What is it about the HPV vaccine that brings out the cranks and the religious zealots? .
Reading the Sunday Telegraph yesterday (link) I was surprised to read that there had supposedly been a huge rise in the number of adverse reactions to the vaccine, with the paper citing a whopping 1600 per cent increase this year (link).
That at least is somebody’s interpretation of figures from NSW. When you actually look at the figures they actually refer to reactions for all vaccines, which are said to have increased from 70 to 204 last year compared to the year before, (a three fold increase sounds much less dramatic). The director of communicable diseases in NSW Dr Jeremy McAnulty says the reports represent minor non-life threatening reactions to vaccines.
But some groups are focusing specifically on the HPV vaccine and suggesting that it may be harming many young women. The person quoted in the article is “health researcher” Melinda Tankard Reist from the ‘Women's Forum Australia’. Now where have I heard of that name before? Surely not the same Melinda Tankard Reist who was the long time advisor to Senator Brian Harradine on matters relating to issues such as RU486 and emergency contraception? I think the term pro-abstinence/anti-promiscuity lobbyist would better describe Ms Tankard Reist’s activities.
The HPV figures also prompted a predictable response from the anti-vaccination campaigner Meryl Dorey, who described the HPV vaccine as “the most dangerous vaccine released to date” in a press release (link) from her Australian [anti-] Vaccination Network.
While it would be easy to dismiss the AVN as cranks, they are very effective in gaining publicity for their anti-vaccination messages and scare campaigns. They also appear to have a new strategy for creating headlines by “stacking” reports vaccine reactions to official agencies. The group rather oddly claims to have “received approval from ADRAC (the Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee) to report vaccine reactions on behalf of individuals” and then says “if we have a larger number of reactions reported to us, the media may take an interest”.
With an approach like that you have to wonder whether any reported increase in vaccine reactions is real or due to reporting bias.
Comments
...7, 8, 9, 10. Must. Fight. Urge. To Release. Merciless. Rant. This blog attracts a broader church than I imagined! "Write it, and they will come" Posted by Luke on Friday, 18 July 2008
What they're really upset about is that the threat of disease can't be held over women's heads anymore as punishement for sex. These same crackpots also can't stand the birth control pill because it can prevent pregnancy. Because after all, only men are allowed to have sex for enjoyment. Women should be punished with a baby or a nasty STI. If men could get cancer from HPV this would not be an issue. Posted by TK on Saturday, 12 July 2008
I think the HPV vaccine is long overdue and we should be considering giving it to males next. I work in a large general practice and you would be astonished at the number of pap smears that come back with some strain of HPV. Not treated this may lead to cervical cancer. Some of our girls have had minor reactions to the vaccine like nausea and only one fainted (was this from the vaccine or some other reason?). Does anyone remember a disease called polio? What would have happened if people were anti-vaccination back then? How many people die in 3rd world countries because they do not have access to vaccines? By the way, the dr who invented the vaccine lives in Australia and worked on it for many years. I don't think he did this because he was waiting for a big payout from the drug companies. My thanks go to him and his colleagues. Posted by Elle on Friday, 11 July 2008
If it was your own daughter that was rendered autistic or died, the same daughter you may have put all your hopes, dreams and life into, waiting to see the day that she gets married, has a family, sharing these life experiences with her, only to have this potential taken away in the small space of time it takes to inject this Gardasil vaccine, then I believe you may think differently.
But until this time Mr Woodhead your opinion is without care or compassion, you hide behind skewed statistics that reinforce your particular agenda and belittle the other statistics that contradict your argument. You may do this for greater media prominence or to bolster your website database, Im not sure. What I am sure about is that a cavalier attitude like yours will only facilitate more harm to girls who take Gardasil in the future instead of generating concern amonsgt fellow doctors and specialists.
Until it happens to your daughter you will not care a hoot! One death or harmful reaction is enough, you should not belittle these occurrences. You might also find that these occurrences may be linked to another problem yet to be identified, but with your ignorance you through the baby out with the bathwater! Posted by Michael on Tuesday, 8 July 2008
How can you think this way??? Can you not see that these drug companies stand to make millions/trillions.Do you not have any gut feelings and I would be suprised if you have children.I suppose the question is IF GARDASIL IS SO SAFE CAN I GIVE YOU AN INJECTION .?? Posted by Vanessa on Tuesday, 8 July 2008
The trouble with you Mr. Woodhead is that you have sawdust for a brain. You won't like that but you are more than ready to condemn others, so if the bucket fits wear it. I think you are one of those God haters who does not know the difference between right and wrong. You have probably spent so much time being programmed by Big Pharma that you do not know any better. Why not spend a few hours by typing in "CDC Knew of Link" or "Eli Lilly Knew" or "Autism lin with Vaccines" to see if you can break the spell. There has been many trying to reveal the dangers of vaccines for over 50 years, but it is only now with the freedom of the internet that we can voice our opinions. Thousands have been damaged for life by vaccines. I hope that you can come to the truth and when you do may God bless you abundantly in your fight to finally reveal the horrors of vaccination. Posted by Beth Patten on Tuesday, 8 July 2008
The TGA reports on 4 July that:"The overall level of reporting for Gardasil, following the distribution of approximately 3.7 million doses in Australia, is very low and consistent with that for other new vaccines and rates reported from other countries."
"There have been 12 reports of anaphylaxis and 91 reports of urticarial reactions (hives) in Australia following Gardasil. The current estimated rate of anaphylaxis based on doses given in Australia is 3.2 per million. The rates for other vaccines given to children and adolescents range from 0 to 3.5 per million doses in international studies."
Posted by Michael on Tuesday, 8 July 2008
Not all objections are cranky. If you pull batch 0187u out of VAERS and do the correct statistical science that is needed, you'll find that it has 6.3 times the life-threatening reactions of all other batches combined. This is statistically significant, and is the batch that one girl - now dying - received. Even more interestingly, you find that fully half of the life-threatening cases have a strong history of allergies - and most of them are to antibiotics. Why are rare allergies so common in these severe cases? Perhaps it is the fact that antibiotics -and yeast among other hosts not even specified in the Gardasil patent - are used in the manufacturing process and remain in trace levels that are sufficient to cause anaphylaxis. This is not usually a problem in vaccines that correctly identify their contents. However, the Gardasil product information sheets are unique, it seems, in omitting these small but vital contraindications, which may explain the rise in NSW which, while numerically small, is statistically significant in itself. Posted by Travis on Monday, 7 July 2008
