key to claims of safety. So you must see how that is less than convincing.

And now I'm having breakfast

Except sorry here is the link about the Havrix

@Blueberties - My daughter's school hasn't responded at all to my family declining the vaccine (on the consent form). I would have preferred them to present the information to parents and children in a more balanced way rather than presenting the vaccine as something which really should be given to all girls as it prevents some types of cancer. Having said that, there is plenty of information available so really it is up to parents to research all the issues and make an informed decision. There is some misleading information circulating amongst the girls, including one who told my daughter she could now 'catch cancer' as she isn't protected. I've decided to allow my daughter to stay home this morning so that she doesn't have to deal with intrusive questions about why she isn't going to the medical room with the other girls. Thank you again to everyone for sharing their opinions and available information.

Fifi thanks. Yes I wondered about keeping my daughter off in case she "went along with the herd" or got "persuaded" by a nurse. Twas fine in the end -- I just told the school we did everything through the GP and that seemed fine.

Here is a link about AS04

Not www.I'maquack.com if you're wondering.

Don't know if people have seen this study.

In fact some of these reported side effects are quite similar to the rare reported side effects of Fendrix, another hepatitis vaccine

Well look at that. Rare adverse events reports after Havrix.

*Musculoskeletal: Arthralgia, elevation of creatine phosphokinase, myalgia.

Central Nervous System: Hypertonic episode, insomnia, photophobia, vertigo.*

And Havrix was given to the control group in the safety studies.

Musculoskeletal: Arthralgia, elevation of creatine phosphokinase, myalgia. Central Nervous System: Hypertonic episode, insomnia, photophobia, vertigo.

Here.

Fifi, I just wanted to bring a bit of balance to the links about aluminium.

The side effects of aluminium poisoning and hypophasphataemia she has posted are absolutely right. They would be found very easily on blood work, x ray and CT as well as on clinical examination.

In the highly publicised cases I wrote about the girls did not have any physical findings on examination or investigation.
Inflammation caused by aluminium poisoning would very much be found on physical examination and so it if safe to say that none of those girls had clinical signs of aluminium poisoning.

In addition to this the diagnosis of aluminium poisoning would be an adverse reaction in itself (as it is a pathological finding) and therefor we can safely say there has been no reports of aluminium poisoning with the HPV vaccine.

With regards to aluminium vaccines in general there are no studies that have found a link to aluminium found in vaccines and clinical signs of brain damage. Aluminium is a naturally occurring trace element. You find it in over the counter antacid preparations, deodorants and nappy rash cream. It has been used in vaccines for 90 years.

In the body it is cleared by the kidneys (quickly) and when given in vaccine form is unlikely should not cross the blood brain barrier and so is unlikley to come into contact with brain tissue.
I have seen some biochemical papers that describe the cellular reactions, but dont indicate the clinical picture that goes along with the cellular pathology they describe or indeed conclude that the changes would directly cause ANY clinical symptoms
With regards to the increased levels of asthma and other atopic conditions, further research has concluded that this is due to our increasingly more hygienic environments coupled with increasing levels of pollution. It is not caused by vaccinations

In end stage renal failure where the kidneys can not clear aluminium the
measured plasma (blood) aluminum levels are frequently elevated to approximately 400 to 1000 µg/L BEFORE there are signs of encephalitis (brain damage). The levels in vaccines would not alter plasma concentration at all.

The World Health Organisation agreed that aluminium in vaccines was safe
www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/aluminium/statement_112002/en/index.html

further reference that might be of some use
Verdier F, Burnett R, Michelet-Habchi C, Moretto P, Fievet-Groyne F, Sauzeat E. Aluminium assay and evaluation of the local reaction at several time points after intramuscular administration of aluminium containing vaccines in the Cynomolgus monkey. Vaccine; 23(11):1359-1367, 2005

The current vaccines we have are considered to be safe and effective, with minimal risks as described.
Aluminium is not unique to HPV and if your child has already been vaccinated then they have already had and metabolised a tiny dose of aluminium.

BB, our ongoing argument is derailing this thread. If you want to discuss this further, please follow the advice of MNHQ.

Fifi
If there is any other information that you want, Id be more than happy to try and dig it out and I will be as balanced as possible

Thanks

With regards to aluminium vaccines in general there are no studies that have found a link or proven that aluminium found in vaccines causes clinical signs of central nervous system damage.

(apologies)

There are also reports of adrenal problems following this vaccine.

Just to be aware that when safety studies are quoted they refer to Cervarix as compared to another vaccine containing ASO4.

PIMS - I am not having an argument with you at all. Just said thank you for being civil actually.

I do follow MN guidelines thanks and it's lovely that you now are doing the same.

