Glad we passed on the Gardasil vaccine

[Feralpeg]

I think people should do research on both sides (not just one side) and, also, take a closer look at the so-called "credible sources" before you believe everything they say.

Make your own decision, and hope for the best....

Which is what many of us did before we had your daughters receive Gardisil. I read all of the material and made an informed decision. I am at peace with that decision.

 

[robinb]

Hopefully, later on down the road your daughter doesn't have any negative effects from Gardasil.

Hopefully down the road your daughter doesn't contract one of the forms of HPV that Gardasil protects against and develops cervical cancer. Two can play the side "I hope your decision doesn't bite YOUR kid in the butt!" game.

 

[dismom2]

This thread has been very enlightening to me. I realize that Gardasil is somewhat of a unique case because it isn't aimed at preventable childhood diseases or stopping a pandemic, but I've been really vexed at why many parents seem to react in a seemingly illogical manner when it comes to vaccinating their children in general. They seem perfectly willing to exchange what normally is a chance equal to or less than that of being struck by lightning that their child might suffer a severe adverse reaction to a vaccine for a greater risk of a serve medical incident involving catching the disease. In addition, they are perfectly happy with letting their children engage in activities that carry a far higher risk of serious injury or death in their normal lives (bicycling on streets, playing sports, driving the family car or riding with friends, etc.). If "playing the odds" to try and avoid a bad outcome were the driving force than many many more people would vaccinate their kids. The most often cited severe adverse reactions to our flu vaccines, GBS may carry with it a 1:1,000,000 risk, while the flu's risk is much higher. Why do many parents react counter to this?

This is where this thread, and others on the DIS come in. More than once I've read about how terrible it would be for a parent to have to watch their child suffer, or die, after being given a vaccine. That's when the answer to my question came: What drives many parents isn't "Fear of a bad outcome", it's "Fear of personal guilt". Children don't choose to be vaccinated, it's a choice we make for them... not so if the tragedy happens when the child is doing something of their own choosing like riding a bike or going to a movie with some friends in a car. Parent's whose child suffers a tragedy after a vaccination would very likely feel that they would bare direct responsibility for it happening. With a car accident, bike accident, sports injury, etc. there'd likely be someone else responsible for being the direct trigger of the tragedy. The loss would still be terrible either way, but at least they wouldn't feel the full self-blame on top of that.

What about the fear of guilt of a parent that doesn't vaccinate their child, and then they pay the price with the disease? Well there are plenty of personal testimonies on that side of the equation too... but still, hindsight is 20/20 and beforehand there's the knowledge that if they do contract the disease, then it'll be someone else that'll actually be responsible for passing it on to them.

I think this, fear of guilt instead of fear of outcome, goes a long way to explaining why many parents are willing to roll the dice with odds that aren't as much in their child's favor. At supper last evening I became to lay all of this out to my wife and was building up to the explanation... when she beat me to the punch and finished the thought for me... "They're afraid of the guilt."

This line of reasoning can be heard pretty much within any given group of conspiracy theorists. Beyond the rejection of "official" sources, anyone that doesn't adhere to their understanding of events simply just hasn't done enough "research". Anyone that's done the right "research" will naturally agree with their views. Just do some "research" and you'll have your eyes opened. Most recently, these sentiments were on full display with the so-called "9/11 Truthers".

I can understand some of the things you say, Geoff. I also can appreciate your persistance on trying to prove your point of view. I bet you did well on those arguementative essays in college.
When I first started reading your posts, I didn't know your background because I don't spend a lot of time on the Dis (I go in spurts). But, it became very evident to me, very quickly, that you were somehow affiliated with a pharma company, or something. Turned out I was correct. I can usually spot things like that..

You know, you can try to make me sound like some crazy, paranoid anti-government, anti-bank, anti-vaccine 'mother', but it's simply not true at all. None of it is. My family uses banks, we get shots, we go to doctors....

Do I fully trust all of the above 100%? No--do you???

I think you and I both know that big pharma and big business (not to mention, the government) does not tell everybody "The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but The Truth".

