E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSBy Rachael Rettner
MyHealthNewsDaily
The human papillomavirus vaccine provides a benefit to women even if they are not vaccinated, via a phenomenon known as herd immunity, a new study suggests.
Among the women in the study, there was a decrease in the percentage who were infected with the four HPV strains included in the vaccine (HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18) in the years after the vaccine was introduced, compared with earlier years.
This decrease in HPV prevalence was seen among both vaccinated and unvaccinated women, the researchers said.
The findings show that even with relatively low rates of women getting vaccinated, the vaccine produces some degree of herd immunity — protection of unvaccinated people that occurs because a critical portion of the population has been innoculated.
However, while the findings are encouraging, "This is not reason not to get vaccinated," said study researcher Dr. Jessica Kahn, a physician of adolescent medicine at Cincinnati Children's Hospital. Kahn noted that one in four unvaccinated participants in the study were infected with a high-risk strain of HPV. A woman can also protect her partner by getting vaccinated, Kahn said.
Because the study was conducted in just one community of mainly African American women, further research is needed to confirm the results and see if the findings apply to the population as a whole.
Herd immunity
The first HPV vaccine, called Gardasil and manufactured by Merck, was licensed for use in the United States in June 2006.
To study the effect of the vaccine, Kahn and colleagues analyzed information from two groups of sexually active women ages 13 to 26. One group consisted of 368 women who were not vaccinated, and who visited clinics in Cincinnati between 2006 and 2007. The second group consisted of 409 women who visited the clinics between 2009 and 2010, about 60 percent of whom had received at least one of the three shots in the HPV-vaccination series.
Overall, the percentage of women infected with one of the HPV strains included in the vaccine decreased from 31 percent in the group that visited the clinics between 2006 and 2007, to 13.4 percent in the group that visited in 2009 and 2010 — a 58 percent decrease.
Among women in the latter group, 9.9 percent of those who were vaccinated tested positive for HPV, while 15.4 percent of the unvaccinated women were infected.
The percentage of women infected with HPV strains not included in the vaccine increased after the vaccine's introduction, from about 60 percent to 75 percent, but the researchers said this finding should be interpreted with caution, because there is no biological reason this would happen so quickly.
Good news
The study is "good news that comes surprisingly soon," said Dr. William Schaffner, chairman of the department of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University. Schaffner said he would have expected a larger portion of the population needed to be vaccinated, including boys, to see herd immunity.
"It's impressive if other studies can confirm it," Schaffner said.
The study is a reminder that "vaccination is not just about the individuals getting vaccinated…it's about everyone else in the community," Schaffner said.
Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, said he would expect to see herd immunity against the strains in the vaccine starting at a vaccination rate of 40 percent, which is the national average.
The vaccine's effectiveness in reducing HPV prevalence is expected to translate into a decrease in cervical cancer in the community, Kahn said. (HPV is known to cause most cases of cervical cancer ).
Because of the high prevalence of HPV strains, the findings underscore the importance of vaccinating children before they become sexually active, when they are 11 or 12 years old. And the study shows that older women, who are recommended for "catch up" vaccination, also derive a benefit, Kahn said.
The study is published in the July 9 issue of the journal Pediatrics.
- 5 Dangerous Vaccination Myths
- 10 Medical Myths that Just Won't Go Away
- 1 in 4 Couples Share HPV Strains
More from Vitals:
For healthier kids, get a dog or cat, study suggests
Leave a Comment:
(HPV, is known to cause cervical dysplasia, a condition that is treatable and usually clears up on its own. If the dysplasia is left unchecked, it may lead to
most cases ofa form of cervical cancer ).At least they included "most cases of"....
Uhh, I'm not too sure they're using the acronym "HPV" correctly. HPV is the virus, not the vaccine, and it completely changes the meaning of this title.
I'm glad someone else noticed that. You can't use the term"HPV" interchangeably in this article when you mean one to be a virus and one to be a vaccine (human papillomavirus virus and human papillomavirus vaccine). The HPV vaccine, by the way, would be called just that…HPV vaccine.
