TV3: Cervical Vaccine: Is it Safe?

Lollipop95

On now on TV3. Interesting viewing. What do you think - are the illnesses the girls contracted just coincidences as the doctors have said, or is there more to it? Me, I think the vaccine must have an effect if so many girls have picked up illnesses after the vaccine. I think it effects some people. I received it in 2014 but it didn't effect me at all.

NoHarm1994

Dr. Connolly said at least 3 times that the ratio of these illnesses is the same between those that take the vaccine and those that do not. What has happened to those poor girls is a terrible, but scare mongering people without proper scientific evidence is equally terrible. It reminds me of the link between the MMR vaccine and autism, resulting in a fall in vaccination and an increase in cervical cancer. Last thing we want is more people dying from cervical cancer. Now, perhaps there is a link between the ill girls and Gardasil, but until this is scientifically shown to any level (which it is not) it is both unwise and dangerous to portray any sort of correlation.

Vic_08

Lollipop95 wrote: »

On now on TV3. Interesting viewing. What do you think - are the illnesses the girls contracted just coincidences as the doctors have said, or is there more to it? Me, I think the vaccine must have an effect if so many girls have picked up illnesses after the vaccine. I think it effects some people. I received it in 2014 but it didn't effect me at all.

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.

Leave the conclusions to the experts TBH.

Who are TV3 paying to come up with the titles for these programs, shoddy content aside, it's like who ever is responsible goes home and asks their 6 year old child to come up with a title for them.

spurious

Cheapo, scaremongering TV.

norabattie

I didn't get to watch it last night so can't comment on the show as such , but I can say that when the forms came in the door this year for my daughter to get vaccinated I put a big fat NO beside it.
There isn't enough known about this vaccine, and I know a girl who is suffering 5 years since she got it. Some days she can barely get out of bed.
Out of the 130 girls in my daughters school , there were only a handful of girls that didn't get the vaccine and I know that 3 of the mothers of those girls are nurses. That spoke volumes to me.

NoHarm1994

Norabattie, there is enough known about this vaccine. It's gone through clinical trials, probably one of the hardest set of tests any product must go through (and rightly so!!). Obviously it's you and your daughters choice about getting the vaccine but unless you can back up a correlation with causation, THROUGH SCIENCE then I don't feel it's wise to persuade people against getting it. Just because 3 nurses did is irrelevant, what do they know about the immune response to this vaccine? No disrespect to nurses, they do a job that I couldn't. However they are not immunologists. Unfortunately it is this word of mouth spreading conspiracy that is going to cause yoing girls harm in the future. Again though if there is any evidence found to support this coincidence I will be the first to support the removal of the drug, but until then I feel we must trust our immunologist, dictors and HSE. I also hope they test all 130 girls as well as those 600 girls with conditions who didn't get the vaccine to put this to bed Once and for all.

norabattie

NoHarm1994 wrote: »

Norabattie, there is enough known about this vaccine. It's gone through clinical trials, probably one of the hardest set of tests any product must go through (and rightly so!!). Obviously it's you and your daughters choice about getting the vaccine but unless you can back up a correlation with causation, THROUGH SCIENCE then I don't feel it's wise to persuade people against getting it. Just because 3 nurses did is irrelevant, what do they know about the immune response to this vaccine? No disrespect to nurses, they do a job that I couldn't. However they are not immunologists. Unfortunately it is this word of mouth spreading conspiracy that is going to cause yoing girls harm in the future. Again though if there is any evidence found to support this coincidence I will be the first to support the removal of the drug, but until then I feel we must trust our immunologist, dictors and HSE. I also hope they test all 130 girls as well as those 600 girls with conditions who didn't get the vaccine to put this to bed Once and for all.

Not once did I try to convince anyone. I voiced my opinion which I am more than entitled to. I know a girl personally who cannot function after getting this and I based my decision on this. It's that simple.