Throwing out words like "fear-mongering", "anti xxxx", "conspiracy theorists", etc... is just a nasty jab at trying to discredit anything anybody who questions your views says. But, any intelligent person will not fall for that. This is a tactic that big business uses.... it's almost like the bully in grade school. I don't fall for that.

Yes, I am a mother, but I also have two college degrees, have been a professional career woman for almost 30 years, and I am not ignorant or stupid. I represent upper middle class America. I've never had government assistance, I can write well and cite sources when I need to, and feel like it. I'm not here to tell anybody what to do; I am giving my opinion because I don't think people who work for big pharma should give people a false sense of security by trying to discredit everything everyone says (some of your critiques of stories people posted where simply 'guesses', and your own personal opinion) and pointing out a silly example, such as: do you really think Advil caused someone to commit suicide? ---by the way, maybe it triggered depression in that person which lead to the suicide....is depression one of the more common side effect of that drug? who knows.....you don't know all the "facts", do you?? That sure makes a big difference when you look at ALL the facts, and dig deeper to get the whole picture. Why not look at the other side effects? Why are you focusing in on the ones that sound "silly" and unbelievable? That is exactly what you are doing. The thing with me is, I do dig deeper. I don't stop asking questions; I know there is more to the story usually.

The fact is, I am almost 50 years old, half my family is into natural healing, and the other half isn't; we also have professionals on both sides in the family. I grew up reading a LOT of books, hearing a lot of personal stories and testimonies, been to many lectures, talked with a lot of people in a lot of professions, and have done research on certain things that interested me, etc.. I am not an extreme anything.... I like to read, and I spent a lot of time in college writing essays, and I know how important it is to use credible sources. However, I've been around the block enough to know that there are SERIOUS flaws within these organizations and so-called 'credible' companies you seem to think are the only one's that we should look at for true answers. Any intelligent person who digs deep enough knows this to be a fact. So, even though I have kids, I wouldn't push me off as just a paranoid mother to benefit your agenda. You really don't know anything about me. I'm a lot smarter than you will ever know. I'm smart enough not to believe BS when I hear it. I'm also smart enough to realize an "insider" when I read things.

My kids will not be getting this vaccine, and I am happy that everyone has the RIGHT to still make this choice. So, whatever your choice is, I am very happy for you.

 

[NHdisneylover]

Which is what many of us did before we had your daughters receive Gardisil. I read all of the material and made an informed decision. I am at peace with that decision.

It is what I did also. I researched it pretty heavily before making a decision. I think that is the smart thing to do I respect people's decisions on either side; I do not respect people using scare tactics (on either side) without a strong basis in fact to try to "convert" other parents to their way of thinking.

 

[DawnCt1]

I work in GYN surgery and have seen too many 30- somethings die of cervical cancer caused by HPV......it is horrible. Had this vaccine been around years ago, some of these young girls may still be alive. I have two girls that one day will be vaccinated.

At least ten thousand new cases of cervical cancer develop each year. Cervical Cancer Statistics

Cervical cancer used to be the leading cause of cancer death for women in the United States. However, in the past 40 years, the number of cases of cervical cancer and the number of deaths from cervical cancer have decreased significantly. This decline largely is the result of many women getting regular Pap tests, which can find cervical precancer before it turns into cancer.1

In 2005,*

* 11,999 women in the U.S. were told that they had cervical cancer, and 3,924 women died from the disease.2
* It is estimated that more than $2 billion† is spent on the treatment of cervical cancer per year in the U.S.3

ttp://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/statistics/

Now it seems to me that a vaccine that will reduce the cervical cancer rate by at least 60% will save 7200 women from hearing, "you have cervical cancer". It will save 2400 families from grieving over their wives, sisters and mothers. It will save 1.2 Billion dollars. Sounds like its "worth the price of admission to me". I believe that Dr. Harper's conclusions are wrong.