With this small of a sample, how do they know the vaccinations are the cause of the decrease? As far as they know it could be something environmental killing the virus.
over 700 patients? Not exactly tiny...
a 58% decrease in the infection rate post introduction of the virus, and a 36% decrease in the rate of infection in the vaccinated group vs non vaccinated group
Why would you try and invoke some other cause when the logical conclusion is that the vaccine is helping?
Herd immunity is a well understood statistical phenomenon. As there are less women able to spread those particular strains of the virus, any given individual becomes less likely to contract that strain.
That being said, statistics matter very little to the individual. There is very little to lose by being vaccinated and a lot to be gained.
You're an idiot.
tell that to the unfortunate young women whose lives have been destroyed by Gardasil
I will teach my children about safe sex (same protection without the risk of an injection).
Is it not possible for the antibody to have been passed on from the inoculated women to the un-inoculated women through sexual contact with a common partner? IOW, can the antibody be carried and passed on just like the disease it kills?
Serious question for you accredited medical professionals out there, if any....
antibodies are not passed in bodily fluids. Also, some random persons antibodies wouldn't just work if they were somehow to be inserted in you
You can contract HPV without having sex. Touching one part and then the other and fooling around in underwear are enough to spread it.
Also your daughters could contract it form their husband who may unknowingly harbor it.
I thought anti bodies were passed in breast milk?
The article is a farce. The HPV vaccine only covers 4 strains of 56 that exist. It is a money maker for MERC pharmaceuticals with known side effects that can be very detrimental to women and young girls. The numbers above are straight percentages, they do not give the numbers of women in each group nor do they adequately convey numbers from history through today. The decline can also be attributed to women and girls having fewer sexual partners and more abstaining from sex until they are older. Numbers or statistics can be twisted to say anything; for example just by the numbers of the strains alone it has a 7% chance of preventing the strain a woman may get and if you have 50% of women in multiple partner relationships (way too high) and 25% are at risk from contracting an HPV strain, then statistically the vaccine is preventing about three quarters of a percent of the cases of HPV transfers. As another point, of the specific strains of HPV covered by the vaccine, only one has been linked to cervical cancer. So from a cancer prevention perspective it is well below a tenth of a percent of the female population it protects. But it is a heck of a money maker for MERC! Aren't you glad some states make it mandatory and so many Doctors advocate its use, even for non-sexually active women? Millions in profit through deceptive advertising! What a deal!!!
Yes, but those 4 strains are the ones that have been correllated to most cases of cervical cancer. There is a causal relationship (chemical, biological) that has been established for these strains. The literature is thorough, as is the research for the vaccine.
The HPV vaccine has the same known side effects as other vaccines, which are mainly caused by allergies to the INERT ingredients of the vaccine (e.g. eggs). I'm no defender of Big Pharma, but this sort of paranoid schtick about how vaccines are all about money and not at all about keeping people healthy is just ludicrous.
Oh, and by the way, your speculation that the cause could be women having fewer sexual partners and abstaining until they are older? The studies don't bear that out. If you think the researchers just neglected to account for such important factors that could influence those results, you clearly didn't do any of the required reading.
Those four strains cause 70+% of cervical cancers and 90+% of warts - not to mention most oral cancer and anal cancer Why do you think you get to go on a long, misinformed rant? You Jenny McCarthy types make me sick. Go get your head inspected.
"Dr." Sheppard
If you're going to cite NATURALNEWS.com as a place to go and inform yourself you may as well include the Psychic Friends Networks and some random guy at the end of the bar as credible sources also.
What's your doctorate in? Basket weaving?
Those four strains cause 70+% of cervical cancers and 90+% of warts - not to mention most oral cancer and anal cancer.
Source please? I'd like to read more about this.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV
Thanks for that. However:
High-risk HPV infection accounts for approximately 5 percent of all cancers worldwide (4). However, most high-risk HPV infections occur without any symptoms, go away within 1 to 2 years, and do not cause cancer. These transient infections may cause cytologic abnormalities, or abnormal cell changes, that go away on their own.
Same source.
what's your point?
Point is vaccine is not needed. There was no epidemic of cervical cancer in the U.S. before the vaccine. The CDC effectively marketed this highly expensive money making vaccine for merck with the HPV awareness campaign. The then head of the CDC, julie gerberding, now works for Merck as their vaccine chief.