NoHarm1994

Fair enough but we all know what we are doing by expressing our own opinions. Vaccines are made with a science/ clinical background in mind, so they should only be judged on their scientific and clinical significance. There is no evidence to suggest there is a correlation between this vaccine and illness. Until there is, documentaries such as this shouldn't be released and people SHOULD get the vaccine.

njs030

NoHarm1994 wrote: »

Fair enough but we all know what we are doing by expressing our own opinions. Vaccines are made with a science/ clinical background in mind, so they should only be judged on their scientific and clinical significance. There is no evidence to suggest there is a correlation between this vaccine and illness. Until there is, documentaries such as this shouldn't be released and people SHOULD get the vaccine.

If you had watched the show properly not once was it suggested anyone shouldn't get the vaccine.
It's a pity when the message the show is putting forward is lost in this vaccine yes/no discussion.

The facts are that hundreds of girls around the world become sick after getting this vaccine, if it is coincidental why does the maker of gardasil refuse to investigate and clear their own name?

Why did the hse decide parents in ireland werent smart enough to read the full parent information which had a lot more side affects listed than the little piece of paper given out.

Why does Leo Varadker put down any mention of this multimillion Euro vaccine but also won't do anything to help the girls?

It's all well and good to make statements like "it's not about the individual" or "no vaccine is 100% safe" until it's your child or your family affected- allowing 12 year olds to be collateral damage is not the right way to protect a nation.

The vaccine protects against 4 forms of hpv strains, the number of strains is in the hundreds.
According to one of Ireland's leading hpv experts only 70 cases appear each year with almost all being treated successfully.
These strains of hpv are easily picked up on regular smear tests.
The vaccine protects for around 8 years meaning the girls lose immunity at 20-21.

As I said, no one is saying the vaccine should be stopped but an independent investigation should be launched and all parents should have fully informed consent, the documentary is showing parents what the worst case scenario is (which the makers of gardasil won't tell you) and that our government and the hse just don't care.

Scientific evidence can't change until someone starts investigating problems. While Merck (one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world) refuse to allow testing on gardasil the science can't be changed.

endacl

norabattie wrote: »

Not once did I try to convince anyone. I voiced my opinion which I am more than entitled to. I know a girl personally who cannot function after getting this and I based my decision on this. It's that simple.

You based a medical decision on anecdote? Well done, you.

ThisRegard

norabattie wrote: »

I know that 3 of the mothers of those girls are nurses. That spoke volumes to me.

I knew several nurses, one who even refuses to get a breast scan because of some nonsense she once read somewhere about how it may actually increase the risk of cancer.

Nurses aren't always the best people to take medical advice from, some I wouldn't want looking after me at all. We can all produce antidotes to suit ourselves.

My mother battled cervical cancer for years before eventually succumbing at a relatively young age, anyone who ever tried to start scare mongering around me when it comes to my daughter getting it will be, not very politely, told where to go.

njs030

ThisRegard wrote: »

I knew several nurses, one who even refuses to get a breast scan because of some nonsense she once read somewhere about how it may actually increase the risk of cancer.

Nurses aren't always the best people to take medical advice from, some I wouldn't want looking after me at all. We can all produce antidotes to suit ourselves.

My mother battled cervical cancer for years before eventually succumbing at a relatively young age, anyone who ever tried to start scare mongering around me when it comes to my daughter getting it will be, not very politely, told where to go.

You don't seem to realise what the vaccine is for. It doesn't protect against cervical cancer, it protects against 4 strains of hpv which is a sexually transmitted infection.
It can cause cervical cancer if left untreated but is also easily picked up on smear tests.

Saying it protects against cervical cancer is as hysterical as saying I won't get it because some girls get sick.

Make a fully informed decision based on your child's needs at the time. It doesn't have to be done at 12, it can be done at 17 when she's becoming sexually active and needs the protection.

ThisRegard

notjustsweet wrote: »

You don't seem to realise what the vaccine is for. It doesn't protect against cervical cancer, it protects against 4 strains of hpv which is a sexually transmitted infection.
It can cause cervical cancer if left untreated but is also easily picked up on smear tests.

What part of your own post do you not understand?

njs030

ThisRegard wrote: »

What part of your own post do you not understand?

What part do you not understand? Cervical cancer can be caused by multiple different things.
The vaccine protects against 4 forms of HPV. Not cervical cancer. HPV is a sexually transmitted infection.

You mentioned your mother as a reason for getting the vaccine but I bet your mother's cervical cancer wasn't caused by hpv so it's a non-argument.