 

[DawnCt1]

My daughter is not a number. Statistics can be quoted all day long. She did not and will not get the vaccine. I'm hoping for those girls/women who have received it that there are no side effects discovered down the line.
The lead researcher is saying these things. And as far as politics, isn't it mostly the hippie go la la granola parents who refuse to have their kids vaccinated? I'm in the middle of the road-liberal in some areas and conservative in others.

That is one term I would love to see defined by Dr. Harper herself. There are many, many researchers involved with this vaccine which was tested world wide. "LEAD" is a relative term.

 

[rie'smom]

[/B]ttp://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/statistics/

Now it seems to me that a vaccine that will reduce the cervical cancer rate by at least 60% will save 7200 women from hearing, "you have cervical cancer". It will save 2400 families from grieving over their wives, sisters and mothers. It will save 1.2 Billion dollars. Sounds like its "worth the price of admission to me". I believe that Dr. Harper's conclusions are wrong.

I'll stick with the conclusions drawn by someone who actually worked on the vaccine.

That is one term I would love to see defined by Dr. Harper herself. There are many, many researchers involved with this vaccine which was tested world wide. "LEAD" is a relative term.

Ok, one of the lead researchers.

 

[Geoff_M]

But, it became very evident to me, very quickly, that you were somehow affiliated with a pharma company, or something. Turned out I was correct. I can usually spot things like that..

I've been open about that here on more than one occasion... Why are you acting like I had to be "smoked out"?

You know, you can try to make me sound like some crazy, paranoid anti-government, anti-bank, anti-vaccine 'mother', but it's simply not true at all.

But honestly, you don't help yourself when you say things like "Pharm companies and banks rule the world".

Do I fully trust all of the above 100%? No--do you???

Nope... but when the things that they say can can be confirmed by others, including independent sources, they are believable. Like the old Russian maxim says "Trust, but verify."

Throwing out words like "fear-mongering", "anti xxxx", "conspiracy theorists", etc... is just a nasty jab at trying to discredit anything anybody who questions your views says. But, any intelligent person will not fall for that. This is a tactic that big business uses.... it's almost like the bully in grade school. I don't fall for that.

It's not a comment I make lightly. In the Popular Mechanics book, "Debunking 9/11 Myths", they included a chapter on research about common traits of "conspiracism". Let's see how many of these traits we've seen in these vaccine threads:
1) Marginalization of Opposing Views - The "official" notion that vaccines are safe and effective are not to be trusted. Governments lie, corporations lie, I work in Big Pharma therefore I'm impeached as an honest broker in this debate, etc.... CHECK!
2) Argument By Anomaly - Years of safety studies, studies that examine entire childhood populations of a country, studies performed by a number of different agencies involving millions of subjects are tossed aside in favor of anocdotes, small preliminary studies, and research from scientists with tainted track records. CHECK!
3) Slipshod Handling of the Facts - Claims that certain vaccines contain things they don't, treating raw adverse data as proof of causation, claiming that certain vaccines are uniquely "new" when they aren't, attributing deaths to a vaccine that are clearly not connected (car accidents, gun shots, chemical poisoning), etc. CHECK!
4) Repetition - Debunked information lives on. Google "Swine Flu vaccine Squalene" and see how many times the bogus claim is repeated still today. CHECK!
5) Circular Reasoning - In an attempt to allay fears about vaccine safety, in 2001 makers removed Thimerosal from most childhood vaccines. It had the opposite effect, and the anti-vaxxers used that move as proof that there is a serious health threat from vaccines and they press harder. "Heads, I Win - Tails, you lose!" CHECK!
6) Demonization - Drug companies are only interested in their greed, Governments and politicians are largely corrupt,... rinse, repeat. CHECK.
7) Guilt by Association - Any researcher that has received money from a drug company can't be trusted, nor can any study funded by a drug company. I work for the drug company, ditto. CHECK.
8) The Paranoid Style - I'm not going to address this one in regard to the DIS. Each person reading this can come to their own conclusions.

Yes, I am a mother, but I also have two college degrees, have been a professional career woman for almost 30 years, and I am not ignorant or stupid. I represent upper middle class America.