.
Well, Eric, my point is this:
What are the current chances of an (american, I'll say american because I am one) woman contracting cancer as a result of having an HPV virus? What are the chances of dying of said cancer? What are the current chances of a male contracting it? Right now I think they're pretty low.
That risk has to be weighed against the contraindications of the vaccine and the severity of the injury associated with those side effects. There's some pretty severe consequences possible for those who have sensitivity to the vaccine.
So why would someone risk their (or their children's) health and quality of life to receive a vaccine that may give only partial coverage against a disease (cancer) one has only a small chance of contracting?
define "pretty low". And is a 10% risk of dying worth taking? How about a 5%? Especially compared to a miniscule risk of complication? Unless you are awful at math, the answer is no
And lets forget death as an endpoint for just a sec. Lets say you contract cervical cancer but don't die because of very frequent and regular (and expensive!) surveilence by your obgyn, with regular biopsies and pap smears
Is that worth not taking the shot?
The only contraindication is allergy. Maybe you mean complication. Which, again, is much, much lower than even the low chance of dying from cervical cancer
Again, unless you suck at math, that chance is much smaller than the risk of dying or other complications from cerivical cancer. Not to mention that those "severe consequences" are rarely permanent--unlike death and being labeled with cervical cancer
If you can follow the above, that question is answered
define "pretty low". And is a 10% risk of dying worth taking? How about a 5%? Especially compared to a miniscule risk of complication? Unless you are awful at math, the answer is no.
So give me a number. Am I more at risk for developing cancer than if I smoked a pack a week for 10 years? Visited a tanning bed twice a week? Drank a diet soda 5 days a week? Lived in a radon filled home for 5 years?
All these articles about this vaccine, and I've never seen what the current statistics are for women in America and HPV-related incidences of cancer. How many women are suffering from it? How many new cases are found, annually?
What we, the reading public is not getting, is a sense of perspective here. I don't want panic. I want perspective, so I can make a rational choice about the vaccine.
ZERO! See doctor you should know that context matters. One person could have zero risk while another could be relatively higher. Risk is not homogenous like pharmaceutical companies try to sell us. Cervical cancer has risk factors. This vaccine is bull. It's a money maker and wealth transfer vaccine that uses propaganda 101.
The Incidence of HPV-Associated Cancers
What is happening with incidence rates for HPV-associated cancers overall?
During 1998–2003, the incidence rate of HPV-associated cancers in the United States was 10.6 per 100,000 people. The top HPV-associated cancer sites were cervix, oral cavity and oropharynx, anus, vulva, penis, and vagina.1
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/what_cdc_is_doing/qa.htm
so it saves more people proportionally than seatbelts
Not bad...
so it saves more people proportionally than seatbelts
Not bad...
Saves them from what? From HPV? From cancer? From death? Where is that claim coming from?
Name one single person the HPV vaccine has saved.
1. From a potentially fatal disease
2. From having cancer
3. From a lifetime of annual pap smears, biopsies, and expensive doctor visits
4. From the worry over when and if the cancer will recur
5. From spreading STDs
need I continue?
The girls in the study this article cited...you know, the one you supposedly read?
need I continue?
Please do. You cite no sources, no statistics about anything. How does this vaccine save more lives proportionally than seat belts? How many lives have been saved by this vaccine, since when? How are you comparing this to seatbelt usage? Or are you just shooting off your mouth?
Not true. I used your source from the cdc that showed the incidence of HPV related cancers, as well as the source the article cited showing a reduction in HPV infection among vaccinated girls
First, I never said "more lives". I simply said saved. And I detailed what they were saved from in a subsequent post. But here are some stats
http://www.nhtsa.gov/PR/DOT-178-10/
http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv-vaccine-hcp.htm
In the US, speaking strictly from mortality standpoint, seatbelts saved more lives (partly since they save men too, whom this vaccine has no effect on)
But worldwide, where pap smears are not easily available, this vaccine saves many, many, many more
It was just an analogy. Relax
In the US, speaking strictly from mortality standpoint, seatbelts saved more lives (partly since they save men too, whom this vaccine has no effect on)
Except that's not correct. Gardisil is now being recommended for boys as well. Although from the article I can't see how they came to the conclusion it's safe and effective for males, since it doesn't say how long they've been testing. I assume not long.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46540077/?d__utma=154396583.525690890.1334088131.1341960164.1341962539.303&__utmb=154396583.27.10.1341962539&__utmc=154396583&__utmx=-&__utmz=154396583.1341836110.290.22.utmcsr=msnbc.msn.com|utmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmctr=http://www.newsvine.com/|utmcct=/id/48075660/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/&__utmv=154396583.|8=Earned%20By=newsvine%7Cnewsvine=1^12=Landing%20Content=Original=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=www.newsvine.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Original=1&__utmk=119211337
It is correct, you just misunderstood. The vaccine saves only female's lives. Its marketed to men to help reduce the spread of HPV to women.
