To not let dd have the HVP vaccination?

[DogGoneMad]

Dh and I really disagree on this.

PIMS, you still haven't answered my post from 10.30. I will repost:

PIMS, I know what the most recent figures are from CDC - I posted them earlier in the thread. They don't tie in with the ones you posted on the last page:

"This is out of 23 million given
32 reported serious reactions were determined as unlikely to have been caused by the vaccines.
"

and you also said about there were 300,000 deaths from CC

Where did these figures come from? Cancer research UK has a figure of 273,000 for worldwide CC deaths. Is that what you were talking about?

Ah bumblymummy, that's why my postings so slow, I try to avoid ambiguity in writing them. Sorry for any confusion.

If you look at the ALTS study (sorry can't do a link at the moment) which is an American study looking at HPV and colposcopy, it gives you an idea of where other health systems can come from. The US did have a lower threshold for investigation and treatment; they have moved in the last couple of years away from earlier cytology testing and also increased screening intervals.

Blueberties that's exactly the problem with doing tests where the answer isnt always going to be a clear cut Yes/No, if there's a Pending/uncertain area.
The article I linked to before about clinical and analytical sensitivity although a bit older (things have moved on in HPV techology since then) and rather hard going I found it useful in trying to understand what test result mean when used in different contexts.

Now its got to be bedtime

It doesn't matter what you think - she probably thinks yours is exactly the same but she's not reporting you. People can post what they want so long as it's not abusive or libellous.

Are you telling me that CDC, Vaers and the FDA have changed their investigation procedure into adverse events?

No, you aren't.

They investigate patterns. They investigate epidemiologically. That is the way they do things. That is the way they both say they do things and I have no reason to believe that they're lying about it.

Bela, what not having an axe to grind, you are very generous with your time.

You must have realised that my posts are not highlighting the number of deaths. That's not the point of them at all.

The posts and links address your claim much earlier in the thread that "all serious post licensing adverse event reports are investigated".

I wouldn't want people to think they are.

Guardian article again HPV testing older women (probably Bela has posted something and I missed it but ANYWAY

Pims: "The adverse report and any relevant medical records/autopsy reports examined by a suitably qualified doctor."

This is a highly modified version of your original claim. Let that be, however. This is what the above statement means.

It means: "The report you make will be read by a doctor". I don't think that counts as being investigated and I don't think that's good enough.

Only if there happened to be an autopsy completely independent of the CDC/FDA/VAERS will the investigation go further, and by "further" I mean - that autopsy will also be "read by a doctor".

Only patterns of adverse events will be investigated by the CDC/FDA.

In fact it's not really by them it's by the various agencies authorised by them, but same same.

Lemon: I suppose that is the difference. PIMS is posting as a health professional

Let me make it VERY clear that although I am a health professional, I am not posting as a health professional, I am simply using all the knowledge and skills I have trained for and developed to help readers wade through the sea of confusing and misleading information to find the facts.
If people are looking for the opinion of a health profession they should speak to their own GP

BM: "The posts and links address your claim much earlier in the thread that "all serious post licensing adverse event reports are investigated".

As I have clearly referenced on a number of occasions This information is from the published safety studies for gardisil:
From June 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008, with approximately 23 million vaccines given, VAERS received 12,424 reports of adverse events following HPV immunization; a total of 772 reports (6 percent) were serious events, including 32 reports of death; following investigation, it was concluded that HPV vaccination was unlikely to be the cause (of any of the 32 reported deaths.)

reference: Postlicensure safety surveillance for quadrivalent human papillomavirus recombinant vaccine. lade BA, Leidel L, Vellozzi C, Woo EJ, Hua W, Sutherland A, Izurieta HS, Ball R, Miller N, Braun MM, Markowitz LE, Iskander J. 2009;302(7):750.
If you look at the report, you will see that the serious adverse reports have had some level of investigation.

BB: 'The report you make will be read by a doctor". I don't think that counts as being investigated.'

Firstly if a death has been reported to VAERS the reports are read and the medical history including autopsy report is examined.

The definition of investigation The action of investigating something or someone; formal or systematic examination or research.
A formal inquiry or systematic study.

