• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

Gardasil Researcher: Gardasil Will Do Little To Reduce Cervical Cancer


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 15 November 2009 - 04:08 PM


Gardasil Researcher Drops A Bombshell


Harper: Controversal Drug Will Do Little To Reduce Cervical Cancer Rates

By Susan Brinkmann, For The Bulletin
Sunday, October 25, 2009 Dr. Diane Harper, lead researcher in the development of two human papilloma virus vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, said the controversial drugs will do little to reduce cervical cancer rates and, even though they're being recommended for girls as young as nine, there have been no efficacy trials in children under the age of 15.

Dr. Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the University of Missouri, made these remarks during an address at the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination which took place in Reston, Virginia on Oct. 2-4. Although her talk was intended to promote the vaccine, participants said they came away convinced the vaccine should not be received.

"I came away from the talk with the perception that the risk of adverse side effects is so much greater than the risk of cervical cancer, I couldn't help but question why we need the vaccine at all," said Joan Robinson, Assistant Editor at the Population Research Institute.

Dr. Harper began her remarks by explaining that 70 percent of all HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment within a year. Within two years, the number climbs to 90 percent. Of the remaining 10 percent of HPV infections, only half will develop into cervical cancer, which leaves little need for the vaccine.

She went on to surprise the audience by stating that the incidence of cervical cancer in the U.S. is already so low that "even if we get the vaccine and continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in the US."

There will be no decrease in cervical cancer until at least 70 percent of the population is vaccinated, and even then, the decrease will be minimal.

Apparently, conventional treatment and preventative measures are already cutting the cervical cancer rate by four percent a year. At this rate, in 60 years, there will be a 91.4 percent decline just with current treatment. Even if 70 percent of women get the shot and required boosters over the same time period, which is highly unlikely, Harper says Gardasil still could not claim to do as much as traditional care is already doing.

Dr. Harper, who also serves as a consultant to the World Health Organization, further undercut the case for mass vaccination by saying that "four out of five women with cervical cancer are in developing countries."

Ms. Robinson said she could not help but wonder, "If this is the case, then why vaccinate at all? But from the murmurs of the doctors in the audience, it was apparent that the same thought was occurring to them."

However, at this point, Dr. Harper dropped an even bigger bombshell on the audience when she announced that, "There have been no efficacy trials in girls under 15 years."

Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, studied only a small group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated, but did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of effective HPV antibodies.

This is not the first time Dr. Harper revealed the fact that Merck never tested Gardasil for safety in young girls. During a 2007 interview with KPC News.com, she said giving the vaccine to girls as young as 11 years-old "is a great big public health experiment."

At the time, which was at the height of Merck's controversial drive to have the vaccine mandated in schools, Dr. Harper remained steadfastly opposed to the idea and said she had been trying for months to convince major television and print media about her concerns, "but no one will print it."

"It is silly to mandate vaccination of 11 to 12 year old girls," she said at the time. "There also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue."

When asked why she was speaking out, she said: "I want to be able to sleep with myself when I go to bed at night."

Since the drug's introduction in 2006, the public has been learning many of these facts the hard way. To date, 15,037 girls have officially reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). These adverse reactions include Guilliane Barre, lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many others. The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported deaths.

Dr. Harper also participated in the research on Glaxo-Smith-Kline's version of the drug, Cervarix, currently in use in the UK but not yet approved here. Since the government began administering the vaccine to school-aged girls last year, more than 2,000 patients reported some kind of adverse reaction including nausea, dizziness, blurred vision, convulsions, seizures and hyperventilation. Several reported multiple reactions, with 4,602 suspected side-effects recorded in total. The most tragic case involved a 14 year-old girl who dropped dead in the corridor of her school an hour after receiving the vaccination.

The outspoken researcher also weighed in last month on a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that raised questions about the safety of the vaccine, saying bluntly: "The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer."

Ms. Robinson said she respects Dr. Harper's candor. "I think she's a scientist, a researcher, and she's genuine enough a scientist to be open about the risks. I respect that in her."

However, she failed to make the case for Gardasil. "For me, it was hard to resist the conclusion that Gardasil does almost nothing for the health of American women."


http://thebulletin.u...16766677720.txt

The story was later withdrawn when Dr Harper denied all the quotes attributed to her.
quotes her as follows:

"I did not say that Cervarix was as deadly as cervical cancer. I did not say that Cervarix could be riskier or more deadly than cervical cancer.