The rest of my post I guess remains unrefuted?
How do you know they were going to get cervical cancer let alone die from cervical cancer? Are you sure you're a doctor? Sometimes you just don't think things through.
Maybe it's like you think you save everyone you from a heart attack because you prescribe statin drugs. You know every patient was going to die and YOU saved them. I know doctors can be arrogant and have an overblown sense of self, but for you to think you can predict the future is the height of arrogance. You must have a magical crystal ball.
So I say again. Name one girl saved by the gardasil vaccine. You are just stupid if you try and answer it again. It's an unanswerable question. People who deal with reality and reason understand this. So should real doctors. I swear you're not one.
It is correct, you just misunderstood. The vaccine saves only female's lives. Its marketed to men to help reduce the spread of HPV to women.
The claim, if you read the article, is this:
Clinical studies show HPV vaccines shield boys against genital warts and anal cancer, although the protection isn't complete.
Although who knows really, it seems they're saying anything right now to get this vaccine pushed into every corner of the perceived market.
But since all you've done in your posts to me is play games with semantics, yes, I think I'm pretty much done talking to you.
genital warts aren't fatal
Not even close to the number of deaths from cervical cancer--statistically insignificant
And since you can't seem to refute any of my points, can't say Im sorry to see you go
You haven't been following the marketing of this vaccine have you dr. eric? It is unethical to have one group of people to receive medicine to benefit another group and also assume the risks of that medication. In order to get around this ethical issue and get the vaccine into boys Merck had to find some semblance of a benefit. The rare anal cancer that is found in certain populations at risk. Voila!
Alas, your assesment of anal cancer and genital warts are correct.
Unfortunately HPV is not curable but may go un-symptomatic after a period of activity. It is responsible for the majority of cases of cervical cancer.
The logical out come tells us if the cases of HPV have decreased then the rate of cervical cancer will follow suit.
Robert-1126350
your "Name one girl saved..." is a nonsensical question and I feel you know it. When death rates drop due to a preventative measure we can measure the lives saved by the decrease in death rates. You like to quote that personal hygiene has done more to saves lives than vaccines.
I will therefore turn the question onto you, name one girl saved by washing her hands?
I like how the shots protection fades after age 28 (sarcasm) - that is why you don't even take the shot if you are that age. I completely agree with realistic. Not every woman that has hpv has an issue. I have 2 friends with it and so far so good and they are in their 40's. If they do get cervical cancer one day - it's still not proof the virus caused it. Women who don't have the virus get it too. The risks outweigh the supposed benefit. I just hope the government doesn't penalize/tax us if we don't have our daughters and sisters vaccinated. They certainly do push that. And it seems like they have the power now to do it. Scary.
There's a federal program that offers free or low cost HPV vaccines to females aged 9-18, it has been active for quite some time.
Thats not why. Its because the original study only included females up to 28 years of age. Does that mean the vaccine won't work if youre older? Not at all...it just wasn't studied. But no reason to think it wouldn't
The virus causes virtually all cervical cancers. And hey selfish moron, so what if your friends don't get cervical cancer? Ever wonder or think about the people they sleep with? Men are affected by HPV too - oral cancer, anal cancer, penile cancer... and oral cancer in men will outpace cervical cancer in women soon. Work on expanding your narrow, thoughtless little mind - you might actually get somewhere in life, dolt.
While I agree that Gardasil causes more harm than good, it is not true that ACA will allow mandates of any vaccine.