Anyway you're clearly determined not to listen to any voice but your own so I'm out.

ThisRegard

Before you run off your mouth again, where did I say it immunises against cervical cancer?

And cervical cancer is cervical cancer. Jesus christ, it doesn't give a **** how you contracted it as it does its very best to kill you slowly and painfully.

With that absolutely moronic 'argument' I realise there's on point in wearing out my keyboard any further for someone like you who can't see that anything to reduce the risk of contracting anything that could lead to cancer is a good thing.

Jesus, "I bet your mother's cervical cancer wasn't caused by hpv so it's a non-argument.". FFS, most people have HPV at some stage, and the height of sexual depravity required to get it from someone is kissing.

The girls shown in the TV3 documentary have real problems. But as was explained, hundreds of girls had these problems before the vaccine was ever introduced. There has been no increase.

I understand how, intuitively, parents see this terrible change in their kids and look for an explanation. And, because the vaccine was given around the same time, they make the connection. It feels logical even though it isn't. Correlation does not imply causation: just because something happens after something else does not mean the two are related in any way.

This time last year, the group in Denmark and what was then a small group in Ireland were calling for 'more research' or and 'investigation'. Then the European Medicine Agency's main committee of experts (called the CHMP if you want to look them up) agreed to look at it. They concluded that the rate of the specific illnesses in question were no different to what would be expected.

It sounds very harsh when faced with scary music and a genuinely heart-breaking personal story, but it simply is a coincidence.

I get that people wanted answers and asked for experts to assess all the evidence again but you have to accept that answer in good faith if you are asking in good faith.

I see in Facebook feed that people are claiming the HSE is tricking people into getting the vaccine. They are not; they want to reduce the number of women killed by cervical cancer in their prime. The evidence for that is overwhelming. Why would the HSE bother to 'trick' people into vaccination? Seriously, spell it out. The only possibilities are vast conspiracy theories.

TV3's documentary - especially the emotive closing sequence with a mother speaking about her regret - will definitely guilt people into avoiding the vaccine. Some of these will have to live with the guilt of their daughters getting cervical cancer for nothing. And TV3 will have moved on to other non-scandals.

- The symptoms experienced by the girls in the show are real
- These conditions existed before the HPV vaccination was rolled out
- There has been no increase in cases since vaccination began
- HPV vaccines prevent most cases of cervical cancer (around 70%)
- All vaccines go through huge clinical trials. Many don't make it to patients. Those that do have been really, really well tested.
- Cervical cancer can and does kill hundreds of Irish women every year.

stronglikebull

norabattie wrote: »

I didn't get to watch it last night so can't comment on the show as such , but I can say that when the forms came in the door this year for my daughter to get vaccinated I put a big fat NO beside it.

So you're prepared to put your child's life in danger from a known and very deadly disease because of anecdotal stories about completely unknown and unproven side effects. Wow, fantastic parenting there.

norabattie wrote: »

There isn't enough known about this vaccine, and I know a girl who is suffering 5 years since she got it. Some days she can barely get out of bed.
Out of the 130 girls in my daughters school , there were only a handful of girls that didn't get the vaccine and I know that 3 of the mothers of those girls are nurses. That spoke volumes to me.

It speaks volumes about the stupidity of people, especially those that work in the medical profession.

lertsnim

norabattie wrote: »

Out of the 130 girls in my daughters school , there were only a handful of girls that didn't get the vaccine and I know that 3 of the mothers of those girls are nurses. That spoke volumes to me.

How does that speak volumes?

gctest50

ThisRegard wrote: »

I knew several nurses, one who even refuses to get a breast scan because of some nonsense she once read somewhere about how it may actually increase the risk of cancer.

breasts are magical things - need a better scan than irradiating them

In carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations any exposure to diagnostic radiation before the age of 30 was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer

http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e5660

For every 10,000 women who have regular 3 yearly breast screening between the ages of 47 and 73, experts estimate that there will be between 3 and 6 extra breast cancers caused by radiation.


This means that for every life saved from breast cancer by screening, around 3 women are overdiagnosed.

