More nonsense about HPV vaccine

[Pebble]

PCC have confirmed that they are investigating this article,will update on progress.

I note the offending article is no longer available on line, I wonder if that means anything.

[bindeweede]

Have peeps read Ben Goldacre's comments?

http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/ja...cer/#more-1374

[Julia]

Another winner from Ben Goldacre! If I were the supposedly anti-vax Professor I'd be looking into the possibility of suing the Express for libel.

[bindeweede]

PCC have confirmed that they are investigating this article,will update on progress.

I note the offending article is no longer available on line, I wonder if that means anything.

All t'best with your complaint. Inevitably, there are some modest criticisms of the PCC.

http://www.septicisle.info/2009/07/p...till-weak.html

[Pebble]

Have peeps read Ben Goldacre's comments?

http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/ja...cer/#more-1374

Thanks for this, probably explains why PCC have decided to take this moderately seriously:


The article has now disappeared from the Express website, and Professor Harper has complained to the PCC. “I fully support the HPV vaccines,” she says. “I believe that in general they are safe in most women. I told the Express all of this.”

[DrS]

It turns out that Natalie Morton, the 14-year-old who died after receiving a cervical cancer vaccination, had an undiagnosed tumour in her heart.

An inquest at Coventry heard that her condition was so rare a pathologist had never seen it in a child before.
Deputy coroner for Coventry Louise Hunt found that Natalie's death was not linked to the HPV vaccine and recorded a verdict of natural causes.
She said: "Natalie had a previously unrecognised, extensive tumour of the heart which ultimately caused her death. It was a death that could have happened at any time."
Pathologist Alexander Kolar told the inquest the 15cm (5.9in) tumour was a malignant lymphoma, which was aggressive and growing rapidly.
BBC

Moreover, far from showing no prior symptoms, the article reports the girl's father as saying that she had been unwell for three months prior to receiving the vaccine.

[Pebble]

It turns out that Natalie Morton, the 14-year-old who died after receiving a cervical cancer vaccination, had an undiagnosed tumour in her heart.

Moreover, far from showing no prior symptoms, the article reports the girl's father as saying that she had been unwell for three months prior to receiving the vaccine.

Thanks for the update. The PCC went with the complaint from Prof Harper, so I have not had direct feedback.

[Mrknownothing]

[QUOTE
"Professor Harper has complained to the PCC. “I fully support the HPV vaccines,” she says. “I believe that in general they are safe in most women. I told the Express all of this.”[/QUOTE]

Unless you pretest positive for HPV, before you have the vaccine, according to the FDA and then the cervical cancer rate goes up by 44%. Shame they didn't tell anyone that in England before they launched the campaign, but I suppose they have money to make and populations to settle? Bit like swine flu really, if you can make money out of it, hey it's ok, make the science up afterwards.

I suppose that's why she 'believes' they are safe because she actually doesn't know. Funny how it's ok for a medical scientist to have beliefs but not for the rest of us?

[PaulW99]

Not sure exactly what you're claiming here (because of your poor grammar) but do you have a reputable link?

[tolman]

"Professor Harper has complained to the PCC. “I fully support the HPV vaccines,” she says. “I believe that in general they are safe in most women. I told the Express all of this.”

Unless you pretest positive for HPV, before you have the vaccine, according to the FDA and then the cervical cancer rate goes up by 44%. Shame they didn't tell anyone that in England before they launched the campaign, but I suppose they have money to make and populations to settle? Bit like swine flu really, if you can make money out of it, hey it's ok, make the science up afterwards.

I suppose that's why she 'believes' they are safe because she actually doesn't know. Funny how it's ok for a medical scientist to have beliefs but not for the rest of us?

Firstly, which part of the word 'most' are you having difficulty with?

[tolman]

Secondly, are the FDA recommending pre-testing?

Thirdly, the general idea is that it's best to vaccinate females before they become sexually active.

[Pebble]

Secondly, are the FDA recommending pre-testing?

Thirdly, the general idea is that it's best to vaccinate females before they become sexually active.

This is an unresolved issue, some registry data raised the possibility of an increase in cancer in some groups based on low event rates most likely explained by predispositon bias. This is not quality data, but the issue is being studied - as with anything realted to cancer, definitive results will take years.

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88(1):27-35.
The efficacy of HPV 16/18 vaccines on sexually active 18-23 year old women and the impact of HPV vaccination on organized cervical cancer screening.

Sigurdsson K, Sigvaldason H, Gudmundsdottir T, Sigurdsson R, Briem H.
The Cancer Detection Clinic, Icelandic Cancer Society, Reykjavik, Iceland. kristjan@krabb.is
Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the efficacy of catch-up HPV vaccination in sexually active young women and the potential impact of HPV vaccines on the practice of organized screening. SAMPLE: (1) Women enrolled in the Future II study and (2) from a separate population-based study in Iceland. METHODS: (1) Analysis of cytological and histological results and colposcopic examinations among 710 women, aged 18-23, with less than five sexual partners, irrespectively of baseline HPV status at enrolment. (2) The impact on screening practice as determined by evaluating the distribution of 12 oncogenic HPV types in 582 cervical intraepithelial lesions (CIN 2-3) and cancer cases. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Distribution of evaluated parameters according to age at enrolment. (2) Age distribution of four HPV groups, within age classes and HPV groups: mean time to development of lesions, mean time to development of CIN 2-3+, cumulative frequency for CIN 2-3+ lesions after the last normal smear. RESULTS: (1) After an average 52 months of post-enrolment follow-up, significant reductions in all evaluated parameters were observed in women aged 18-19 at enrolment. (2) Among women <25 years, the proportion of cases with only HPV 16/18 was significantly lower and the proportion containing HPV16/18 plus > or =1 out of 10 non-vaccine HPV types (31/33/45/52/58/35/39/51/56/59) was higher than at age 25-49. The proportion of cases containing only the non-vaccine types was the same within all age groups. Cases with HPV 16/18 and some non-vaccine types decreased significantly with age and accumulated more slowly after the last negative smear. CONCLUSIONS: Catch-up vaccination of younger women should be considered in the context of sexual practices and the effects of prevalent disease on observed vaccine efficacy. Current data do not support a change in the lower age limit or screening intervals for women.

[Mrknownothing]

This is an unresolved issue, some registry data raised the possibility of an increase in cancer in some groups based on low event rates most likely explained by predispositon bias. This is not quality data, but the issue is being studied - as with anything realted to cancer, definitive results will take years.

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88(1):27-35.
The efficacy of HPV 16/18 vaccines on sexually active 18-23 year old women and the impact of HPV vaccination on organized cervical cancer screening.

What is predispositon bias? If it is an unresolved issue surely it is not safe and at least people should be told there is an unresolved issue before being given it or it can't be proper consent? If the FDA already have this data that shows an increase why are we waiting? I am asking these questions as I am trying to make up my mind about vaccination and the data seems to depend on who you ask.

[Mrknownothing]

Firstly, which part of the word 'most' are you having difficulty with?

Most is fine, it's the 'I believe' bit that raises concern, is she a fundemental scientist?

[tolman]

Most is fine, it's the 'I believe' bit that raises concern, is she a fundemental scientist?

Aren't you being a tad literalist there?

Many people use 'believe' and 'think' and 'understand' pretty much interchangeably.

If I say 'I believe it's going to rain tomorrow', few people would think I'm absolutely certain it's going to rain, and depending how I chose to say 'believe', I could easily reliably give the impression that I had very little confidence in the prediction.