I am quite happy to say that an investigation takes place.

In the safety trial I referenced, this level of investigation took place for all serious adverse events reported.

You claim I said: 'there were 300,000 deaths from CC'
I actually said 'there were nearly 300,000 deaths from cervical cancer last year"
Yes this is from the UK cancer research statistics 273,000 is nearly 300,000 and is still 273,000 deaths too many.

You really need to start reading my posts properly. You are consistently missing and changing words when you re quote me to try and discredit my statements.

That is really clutching at straws. My evidence is solid, the fact that many members of your anti vax team have felt the need to personally insult me, question my sexual history AND question my professionalism in more ways than one, is bullying. Plain and simple and I would really appreciate it if you could stick to the point here which is trying to share the best possible information. Not make people too scared to post for fear of personal attack

Here is the most up to date info straight from either publication or the VAERS

meta analysis of ALL studies on efficacy and safety

most recent safety data from CDC

further references
Postlicensure safety surveillance for quadrivalent human papillomavirus recombinant vaccine. BA, Leidel L, Vellozzi C, Woo EJ, Hua W, Sutherland A, Izurieta HS, Ball R, Miller N, Braun MM, Markowitz LE, Iskander JAMA. 2009;302(7):750

note this info re deaths:
As of June 22, 2011 there have been a total 68 VAERS reports of death among those who have received Gardasil® . There were 54 reports among females, 3 were among males, and 11 were reports of unknown gender. Thirty two of the total death reports have been confirmed and 36 remain unconfirmed due to no identifiable patient information in the report such as a name and contact information to confirm the report. A death report is confirmed (verified) after a medical doctor reviews the report and any associated records. In the 32 reports confirmed, there was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine and some reports indicated a cause of death unrelated to vaccination.

There have been no deaths reported as being caused by this vaccine in UK or US

Safety trials are not the same as adverse events reporting after rollout. It is pointless to post them with reference to post roll out events.

Just so that everybody knows: you agree that "investigation" means "your report of an adverse event will be read (so I should hope) by somebody qualified to understand it (so I should hope)".

That is not the same what normal people understand by "all serious adverse events will be investigated".

You're still getting posters mixed up PIMS. You really need to start reading poster's names properly.

I haven't said anything about investigating adverse reports - you're discussing that with BB.

It was me that pointed out your discrepancy with the figures though. Sorry but 273,000 isn't nearly 300,000. You've just attributed 27,000 additional deaths to CC! That is about twice as many as occurred in the entire US in a year. Although my initial point was just that you should specify where your figures are coming from - UK/US/World because you are jumping around a bit with them.

There is no 'anti vax' team and no one is bullying you. I have already apologised for misinterpreting the comment you made about being 'wholesome'.

Why are you still posting the 2008 figures for the VAERS when the 2011 figures are available from the CDC and have already been quoted?

"Just so that everybody knows: you agree that "investigation" means "your report of an adverse event will be read (so I should hope) by somebody qualified to understand it (so I should hope)""

BB, you are missing out vital points of information from my posts. Leave my comments as they stand and STOP mis quoting me

As I have clearly referenced this on a number of occasions This information is from the published safety studies for gardisil:
From June 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008, with approximately 23 million vaccines given, VAERS received 12,424 reports of adverse events following HPV immunization; a total of 772 reports (6 percent) were serious events, including 32 reports of death; following investigation, it was concluded that HPV vaccination was unlikely to be the cause (of any of the 32 reported deaths.)

reference: Postlicensure safety surveillance for quadrivalent human papillomavirus recombinant vaccine. lade BA, Leidel L, Vellozzi C, Woo EJ, Hua W, Sutherland A, Izurieta HS, Ball R, Miller N, Braun MM, Markowitz LE, Iskander J. 2009;302(7):750.
If you look at the report, you will see that the serious adverse reports have had some level of investigation.

BB: 'The report you make will be read by a doctor". I don't think that counts as being investigated.'

However, the reports and publications I am referring to relevant to this vaccine and this thread go beyond the report.

Firstly if a death has been reported to VAERS the reports are read and the medical history including autopsy report is examined. (It is not just about reading a report, a significant amount of relevant information is examined)
This investigation also took place in the post licensing study I have referenced.