I think it is actually quite important to register that safety studies are carried out against another vaccine which has similar reported adverse events.

From the link I posted earlier:

MPL is a derivative of the lipid A molecule found in gram-negative bacteria and is considered one of the most potent immune system stimulants known.

MPL is the other main part of the cervarix adjuvant with aluminium hydroxide.

Pls note the link is a good one, entirely reputable.

Pims - thank you but I've read widely on this one! I'm at peace with my decision.

No problem fifi
Good luck x

BB 'You must see that when you investigate by looking for patterns, you need a true control pattern. The safety studies talked about here don't have one, and yet pattern investigation is used here as the key to claims of safety. So you must see how that is less than convincing.'

I think you have misunderstood the sequence of events. Investigation starts by compiling reports and only when sufficient reports have been accumulated can any patterns or aberrations be identified. That is how some reactions come to be classified as frequent, normal, or rare, etc. All useful because a rare reaction means it doesn't happen much.

What does 'rare' mean to you?

I have no problem acknowledging events might be rare. I have a problem with the fact that they're unacknowledged and denied. Parents should have all the information when they're making a decision.

When you're talking about a vaccine like Cervarix, it's unusual because you have other preventive treatments readily available. So profound events, however rare, will play a more significant role in decision-making.

I'm talking about statistics being untrustworthy - which prevents parents making a fully-informed decision.

So I've talked about denied adverse events, under-reporting and about how a control group used in a safety study was given a vaccine with the same relatively controversial adjuvant - a vaccine which has similar adverse events reports.

These undermine the trustworthiness of statistics and makes rarity, or otherwise, more difficult to determine.

I still don't understand on your part though whether your thought process is to conflate the issue so that you partially acknowledge the events but think the risk is still worth taking.

That's fine when you're making a decision for your own child, but I think engaging in a campaign and getting involved in ridicule (which you haven't done I don't think on this thread) is a step over the line.

It's better to just get the information out there and let people make up their own minds.

Yes, I think a very rare occurrence means my DCs' risk is slight. I don't go around thinking my DCs have some sort of kick me sign on their backs and they will automatically be the one in a million to experience a very rare side effect. That is what I use stats for.

Unless I see evidence of serious skewing of the statistics that would make me throw them out completely, I consider their general drift believable and the risk they indicate is acceptable.

That's what I use stats for. That's great, but when you can't trust the stats, you have to make assumptions. You may have mentioned "shenanigans" earlier - I think you can quite understand that not publicising that safety studies are carried out with such a control might be considered as such. We should all know this without having to ferret it out through pharmiweb.com, whatever, the jobs and products website for the pharmaceutical industry or whatever it is.

Your last sentence is fair enough, you know, you make the assumptions and you make your decision. Other people might decide differently, might decide they're unable to make those assumptions.

So to answer one of your questions further up the thread - How os screening a sensible and rational choice and vaccination not? That's how.

Another poster said earlier most 12 year olds are competent to consent for themselves. How can they, when they don't have access to or let's face it the interest in such information?

So I think now you can see why accusations of playing games and sensationalism really have no place in this sort of conversation.

In terms of safety, one has a perfect safety record...I have been transparent I'm sharing all of this. I really don't think this sort of claim is really appropriate.

At the risk of going around in a giant circle here, I think the assumptions you are making about the statistics, based on anecdotes, are off. On the one hand is the huge number of doses of vaccine administered and on the other there are a few rare reactions. Making assumptions that the statistics are fundamentally flawed because you have read of a really very small number of reactions that are serious or however you wish to characterise them that you claim were not taken into account is not the only option. I make the assumptions based on the preponderance of evidence.

As for the safety studies -- wrt gardasil, according to your ASO4 link, 13 million doses (or was it 13 million people vaccinated?) provides an enormous databank on reactions.

As to Cervarix -- lots here about the manufacturing process and much, much more.
'This application concerns the first vaccine for human use that has been produced with a Baculovirus Expression Vector System. Hence, an extensive characterization was performed to confirm the safety and applicability of the integral elements of this novel system. The biological properties and characteristics of the Hi-5 Rix4446 cell line were extensively investigated. In particular, the Hi-5 Rix4446 insect cell line has been examined for the presence of adventitious agents not only by applying the classical testing protocol but also by a variety of assays specifically designed for the detection of insect-specific viral contaminants. In addition, the tumorigenic potential of the cell line was investigated. The baculovirus seeds were also checked for classical and insect-specific contaminating viruses. Also, the construction and genetic stability of the recombinant baculovirus has ..'been described in sufficient detail

Screening only? No vaccine, and just screening? I think a combination of both would reduce the risk considerably. Screening was very clearly advised when my DDs went for their gardasil jabs, as soon as they started to be sexually active. Screening alone would be very dicey imo.