There are guys with PhD's that think we never landed on the moon... I know, I can't explain it either.

I am giving my opinion because I don't think people who work for big pharma should give people a false sense of security by trying to discredit everything everyone says

I don't discredit "everything", I try to discredit the "facts" that they post here... when warranted. If you were paying attention, I've said a couple of times in this thread that there are areas of legitimate debate about the use of Gardalis. Yes, I said something against a Pharma product... *gasp*!!!

do you really think Advil caused someone to commit suicide? ---by the way, maybe it triggered depression in that person which lead to the suicide....is depression one of the more common side effect of that drug? who knows.....you don't know all the "facts", do you??

You may be correct, and I'm sure that when they do the annual periodic reviews of the adverse reporting for Advil they will compare the rates of reported depression and suicides for Advil users against the larger population to see if there is a difference. If there is a discernible higher rate for Advil users, it will be given additional scrutiny. This is what recently happened with teens taking certain CNS drugs and monitoring data showed increased rates of suicides. Warnings were added to the drugs, and the approval for use in teens was removed. This was my whole point... you can't take the raw adverse reporting data (be it for Gardalis or Advil) and stop there and claim causation.

That sure makes a big difference when you look at ALL the facts, and dig deeper to get the whole picture. Why not look at the other side effects?

What makes you assume that I haven't looked at both sides? Is it the fact that I don't hold your views about vaccines, and therefore I must not have yet done my "research" properly. I have waded into the fever swamps of the Internet anti-vaccine world. I've visited them on my own, I've read the links and watched most of the videos posted here. But I also see the "holes" myself in most of what they preach and claim. I'm also open to still being convinced otherwise. Are you? What would make you change your mind about this vaccine or that one? How many more studies? How many more years of monitoring data? When the cardiac risk issues with Vioxx were first raised, I was skeptical. The early information looked "iffy" and I saw the media go all out... but as more data came in, I changed my mind and agreed that there was a likely problem.

 

[DawnCt1]

Wow.... what an emotional disgorgement you let loose. I can respond to facts, but not pure emotion.

I'm not going to respond to the litany of charges you've leveled at me with no evidence provided. Yes, I work in the industry and I've been open about that here on the DIS.

As for an "agenda" of coming here with the intent of trying to convince people that vaccines are safe... if you'll note, I haven't come rushing here to the DIS to start threads preaching the Gospel according to the CDC. Instead my involvement has been aimed at trying to counter the anti-vax fertilizer that's been sown here by others in the past week in an concerted effort to try and create doubt in the minds of honestly worried parents who are now finding themselves faced with the decision whether to vaccinate their children against the current raging flu pandemic, or not. I've witnessed the repetition of demonstrable falsehoods, the gross misinterpretation of medical facts, misuse of basic monitoring data, etc., etc., etc.

Oh, and BTW "kick-backs" (whether cash or junkets) to doctors have been illegal for a number of years now. Even more recently the major players in the Pharma industry stopped giving out trinkets like pens and coffee mugs to doctors and their staff too.

Now if you've got some facts you'd like to talk about, I'm "all ears"... Otherwise, you can return to spinning your anti-government, anti-medical community, anti-pharmaceutical (oh, and banks too) conspiracies as well as doing your "deep research".

Well said!

 

[DawnCt1]

I'll stick with the conclusions drawn by someone who actually worked on the vaccine.




Ok, one of the lead researchers.

Actually "worked" on the vaccine? What did she actually do? That is the point. Did she work in the lab? Probably not. Was she involved in actually clinical trials? Did she compile data? Did she review data? That are hundreds of physicians who "actually worked on the vaccine" that reach vastly different conclusions with regard to its value.