Ataxia-telangiectasia

About 1 percent of the United States population carries one mutated copy and one normal copy of the ATM gene in each cell. These individuals are called carriers.

Although ATM mutation carriers do not have ataxia-telangiectasia, they are more likely than people without an ATM mutation to develop cancer; female carriers are particularly at risk for developing breast cancer.

Affected individuals are very sensitive to the effects of radiation exposure, including medical x-rays.

ThisRegard wrote: »

Nurses aren't always the best people to take medical advice from, some I wouldn't want looking after me at all. We can all produce antidotes to suit ourselves.
My mother battled cervical cancer for years before eventually succumbing at a relatively young age, anyone who ever tried to start scare mongering around me when it comes to my daughter getting it will be, not very politely, told where to go.

for sure, look at crystal-meth boy here :

A nurse shoved 10 bags of crystal meth into his mouth which he then tried to swallow during a garda raid on an apartment in south Dublin.

John de Lara worked with vulnerable, elderly patients at the Royal Hospital Donnybrook in Dublin from December 2003 to November 2014.
The Royal Hospital is an independent charity funded by the HSE.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/nurse-who-hid-crystal-meth-in-his-mouth-during-raid-on-south-dublin-apartment-under-investigation-34291800.html

lertsnim

lertsnim wrote: »

How does that speak volumes?

Just ask your local doctor whether your daughter should have the HPV vaccine.

You can't say you put extra stock in what a nurse says because he or she has studied health sciences longer than you, but then reject the opinion of pretty much every doctor and scientific expert - who have studied for a lot longer.

If you choose to do this, you are deliberately selecting the rare opinion that tallies with what you want to hear. Then you can go online and 'confirm' your worst fears by reading some far-out anti-science blog.

But just be honest with yourself - you've already decided to ignore the evidence you don't like; and to ignore the fact that 99.9% of GPs say the vaccine is safe and effective, and that they would give it to their own children.

If you find asking your GP a bit narrow, check out the World Health Organisation, the Irish Cancer Society, the European Centres for Disease Prevention & Control - and every health authority in every developed country that can afford the vaccine.

whosedaddy?

Deleted User wrote: »

The girls shown in the TV3 documentary have real problems. But as was explained, hundreds of girls had these problems before the vaccine was ever introduced. There has been no increase.

I understand how, intuitively, parents see this terrible change in their kids and look for an explanation. And, because the vaccine was given around the same time, they make the connection. It feels logical even though it isn't. Correlation does not imply causation: just because something happens after something else does not mean the two are related in any way.

This time last year, the group in Denmark and what was then a small group in Ireland were calling for 'more research' or and 'investigation'. Then the European Medicine Agency's main committee of experts (called the CHMP if you want to look them up) agreed to look at it. They concluded that the rate of the specific illnesses in question were no different to what would be expected.

It sounds very harsh when faced with scary music and a genuinely heart-breaking personal story, but it simply is a coincidence.

I get that people wanted answers and asked for experts to assess all the evidence again but you have to accept that answer in good faith if you are asking in good faith.

I see in Facebook feed that people are claiming the HSE is tricking people into getting the vaccine. They are not; they want to reduce the number of women killed by cervical cancer in their prime. The evidence for that is overwhelming. Why would the HSE bother to 'trick' people into vaccination? Seriously, spell it out. The only possibilities are vast conspiracy theories.

TV3's documentary - especially the emotive closing sequence with a mother speaking about her regret - will definitely guilt people into avoiding the vaccine. Some of these will have to live with the guilt of their daughters getting cervical cancer for nothing. And TV3 will have moved on to other non-scandals.

- The symptoms experienced by the girls in the show are real
- These conditions existed before the HPV vaccination was rolled out
- There has been no increase in cases since vaccination began
- HPV vaccines prevent most cases of cervical cancer (around 70%)
- All vaccines go through huge clinical trials. Many don't make it to patients. Those that do have been really, really well tested.
- Cervical cancer can and does kill hundreds of Irish women every year.

hmm. I for one am glad to be able to consider this when we are asked to sign a consent form for my daughters vaccination.
Instead of just relying on the leaflet that lists the acknowledged side effects.

I don't think it will influence my decision, however, I am now aware of something related to the vaccination, that I hadn't known before.