Gay men and even then it's extremely, extremely rare. Not enough to justify injecting millions of boys.
absolutely zero proof that this vaccine prevents cervical cancer. Average age of cervical cancer diagnosis is 49 yo. Avg age of death is 57. It will be 20-30 years before evidence is accumulated. I predict the results will not be impressive. Another strain will become the dominant one and the game of vaccine whack o mole will continue to fill the pharma/government coffers.
I checked that out and I found this on the cdc site -
Although women over age 26 years are not recommended to receive HPV vaccination, they should have cervical cancer screening as currently recommended
It just seems odd to me (which I am odd anyway!) that it's most effective for young girls for the most part and really not effective to start when older. I wonder what changes in the body would cause the vaccination to not be affective and or needed after 26? And I do wonder the long term affects. It's not like - as with any vaccination - there aren't issues - but again what kind of future will these girls have when they pass into their 30,'s, 40's - you get the idea. And how did they test that the vaccine even worked on humans if it's a mainly sexually transmitted disease. Wouldn't you have to purposely have relations with someone you knew for a fact had the virus to ensure the vaccine worked? You'll have to forgive. I just do not trust the pharma companies and when TX tried to make it mandatory - yeah that grabbed my attention.
see my post above
I t is sad how much suspicion is directed at scientists who are reporting statistical information and hypothesizing or theorizing about what the data might mean. It would be hilarious to study the anti thought phenomena that holds sway with so many Americans but for the fact that no-nothingism will inevitably lead to nothingism in which there ain't nuting alive on the planet anymore.
"sexually active WOMEN 13 to 26 years old". I'm a liberal, but there are NO 13 YEAR OLD WOMEN. Those are children or girls, barely teenagers. In my state, 13 year olds can't give consent for sex, even with other 13 year olds. 16 is the age of consent, before that , it's rape-child rape. No way around that one. But then again, my heavily conservative, Republican BIL is actively pursuing the idea his 17 year old daughter (my niece) "needs a man to take care of her". So maybe to some conservative daddies and mommies, putting 13 years olds out "for men" made sense.
Well that was a nice rant, but you can get HPV from digital stimulation and oral stimulation. The point isn't about consent, the point is that you are supposed to get the vaccine BEFORE you become sexually active, ideally - so there's zero risk that you've been exposed to one of the strains. You might be liberal, but you clearly have a problem with the reality of human sexuality. The vast majority of human beings have sexual experiences before reaching the age of majority. Get over it and pay attention to the science - the only thing that matters in this article.
HPV is a sexually transmitted virus that can cause genital warts and is considered a risk factor for developing cervical cancer. However, according to the National Institutes of Health, in over 90% of HPV infections, the disease is harmless and goes away without treatment. Moreover, the vaccine, developed by the drug manufacturer Merck, prevents only 4 of the over 30 strains of HPV which are sexually transmitted. Will vaccinations give adolescents a false sense of security? Scarborough notes, "Experts with the American Academy of Pediatrics aren't recommending mandatory HPV vaccination. They believe too little is known about the vaccine's effectiveness or possible side effects." "But Merck -- which stands to make billions from the vaccine -- is very aggressively pushing mandatory vaccination.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mandatory-hpv-vaccination-for-texas-6th-graders-bypasses-democracy-violates-parental-rights-and-assaults-morality-54481852.html
givemeabook- so if two 13 year olds are fooling around, they're both guilty of statutory rape? Not that I agree with 13 year olds having sex, but you can't really blame one over the other unless force of some kind was used.
I wanted to get vaccinated but the V.A.--heck, they're eager to shoot me up with a new flu vaccine every year--but apparently they won't give the shot to anyone over 29. (And just for the record, no, I am not yet sexually active. Can I blame my Catholic upbringing for that one? Damn you, Pope!)
Anyway, apparently by the age limitations, those over 30 aren't at risk for HPV? Really? It's absurd to me. You have sex, you're at risk. Why they won't allow someone over the arbitrary age limit to protect themselves is beyond understanding. It's not like I'm a paranoid 60-year-old who just wants to get shots because they exist, or even a horny 50-year-old who is sleeping around with college kids. I have the requisite body parts that can get cancerous. It only makes sense to try and protect them.
