Cervical cancer vaccine - Japan no longer recommends because of side effects concern

[Crumbledwalnuts]

there are quite a lot of different places this story is written, this is one of them

It's not being withdrawn but the government isn't recommending it any more. At least for now, while it investigates.

Seriously, do you not read anything properly?

God that person ranting about the 'anti-vaccination lunatics' sounds rather erm insane blinkered.

What is the definition of an 'anti-vaccination lunatic'? The japanese ministry of health who have stopped recommending the jab? Someone who is wary because of an observed adverse reaction in themselves or their child? Someone who realises there are potential cons to vaccinations as well as positives? Interesting rhetoric.

What is the point of random background noise of pain when the side effects reported include paralysis? A random sampling of vaccinated and unvaccinated people is not "background noise". True background noise would be a sample unvaccinated with this vaccine or anything like it.

What, you quoted "anti-vaccination lunatics" in order to disapprove of it?

They're always possible side effects. That's what the yellow card system is there for, and although there may be some payouts we're often reminded that that doesn't mean anything at all and oh no the vaccination is perfectly safe.

I would see a system that withdrew a vaccination based on a particular number of yellow cards (ie a particular number of possible reactions) -at least while those were further investigated - to be a system that was working well. I think we know from the urabe case that the UK prefers to ignore concerns until it has no choice but to pay attention. Personally I would prefer my children to be vaccinated in a system that was over-cautious rather than over-confident wrt vaccine safety.

Can't you see Noble that background noise including vaccinated individuals isn't background noise?

Saintly, I imagine that the blog author comes across strongly because the health ministry has withdrawn a vaccination recommendation while it investigates under 2000 possible side effects, most of them not serious, from over three million jabs, in a year when over 2000 Japanese women die from a cancer the jab could have protected them from. The USA article shows it's effective.

When you weigh up the cancer deaths and the possible side effects, and the damage done to the vaccination program by the withdrawal, one wonders whether it was more reckless of the ministry to withdraw its recommendation than to keep it in place while the investigations are ongoing.

Crumbled, by background noise it means (as it says) that in any group of individuals, some of them will suffer whole body pain. In the vaccinated group we have reports of some of them suffering whole body pain. Because some of the group will suffer from it anyway, it's hard to distinguish whether some of the group who have it, have it because of the jab or whether they'd all have it even if they hadn't had the jab.
It's not a statistical analysis, it is merely a general comment.

Maybe the Japanese are aware of the massive under reporting of side effects & extrapolating think it's too much? Maybe they have a lower tolerance for adverse reactions? Maybe they just want those presenting for vaccination to be able to give informed consent (ie have a clear understanding of the risks and benefits).

As someone who daily sees the long lasting effects of vaccine damage I applaud ministries who take a cautious approach. I know that wanting the safest possible vaccination programme possible puts me in the 'anti-vaccination lunatic' camp. What a pity.

Actually, to clarify, not any group of individuals, any large group of individuals. 3 million would be enough.

Well I think it's misleading then - it talks about background noise as if it has value as some kind of control. Some of them will have been vaccinated with this vaccine - so it's not true background noise at all - that's a perversion of the phrase. It's a pointless comparison.

Saintly, the vaccine damage view is only one lens, cervical cancer deaths are pretty horrific too.

Do you not think reports of paralysis after a medical intervention need to be investigated Noble?

Regular smears are a very effective prevention. Didn't Diane Harper talk about using women as guinea pigs?

Crumbled, I'm fairly sure that a statistician would be able to cope with that if they were to do an analysis, but as the ministry hadn't released the data, they can't even start.

And of course a case of paralysis following a medical intervention is worth investigating. Putting the brakes on all similar medical interventions when three million have been carried out without paralysis ensuing would probably not be usual practice.

It's just that you posted it, and don't agree with the anti-vaccination lunatic phrase, and don't know about the background noise so I'm not sure what you do agree with about that post.

Why is a paralysis after vaccination worth investigating Noble? Because it might be linked to the vaccine? And if dozens such cases are reported, and hundreds more similar but milder cases?

So we should just ignore any safety concerns because it does a good thing, (when it works and for however long it works)? That's not a model for a vaccination programme that I particularly favour tbh. Especially as the other aspect of that model tends to be to ignore those who have been (potentially) vaccine damaged and run smear campaigns 'anti-vaccination nutters' agains their families (so anti-vaccination they had their children vaccinated - hmm).