Why it may well be the case that statistically there is no increase in numbers since introduction of the vaccination.
However, who is to tell that the vaccination is not catalyst for an illness (which would otherwise might have developed anyway), but maybe not at that point in time with the same intensity.
You cannot seriously claim that those girls would have collapsed the same day with same symptoms had they not had the vaccination.
They possibly would have developed later. In which case the "experts" statistical analysis holds true.
The vaccine may not have caused the illness, but it might have accelerated the outbreak or influenced the severity of symptoms.

Or alternatively , could individual batches of vaccines (not just this one) be substandard and therefore contributing to unexpected reactions?

If you produce hundreds of millions of items of any sort, a small percentage will be defective and with the best QA in the world you won't catch them all.


Food for thought: Did you see those two recent studies on the percentages of cancers are down to bad luck vs. lifestyle choices. Just shows that just listening to one set of "experts" may not give you the full picture and how do you tell which one to accept in good faith...

whosedaddy?

whosedaddy? wrote: »

Why it may well be the case that statistically there is no increase in numbers since introduction of the vaccination.
However, who is to tell that the vaccination is not catalyst for an illness (which would otherwise might have developed anyway), but maybe not at that point in time with the same intensity.

If the vaccine were in some way a catalyst for an illness you would have seen an increase when the vaccine programme was rolled. But there was no increase.

You seem to accept this above but then...

whosedaddy? wrote: »

You cannot seriously claim that those girls would have collapsed the same day with same symptoms had they not had the vaccination.

If you listen to the stories it's not a case of being vaccinated and then feeling sick that day or even the next day. There is a wide range of symptoms occurring in and around the year that they got the vaccine.

The problem is that the long-term conditions in question, as was explained in the film, arise spontaneously (and did so long before the vaccine was even invented) in girls aged 13-15. It is hard to believe it's a coincidence but it is a coincidence.

You might remember how hard it was for some people to accept that MMR didn't cause autism. That was because at the time autism was diagnosed around the time that MMR is given. Parents jumped to the understandable - but mistaken - conclusion that because they happened around the same time, one must have caused the other.

This has since been completely debunked but it cost huge amounts of research money that could have been spent on other children's medical research. More importantly, people got sick and a very small number died from a completely preventable illness.

If we repeat that mistake women (by then they will probably be mothers and wives) will die in a few decades because the vaccine fell out of favour. But because it's so far away, some people will fail to make the link between the two.

whosedaddy? wrote: »

They possibly would have developed later. In which case the "experts" statistical analysis holds true.
The vaccine may not have caused the illness, but it might have accelerated the outbreak or influenced the severity of symptoms.

If something accelerated an outbreak you would see a higher number in that particular year. But that's not what happened.

whosedaddy? wrote: »

Or alternatively , could individual batches of vaccines (not just this one) be substandard and therefore contributing to unexpected reactions?

If you produce hundreds of millions of items of any sort, a small percentage will be defective and with the best QA in the world you won't catch them all.

Absolutely fair point about QA. That can indeed happen with any product no matter how hard they try. But again, there was no increase in sickness. You're looking for an explanation for a problem that simply does not exist.

The parents demanded that the cases be reviewed to see if the number and timing were out of the ordinary. They were reviewed in great detail by the European Medicines Agency and they found that there were no more cases after the introduction of the vaccine than there were before the introduction of the vaccine.

whosedaddy? wrote: »

Food for thought: Did you see those two recent studies on the percentages of cancers are down to bad luck vs. lifestyle choices. Just shows that just listening to one set of "experts" may not give you the full picture and how do you tell which one to accept in good faith...

The problem with the TV3 programme is that it has contributed to muddying the waters with absolutely no justification. Some people will now be invited to have their daughters protected against the future risk of cancer but will bottle it because they have a vague memory of hearing 'something' about that vaccine's safety. And they'll probably reject what scientists and doctors say because they don't know 'which "experts" to believe'. The HSE's authority is shot so their advice will be ignored too.

Just remember three things:

- Refusing the cancer vaccine is not the 'play-it-safe' option. You would be making a risky choice on behalf of your daughter.