The definition of investigation The action of investigating something or someone; formal or systematic examination or research.
A formal inquiry or systematic study.

An investigation took place for the deaths and serious adverse events reported on these vaccines.

Fact
Read the papers and Ill be happy to discuss further

Why are you still posting the 2008 figures for the VAERS when the 2011 figures are available from the CDC and have already been quoted

Im not, please read the posts. The 2008 figures are from the 2009 post licence safety studies. The link I posted was to the 2011 CDC information.

Do you want me to explain the difference between the two??
this is the meta analysis that looks at all the efficacy and safety studies available and gives the most up to date published evidence

Bumbley, it's surprisingly annoying to be mixed up with another poster, isn't it? PIMS was consistently confusing me with LeonieDelt yesterday, and it's strangely like gaslighting.

Obviously, Bumbleymummy and Blueberties both begin with "b"; and LeonieDelt and Lemonbalm both begin with "l"; but otherwise there is very little similarity in our life stories, or our posts.

They are both referring to the adverse event reports received by VAERS for Gardasil. What is the point in posting:

"From June 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008, with approximately 23 million vaccines given, VAERS received 12,424 reports of adverse events following HPV immunization; a total of 772 reports (6 percent) were serious events, including 32 reports of death; following investigation, it was concluded that HPV vaccination was unlikely to be the cause (of any of the 32 reported deaths.)"

when this, more recent information is available?

"As of June 22, 2011, approximately 35 million doses of Gardasil® were distributed in the U.S. and VAERS received a total of 18,727 reports of adverse events following Gardasil® vaccination: 17,958 reports among females and 346 reports for males, of which 285 reports were received after the vaccine was licensed for males in October 2009. VAERS received 423 reports of unknown gender. Of the total number of VAERS reports following Gardasil®, 92% were considered to be non-serious, and 8% were considered serious."

Yes, lemon, particularly when the poster who keeps doing it continues to criticise others for not reading her posts/misinterpreting/twisting words.

Well, it's particularly dangerous when one poster is being threatened with being reported.

This quote is from a post licence safety paper, full reference provided:
"From June 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008, with approximately 23 million vaccines given, VAERS received 12,424 reports of adverse events following HPV immunization; a total of 772 reports (6 percent) were serious events, including 32 reports of death; following investigation, it was concluded that HPV vaccination was unlikely to be the cause (of any of the 32 reported deaths.)" - This is a fraction of what the full paper offers, which is why I suggested you read it

This is the most up to date VAERS raw data:
"As of June 22, 2011, approximately 35 million doses of Gardasil® were distributed in the U.S. and VAERS received a total of 18,727 reports of adverse events following Gardasil® vaccination: 17,958 reports among females and 346 reports for males, of which 285 reports were received after the vaccine was licensed for males in October 2009. VAERS received 423 reports of unknown gender. Of the total number of VAERS reports following Gardasil®, 92% were considered to be non-serious, and 8% were considered serious."

There is a distinct difference between post licence safety study and VAERS raw data. I offered to explain the difference if you are unsure.

Are you saying that the first one which refers to the number of reports received by VAERS is different to the second one that refers to the number of reports received by VAERS? Do the number of reports change when they are written up in a post license safety paper?

Yes the difference is the "investigation". Which the CDC and FDA have described (posted above).

yes, the first report will be different as is from an earlier time. They are two points on the same system of measurement, however one gives a review of the report rather than just the raw data

VAERS (raw) data cannot be used to prove a causal association between the vaccine and the adverse event. The only association between the adverse event and vaccination is temporal, meaning that the adverse event occurred sometime after vaccination. Therefore, the adverse event may be coincidental or it may have been caused by vaccination, however we cannot make any conclusions that the events reported to VAERS were caused by the vaccine.

Post licensing studies examine the VAERS data, analyse it for patterns of abnormal distribution of events and review any serious adverse events and deaths and report on safety

whoops, sorry bb, XP. Thanks for clarifying

The difference does nothing to reassure people that the "investigation" is any such thing, which really renders that difference negligible. Some of those deaths were ascribed to "heart failure" for instance.