 

[DawnCt1]

Actually, there were 3 different quotes dealing with these issues:

"We don't know yet what's going to happen when millions of doses of the vaccine have been given and to put in place a process that says you must have this vaccine, it means you must be part of a big public experiment. So we can't do that until we have more data." - Dr. Diane Harper

"If we vaccinate 11 year olds and the protection doesn't last... We've put them at harm from side effects, small but real, for no benefit. The benefit to public health is nothing, there is no reduction in cervical cancers."
- Dr. Diane Harper

"It is silly to mandate vaccination of 11- to 12-year-old girls There also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue. This vaccine has not been tested in little girls for efficacy. At 11, these girls don't get cervical cancer - they won't know for 25 years if they will get cervical cancer. To mandate now is simply to Merck's benefit, and only to Merck's benefit." - Dr. Diane Harper

I find it interesting that a "rare" opinion is given equal weight against the FDA, the CDC and hundreds of actual scientist, physicians and clinicians that have been involved in collecting and interpreting the actual data, which states that this is a safe and effective vaccine that has the ability to save thousands of lives.

 

[rie'smom]

Actually "worked" on the vaccine? What did she actually do? That is the point. Did she work in the lab? Probably not. Was she involved in actually clinical trials? Did she compile data? Did she review data? That are hundreds of physicians who "actually worked on the vaccine" that reach vastly different conclusions with regard to its value.

She was a researcher on the vaccine so I'm thinking she is more qualified in her opinions on the vaccine that you or me.
We can knit pick all day long.

 

[Geoff_M]

That is one term I would love to see defined by Dr. Harper herself. There are many, many researchers involved with this vaccine which was tested world wide. "LEAD" is a relative term.

IIRC from the links posted, your suspicion is likely correct that her role is being overplayed. I believe her role was that of what's often known as "principal investigator" for some of the key field trials for Gardalis that were used as part New Drug Application (NDA). I don't believe that she was a Merck employee, but instead an outside investigator (working for a University of Missouri or Dartmouth) hired (though not drawing a salary) by both Merck and GSK to run field trials. That's doesn't make her a "nobody" nor should we dismiss what she said, but that also wouldn't make her "Ms. Gardalis" and there may be other investigators that also worked on these or other field trials that may disagree with some of her comments. Field trials are controlled by large documents known as "protocols" that contain very precise details about how the study will be conducted (selection criteria for the subjects, assignment to patient groups, blinding procedures, data that will be collected, analytical methods that will be used, and "pass/fail" criteria for the results). When the data is completed, and the numbers are run, the chips fall where they may. Those critical of Dr. Harper about "not speaking out" have to understand that there's very little room for "opinion" or "feelings" in the final study reports. That's done to remove bias from the findings. Either the data met the "pass" criteria or it didn't.

Update: I was correct... She was a PI for some of the studies. Here's an interesting article about her work from the Dartmouth Medical School's publication where she speaks glowingly about the HPV vaccines.

 

[DawnCt1]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";34149646]

These are the persons that need to have this vaccine....ones that will not pay attention.

:[/QUOTE]

Since the vaccine really should be initiated and completed by the time the girl, (and now boys) reach their sexual debute, who is to know who will or will not pay attention? This is vaccine that protects the responsible as well as the "irresponsible".

 

[DawnCt1]

I

Update: I was correct... She was a PI for some of the studies. Here's an interesting article about her work from the Dartmouth Medical School's publication where she speaks glowingly about the HPV vaccines.

Which really begs the question; Were her comments on Gardisil taken out of context to promote the 'writer's agenda'. Here are some key comments from the article you linked to.

Yet despite the limitations of the new vaccines, Harper supports their widespread use and believes that insurance companies should cover them. The vaccines—Merck's requires three shots that cost about $120 each—will be cost-effective, she says, "not necessarily in reducing the numbers of cancers in the U.S., but in reducing the whole abnormal Pap smear" cycle of follow-up tests and treatments. "All of that becomes extraordinarily expensive," she explains.
Harper's concern extends beyond economics, too. She sees the vaccines as a way to spare her own patients, plus thousands of other women, the psychological trauma of learning they have HPV—usually assumed to be a sexually transmitted infection—not to mention the physical pain of follow-up tests and treatments.

 

[Geoff_M]

Which really begs the question; Were her comments on Gardisil taken out of context to promote the 'writer's agenda'. Here are some key comments from the article you linked to.