This is what happens when the government has control over vaccines.
Why can't I and my kids be vaccinated for smallpox and Anthrax if I am willing to pay for it?
This should be a personal decision; not a government decision.
We must vote out both the Democrats AND the Republicans as both parties are destined
to regulate us into the stone age.
Please vote LIBERTARIAN with me; even if only this once. Lets bring back our FREEDOM
Because the cost of producing the vaccine only becomes reasonable if it's mass-produced. Exactly how much would you be willing to pay per vaccine?
Standup - you might be able to get it if you pay full price for the vaccine. It isn't covered after age 26, because most women have had enough sexual contact at that point that they have likely already been exposed, thus rendering the vaccine ineffective. If the vaccine isn't effective, it turns into a money loss rather than a money gained for the covering agency. It's all a numbers game.
Like it was mentioned above, it has bot been studied in women over the age of 26 so they can't very well say it will work in women older then that. It might but they can't say it does. And besides, most women have had sex by then. :P
What I can gather from the study and herd immunity is this group of women are screwing the same guys, a herd of cows has one bull that can mate. It's sad that 13 year old girls are having sex, I am an advocate of condoms because it has a high rate or preventing all STD's and pregnancies.
I am in favor of NORPLANTs for those who want them.
I would not give that vaccine to my worst enemy! So sad how many people are now injured for life because of Gardisil! The studies I have read lately, int eh past 6-12 months, have shown an INCREASE in dysplaysia, cancer, seizures, and migraines in those who had one or more in this series of shots.
Please excuse my typo above.
What a biased and non-informative article. If "herd immunity" was a reliable and detectable phenomena it would apply to all vaccines so why bother to attach the concept to this drug survey? Do the drug makers have to be so obvious?
Um, well yes they do. If you can't tell, plenty of people are anti-Gardisil. This is just letting the public know that the vaccine is being effective at reducing the prevalence of these dangerous strains. And that if your condom rips, slips, or whatever, the likeliness of being infected is "lower" (due to herd immunity), albeit still a considerably high probability in general.
And yes, the public was outraged about the polio and influenza vaccines too. And yes some did die from the vaccines. It's not possible to predict the effects of a vaccine of every person's individual biological makeup. The VAST MAJORITY of the public however, weathered the vaccines just fine and lived free from infection.
Why are we not vaccinating men as well as women? That would slow the spread of the virus even more.
Who is "we"?
Vaccination is a choice. It would be unethical for "you" to vaccinate someone against informed consent or their permission. It is unethical for "we" to vaccinate a man for a a cancer he can not get and the vaccine has not been proven to reduce.
I would love it if these articles actually listed
1) who paid for the research
2) who conducted the research
3) how big the study was
Without that information I just don't feel I can look at any of these short cheerleading for big pharma articles with anything but a great deal of skeptism.
Dr's need to get on board with the idea that we aren't stupid, we are interested in our health and that no we aren't going to take their word for it.
The pharma/government/vaccine machine has had problems with upatake of this vaccine. That is the reason for this "study". They are pulling out all stops to try and convince people and trust them with this vax.
My question is what is the formula they use for herd immunity? They talk out of both sides of their mouths when trying to sell vaccines. They complain(with no causal evidence) about the unvaccinated when there is 95% uptake of a particular vaccine. Then they turn around and brag about herd immunity with 40% uptake. I bet there's not even 40% uptake. A fabricated guestimate to create the bandwagon effect.
Injuries caused by vaccines
Yes. Individuals thought to be injured by the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine may be eligible for compensation from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) as of February 1, 2007. This coverage permits individuals to file a claim for compensation beginning on February 1, 2007. To be eligible for compensation, claims must be filed within one of the following periods: within 3 years after the first symptom of the vaccine injury; or within 2 years of the vaccine-related death and 4 years after the start of the first symptom of the vaccine-related injury from which the death occurred; or 2 years from the date the vaccine is covered for injuries or deaths that occurred up to 8 years before the date the vaccine is covered. The HPV vaccine is covered by the VICP as of February 1, 2007 and claims have to be filed by February 2, 2009 for injuries or deaths that occurred on or after February 1, 1999 that do not qualify under the other filing periods. Although two years from the date of February 1, 2007 would be February 1, 2009, under the current Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, the deadline under section 2116(b) of the PHS Act would be February 2, 2009 because February 1, 2009, falls on a Sunday.
hahaha
a LAW FIRM is your source for possible medical injury?