There are other ways to help protect yourself against HPV infection (such as condoms).

Anyway the Japan approach seems sensible. Point out there may be problems - give the figures (all the ones I have seen include the cervical cancer screening rate), tell people this is only an investigation of potential problems - all the articles I have seen do that - hopefully remind people to use condoms (the most common form of contraception in Japan anyway - they don't really go in for the contraceptive pill in Japan), keep the vaccination free for those who still want it. Not sure what the problem is really. Or are you saying ministries of health should never pass on concerns they have?

And to be honest Noble that is rather dodging the question, as background noise statistic would be available anyway, without it being given by the ministry.

sorry ignore the rogue screening - I meant the articles give the cervical cancer case rate. ie they're not downplaying that, just pointing out they have some concerns that they want to look further at.

Find it a bit weird that that's seen as such an awful thing to do really.

Why on earth do you keep banging on about background noise Crumbled? I'm utterly baffled as to what you think you have spotted, or what 'question' I'm supposed to be dodging. I've explained what the article meant by background noise. It seems perfectly clear, and yet you're somehow still banging on about it.

Saintly, why not wait until you know there are problems? Given that HPV protection will save lives?

Condoms and whatnot is all very well, but it's clearly not doing a very good job in Japan.

But you brought it up, hinting that background incidence was comparable to what's happening in Japan. That's an attempt to minimise what could be serious damage caused to women by this vaccine. The strong suggestion is they would have suffered this damage anyway. I don't mind if you don't want to talk about background noise or don't understand why it's important. But I assumed you would be happy to talk about it because .. ummmm you brought it into the conversation.

Are you serious noblegiraffe? I think I have a right to know if there may be problems, how can I possibly give informed consent make a risk-benefit decision without that information. You are posting rather as if you believe adverse reactions only ever happen to other people.

I am well aware of what an adverse reaction can look like and how it can change lives dramatically. I want all the information available before making a decision thanks. And yes I know what terminal cancer looks like as well, that doesn't negate vaccine damage.

Crumbled, yes it could have happened to women anyway, if it couldn't, then they would already know that it was a side effect of the vaccine. But they don't, so more work is needed.

Saintly, you can inform people of possible side effects (as they currently do on vaccine information) without withdrawing the recommendation, is what I meant. If they think there is enough evidence to withdraw the recommendation, why talk about possibly reinstating it later?

So you're saying no government should ever adjust pass on concerns they have about any vaccination programme? They have withdrawn the recommendation presumably because they have concerns that there may be too many side effects and that those outweigh the benefits provided by the vaccination. Whichever way they eventually decide (even if it is 'oh actually benefits do outweigh risks we're happy to recommend again') I think it is refreshing to see a government pass on their concerns rather than just bury them for as long as possible.

I personally think it is unethical for a health ministry & it's scientists to have concerns but not pass on that information. You seem to think this is preferable? I know it is usual practice here and it's one of my biggest problems with the vaccination programme in its current form.It's treating the general public as being too stupid to be allowed the option of giving informed consent.

The problem with not following up on concerns at the earliest opportunity is that if those concerns are later shown to be valid people who might have been okay end up damaged

In the case of withdrawing a recommendation it just allows someone to make their decision with access to all the information known about that vaccination at that time. I very much struggle to see that as a bad thing.

Giving prominence to potentially unfounded concerns, or overstating concerns in relation to the risk of not vaccinating is also an issue.

"Before the introduction of pertussis immunisation in the 1950s, the average annual number of notifications in England and Wales exceeded 100,000. In 1972, when vaccine acceptance was over 80%, there were only 2069 notifications of pertussis. Public anxiety about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, following a report published which suggested a possible link between the vaccine and a group of children with brain damage, saw immunisation coverage drop to 30% in 1975 resulting in major epidemics in 1977/79 and 1981/83. As a result, there were more than 200,000 extra notifications and 100 deaths in 1970s and 1980s. Vaccine coverage steadily increased over the next decade as public and professional confidence in the vaccine was restored, reaching 95% by second birthday in 1995 and remaining at between 93% and 95% until 2010 when it increased to 96%. Correspondingly, overall notifications decreased dramatically during this period. The Health Protection Agency (HPA) initiated a programme of enhanced surveillance to monitor the number of cases of whooping cough and vaccine efficacy in 1994."

www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/InfectiousDiseases/InfectionsAZ/WhoopingCough/GeneralInformation/