I did not say that Cervarix was controversial, I stated that Cervarix is not a 'controversial drug'. I did not 'hit out' – I was contacted by the press for facts. And this was not an exclusive interview."


http://www.guardian....ress-newspapers

#2 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 15 November 2009 - 04:16 PM

"The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer." Primary source?

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this MEDICINES advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 rwac

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 15 November 2009 - 04:32 PM

According to the CDC, there were about a 1000 "serious" adverse events.

As of September 1, 2009, more than 26 million doses of Gardasil were distributed in the United States.

As of September 1, 2009, there were 15,037 VAERS reports of adverse events following Gardasil vaccination in the United States. Of these reports, 93% were reports of events considered to be non-serious, and 7% were reports of events considered serious.


http://www.cdc.gov/v...V/gardasil.html


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


http://www.cdc.gov/c...cal/statistics/

So, at the very least, the rate of serious adverse event and cervical cancer are of the same order of magnitude.

Edited by rwac, 15 November 2009 - 04:42 PM.


#4 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 15 November 2009 - 09:07 PM

However, VAERS can be quite deceiving. To be sure one must compare incidence of side-effects with the general population.
"The most recent update on adverse events was published by JAMA and looked at data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), covering 12,424 reported adverse events after about 23 million doses of vaccine between June 2006 and December 2008. Most adverse effects were minor and not greater than background rates compared with other vaccines, the exception being higher rates for syncope and venous thromboembolic events."

http://en.wikipedia....Gardasil#Safety

Gotta love the inconsistency of wikipedia, nice non-sequitur:

"The benefit of Gardasil is being debated for populations that are well screened by pap smears; thus in the US the death rate for cervical cancer is low (3/100,000 women) which is similar to the rate of serious side effects events reported for Gardasil (3.4/100,000 doses distributed)."
Only the incidence of serious side-effects which are not explained by noise matters (i.e. only thromboembolic events if they reported correctly). All other comparisons are rather unfair (although, one may consider under-reporting of side-effects).

Edited by kismet, 15 November 2009 - 09:10 PM.


#5 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,076 posts
  • 2,001
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 15 November 2009 - 09:45 PM

Some other discussions about the HPV vaccine with typical back and forth about freedom, efficacy, safety questions...some flaming.


Should the vaccine be required?



Health Ranger says vaccine is a fraud. Many Imminst members disagree.


#6 rwac

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 15 November 2009 - 09:57 PM

However, VAERS can be quite deceiving. To be sure one must compare incidence of side-effects with the general population.
"The most recent update on adverse events was published by JAMA and looked at data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), covering 12,424 reported adverse events after about 23 million doses of vaccine between June 2006 and December 2008. Most adverse effects were minor and not greater than background rates compared with other vaccines, the exception being higher rates for syncope and venous thromboembolic events."


Why do you consider that adverse events "not greater than ... other vaccines" as not being problem ?

The comparison needs to be made with the risk of cervical cancer to see if the vaccine is a better risk.

#7 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 16 November 2009 - 10:08 PM

Why do you consider that adverse events "not greater than ... other vaccines" as not being problem ?

I did not interpret the sentence the way you do (the ellipsis being the important part). I think they're saying that - like for other vaccines - most side-effects are not more frequent than expected from background rates (i.e. just noise). Someone gotta check the JAMA article.

Edited by kismet, 16 November 2009 - 10:09 PM.


#8 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 16 November 2009 - 10:52 PM

The comparison needs to be made with the risk of cervical cancer to see if the vaccine is a better risk.

From the numbers you provided, it looks like it is a better risk, by a factor of four. I don't think it should be mandatory, though.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this MEDICINES advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#9 rwac

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 17 November 2009 - 12:46 AM

From the numbers you provided, it looks like it is a better risk, by a factor of four. I don't think it should be mandatory, though.


Ah, but Gardasil protects against 2 viral strains which cause 70% of all cancers.
(source: http://www.gardasil.com/)
So if Gardasil was 100% effective, which is by no means clear, 30% of cervical cancer would occur anyway.

So we'd have to compare

(risk of taking gardasil + risk of developing cancer anyway) to (risk of develping cancer without gardasil).

That would mean gardasil is a better risk approximately by a factor of two.

It starts getting closer ...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users