That's like asking the KKK what they think of obama...
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)
As a doctor, how do you recognize and respond to vaccine injury? How do you scientifically differentiate or do you just dismiss vaccine injury? What about your peers? What is the standard? It appears to be just dismiss and deny without any scientific or clinical rigor? Can you be sued for vaccine injury? Is it just a he said/she said defense?
Ive never had to respond because Ive never seen it. And yes, id recognize it. Nothing even remotely close has ever come my way
Using medical education and common sense.
same answer
the community, as well as established guidelines from AAP, ACP, AAFP, etc
No. in fact, there is no "scientific or clinical rigor" in that comment
I can be sued for anything. Can I lose for it? probably not since it is well established that vaccines do more good than harm.
Can I be sued for recommending against the vaccine? Yes, and Id probably lose
No. It is based on community standard and established guidelines as I said above
What does it look like. Did they show a video in school?
Wrong answer!
So I see it's a CYA issue. Like the overprescribing of unnecessary antibiotics. It's easier for you to defend the RX than the lack of RX.
what does severe vaccine injury look like doctor? Can you answer that?
We read books and had lecture. Mostly allergic
Disagree. and the evidence is with me
No. Wrong. I explained to you that vaccines help, and that's why theyre recommended. I can't make it simpler
What does it look like? What does vaccine induced encephalitis look like? And how do you know it was caused by the vaccine?
Mostly allergic
Uh, Doctor, what does that look like? What does a serious vaccine injury look like? How do you differentiate it from a coincidental incident?
It varies. Mostly local swelling, erythema, or irritation. Occasionally systemic body aches, malaise. Very rarely an anaphylactic response
anaphylaxis
The first intelligent question you have asked. First, you need a biologically plausible mechanism. Then you need large sample size--retrospective would be ok, but prospective is usually better. Then you see if the reaction of interest is more common in the vaccine group than the placebo/non vaccine group.
If you do find a reaction that is more common in the vaccine group with a biologically plausible mechanism, you study it. How long does it take to develop, what are the signs/symptoms, are there any predisposing risk factors that the patients had in common,etc
Then you see how closely your patient fits in that pattern
No no no. I mean the patient right in front of you. How do you determine? How do you make a clinical decision with your patient that has been severely vaccine injuredYou are a sucker for questions you don't know the answer to aren't you?
So if a child is developing normally they get a shot, spike a fever, go into convulsions, regress with brain inflammation, never are the same again, you have to go study a text book to find out if it was THE vaccine. And if you can't find a "plausible mechanism" with you limited knowledge then if can't be the vaccine? Is this how vaccine injury denial works?
So what does that look like? How are you personally prepared to recognize a severe vaccine injury? Do you just smirk and dismiss all serious consequences as temporal? What about chronic problems? What long term RCTs for safety do you rely on?
Is vaccine safety knowledge comprehensive and exhausted? Do you fell that we know everything there is to know on vaccine safety and efficacy?
Yes, yes, yes. I'm telling you how with the patient right in front of you. If he has a reaction a minute after you give the vaccine, its pretty good circumstantial evidence
But if he has a febrile illness a month, 6 months, or a year later the only way to know is to be scientific about it
Or you could be a typical anti-vaccine nutjob and just blame the vaccine
No. Its how science works. Its how any side effect or complication is handled--not just with vaccines
asked and answered multiple times now. I can't make it simpler for you
How are you? I explained how I was earlier. I am not going to repeat myself
No. But that cuts both ways.
Now why can't you admit that the bs database you posted is just that? No, i mean NO attempt to be scientific, or look for causal mechanisms. Just a death/adverse reaction--must be the vaccine
How convenient
HPV vaccine injury reports
HPV Vaccine VAERS Reports March 2012
Not exactly a stellar track record.
a) Thats a bs propaganda website. Try finding those same stats from a legit source
b) What is the link between the deaths and the vaccine? Is it causal or just temporal? If I got the vaccine then got hit by a bus, did the vaccine cause my death robert? Your website would love to claim it did. Don't be so easily fooled
c)how is cervical cancer an adverse reaction to the vaccine? Unless you are claiming that somehow the vaccine caused cancer?