There may be some quote cherry-picking, but I doubt that they are all twisted words. The Darmouth article was written about the time the product was launched. Perhaps she does have concerns about the way it's been marketed since, but I agree that some of the things she has been quoted are inconsistent at times.

 

[Ember]

I am not here to tell anybody what to do. I firmly believe we all have the right to make our own decisions. I think people should do research on both sides (not just one side) and, also, take a closer look at the so-called "credible sources" before you believe everything they say.

Make your own decision, and hope for the best....

The problem with this is that your average person is not educated in such a way to be able to make sense of many of the actual studies. This how so many things get twisted and misrepresented. (Please note that I am not saying people are stupid or uneducated, just lacking a specialized knowledge!) You need to have a fairly good working knowledge of the process of how studies are conducted and a strong knowledge of statistical analysis to read a lot of the information out there. I think this is why so many people rely on Google University.

I have two degrees, but neither of them was focused on either math or science. I've spent countless hours teaching myself the basics. I am married to a mathematical biologist and there are still many, many times I need help deciphering what the results of a study actually mean.

I agree completely though, that when making a decision that has implications such as choosing to vaccinate, that everyone should become an expert. Take the time, find the help you need, and learn everything you can from as many sources as you can.

Specific to this discussion, I suggest checking out this site. It's a brilliant visual representation of the available data:

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/how-safe-is-the-hpv-vaccine/

Edited to add: I did not get this vaccine (too old now, but not when it first came out). I was not convinced by what I read that it was right for me, even though I am generally pro-vaccination.

 

[Geoff_M]

Specific to this discussion, I suggest checking out this site. It's a brilliant visual representation of the available data:

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/how-safe-is-the-hpv-vaccine/

That site is truly beautiful! It surly helps point to the notion that "fear of outcome" isn't driving the concern.

 

[LuvCuteBoys]

Pharm companies and banks rule the world---that's how they get away with so much. It's all about politics and the almighty dollar.

Why did you drag the banking industry into your argument?

Now it seems to me that a vaccine that will reduce the cervical cancer rate by at least 60% will save 7200 women from hearing, "you have cervical cancer". It will save 2400 families from grieving over their wives, sisters and mothers. It will save 1.2 Billion dollars. Sounds like its "worth the price of admission to me". I believe that Dr. Harper's conclusions are wrong.

But what if somewhere down the road it's discovered that 60% of the girls who avoided cervical cancer now have some other debilitating, life-threatening reaction to the vaccine? I think that's the concern of those who are against the vax. I think in some ways, we're being played with. Because who isn't afraid of cancer? It's a hideous disease and I'm sure every parent would want to prevent their child from developing it. But would you really trade cancer for something else? Or would you trade one form of cancer for another?

That's the double-edged sword. Those who are in support of the vax think that the research trumps the fear of the unknown. Those who don't think that the unknown could be worse than the cancer.

I feel for all of you... it's hard to think that {maybe} there's this great thing available to us that could prevent a horrible disease, but on the other hand maybe the results could be worse than what it was developed to prevent in the first place.

[I have no dog in this fight... I have no children and I don't work for a pharmaceutical company. I am, however, a banker and I'm kinda tired from ruling the world]

But honestly, you don't help yourself when you say things like "Pharm companies and banks rule the world".

 

[luvmyfam444]

I am VERY much in favor of vaccines, yet this was one I said NO to as well for my daughter, now 16. I am not one to be scared by all the internet crap about certain vaccines, I read ALL the literature and decide for myself. My daughter has had ALL of her vaccines (meningitis vaccine will come before college) except THIS one. I just could not convince myself it was safe. My daughter typically gets fevers after any vaccine as it is, and I just couldn't convince myself the benefit was worth the risk for this one.

I'm glad I made that decision.

SInce you're well versed in the info that's out there what did you decide on the H1N1? Just curious. I'm actually the opposite against the shots unless absolutely necessary - BUT don't fight them either (those required for school & such)