- Given that this disease is a virus that spreads in the community, there is a social aspect to your decision: it's not just a matter of individual consumer choice.

- Do you trust your doctor? You don't have to read all the scientific literature or expert advice every time you face a medical decision. Just ask your own family doctor what they would do if it were their own daughter.

gctest50

Deleted User wrote: »

........
- All vaccines go through huge clinical trials. Many don't make it to patients.
Those that do have been really, really well tested. .............

not really, tested enough to start making money

anyway, plenty of other ways they can fail or there wouldn't be any recalls :

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/Recalls/default.htm

Deleted User wrote: »

........If something accelerated an outbreak you would see a higher number in that particular year. But that's not what happened......

takes years sometimes

. The Institute of Medicine conducted a thorough scientific review of this issue in 2003 and concluded that people who received the 1976 swine influenza vaccine had an increased risk for developing GBS. Scientists have multiple theories on why this increased risk may have occurred, but the exact reason for this association remains unknown.

Gaygooner

I think anti vaccers should be housed in some sort of comune, in an island off the coast. FHE can be their leader and the rest of us can get on with our lives without unvaccinated people contaminating the population

gctest50

Gaygooner wrote: »

I think anti vaccers should be housed in some sort of comune, in an island off the coast. FHE can be their leader and the rest of us can get on with our lives without unvaccinated people contaminating the population

That's not the point though - it's just hard/takes a lot of work before you can have "faith" in stuff


Look at this bundle of lovliness, experimenting on pregnant women :

OBJECTIVE:
To assess whether vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) increases the risk of miscarriage.


Participants were randomly assigned to receive three doses of bivalent HPV 16/18 VLP vaccine with AS04 adjuvant (n=13 075) or hepatitis A vaccine as control (n=13 055) over six months.


MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Miscarriage and other pregnancy outcomes.


RESULTS: The estimated rate of miscarriage was 11.5% in pregnancies in women in the HPV arm and 10.2% in the control arm.

desertcircus

gctest50 wrote: »

That's not the point though - it's just hard/takes a lot of work before you can have "faith" in stuff


Look at this bundle of lovliness, experimenting on pregnant women :

Why do you have a problem with medical reearch?

gctest50

desertcircus wrote: »

Why do you have a problem with medical reearch?

i don't , the above is Unit 731 stuff though

5uspect

gctest50 wrote: »

i don't , the above is Unit 731 stuff though

The risk of miscarriage varies with age, increasing from 20% for women over 35. The randomly assigned groups should have reasonably distributed age profiles so there is likely no statistical effect.

Edit: here is the rest of the paper's results which you decided not to quote.

Results The estimated rate of miscarriage was 11.5% in pregnancies in women in the HPV arm and 10.2% in the control arm. The one sided P value for the primary analysis was 0.16; thus, overall, there was no significant increase in miscarriage among women assigned to the HPV vaccine arm. In secondary descriptive analyses, miscarriage rates were 14.7% in the HPV vaccine arm and 9.1% in the control arm in pregnancies that began within three months after nearest vaccination.

Conclusion There is no evidence overall for an association between HPV vaccination and risk of miscarriage.

Of course you could just use your outrage to argue that the hepatitis vaccine actually reduces the risk of miscarriage, but you've already made your mind up.

desertcircus

gctest50 wrote: »

i don't , the above is Unit 731 stuff though

For crying out loud. The study you're criticising is an effort to find out whether the HPV vaccination is safe to give to pregnant women, and you're comparing it to a Japanese chemical warfare laboratory. That's gibbering horse bollocks.

mountai

Gaygooner wrote: »

I think anti vaccers should be housed in some sort of comune, in an island off the coast. FHE can be their leader and the rest of us can get on with our lives without unvaccinated people contaminating the population

The members of this group (REGRET) are NOT anti vaccine . If they were, then their children would not have received the vaccine. They are appealing for the HSE to give their Children medical diagnosis for their problems, and treatment. Not one of them have called for the vaccine to be banned . One of them described , when his child , had the injection, had a severe seizure . She spent 6 days in hospital, suffered more seizures and was sent home with no diagnosis , and the parents were told it was all in her head. If this was your child , would you not be entitled to look for answers?.