Thats a mighty strong claim with zero evidence to back it up
If you passed out (syncope is a common side effect) while walking across the street and a bus then subsequently runs over you then YES. It is causal. If you pass out while driving because of the vaccine and then die in a car accident then YES it was causal.
citation? Or do you project? I vote you project....a lot. BTW it's not my website.
Ever heard of a logical fallacy called a strawman argument? You lack critical thinking skills. Not good for a doctor.
show me any evidence that syncope is "common". Plus, what if I didn't have syncope...what then?
Your own website. It just lists deaths--no evidence of any link to even attempt and show causation.
Not only do you not get a vote, but you are not important enough for it to count. Not to mention that you are severely underqualified to give any diagnosis
Ever hear of ad hominem? I didn't use strawman---stop using words if you don't understand them
Says the Doctor king to his subjects.
I think I'm getting the picture of how you would deal with a parent of a vaccine injured child.
No. Says eric to robert
Is the parent as rude to me as you have been?
Either be civil, or quit whining
But this is typical robert. I hit you with a very good point--your website makes no effort to show causation, or even correlation. It just posts deaths that occured in vaccinated patients for gulliable people like yourself to make the assumption that the two are related
And what do you do? Change the subject, deflect with ad hominem and false claims of logical fallacies, all the while dancing around the fact that you cannot answer a simple question
.
NO one knows how long this vaccine works not even Merck. How will they determine when boosters are recommended? When vaccinated people keep getting HPV infections. What about gaps in vaccine coverage. If one gets this vaccine at age 12 but it wears off by age 19 and then one contracts HPV at age 24 then this vaccine was a waste of money and exposure to unnecessary pharmaceutical risk.
Agreed Robert!! Check out my comment below, 90% of HPV cases are cleared up naturally by the body's OWN immune system.
Viruses never truly "clear up".
I'vfe never heard of anything so stupid in my life.
I love how certain people have been tpecast of a "critical portion" of the population. What the heck does that mean? The women most likely to have sex?? Well maybe a woman had 12 partners one year, ( so she is a critical portion of the population ) then got marrried the next year and only has one partner. So I guess she is no longer a critical portion now. What odd use of language.
Merk Pharmaceuticals actually won an award for CREATING a market for the Gardasil vaccine they came up with. Makes you think huh? The CDC website actually says "in 90% of cases the body's immune system will clear HPV naturally"
The risks associated with getting the vaccine are too great for me to risk my daughters health. I'm not on a soapbox, I just encourage people to BE INFORMED before you chose any medical procedure. Here is a copy from the CDC website directly:
What sorts of mild to moderate adverse events have been reported?
The majority of reported adverse events following HPV vaccination have been considered minor. Reports have included pain and swelling at the injection site, fever, dizziness, and nausea. Reports of people fainting have also been received.
Fainting is common after injections, especially in pre-teens and teens. Falls that occur after someone faints can cause serious injuries, such as head injuries. To help prevent injuries, CDC and FDA recommend sitting or lying down for 15 minutes after vaccination.
Top of page
What sorts of serious adverse events* have been reported?
Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), which is a rare disorder that causes muscle weakness, has been reported. To date, there is no evidence that Gardasil causes GBS.
People have reported blood clots after getting Gardasil. These clots have occurred in the heart, lungs, and legs. Most (over 90%) of these people had a risk of getting blood clots, such as such as smoking, obesity or taking oral contraceptives (the birth control pill).
Some deaths have been reported to VAERS. All reports of death are reviewed by medical doctors at the CDC or FDA. There have been no patterns of death reports that would suggest they were caused by the vaccine.
Questions remain about this vaccine. Below is the story of Jenny, whose parents had no doubts whatsoever when they had the shots administered to their young daughter.
http://www.jenjensfamily.blogspot.com/
there is also a documentary being made called "one ore girl" about the harm this vaccine can cause. :( very sad. I'll take my chances with HPV