Comments | much_ado: HPV vaccine bombshell?

much_ado

HPV vaccine bombshell?

Oct 29, 2009 22:38

Gardasil Researcher Drops A Bombshell

Harper: Controversal Drug Will Do Little To Reduce Cervical Cancer Rates ( Read more... )

newsprint, urls, health, sex

Comments 21

dicea October 30 2009, 02:49:57 UTC

Somewhere one marketing guy just slapped another marketing guy and shouted, "I TOLD you not to let the scientist talk!"

horsetraveller October 30 2009, 03:25:53 UTC

whoops. letting the scientist talk, I mean.

So 5% of HPV developing into cancer (let's say 4% since the vaccine is only for the top few strains of HPV) leaves little need for the vaccine?
How many women are sexually active? How many does 4% mean?

psychedelicbike October 30 2009, 05:51:26 UTC

I've seen statistics that say 75% of the population has HPV. That means that 4% (your number) means that (assuming 75% of women have HPV) 3% of women will get preventable cervical cancer.

I'd get the fucking shot.

mzrowan October 30 2009, 14:26:21 UTC

Here is a lovely graphical representation of the relative risk of the HPV vaccine vs. cervical cancer (vs. other things like driving and lightning).

mzrowan October 30 2009, 03:12:01 UTC

Please see here: http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/jabs-as-bad-as-the-cancer/

Also, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_Research_Institute

musicman October 30 2009, 11:12:32 UTC

Thanks for the link to bad science. As I suspected, it is bad reporting of science that is at the nub of this "controversy" To quote Dr. Harper, “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.” The Express and other news outlets are playing sensational scare tactics with their bad science reporting. Or so it seems to me.

(The comment has been removed)

eve_the_just October 30 2009, 20:09:52 UTC

I'd love to see this article!

mzrowan October 30 2009, 20:24:50 UTC

Here you go!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8326026.stm

eve_the_just October 30 2009, 21:32:46 UTC

Hmmmm, I'm generally pro-vaccine, but I don't like this little line of the article: "The survey was funded by GlaxoSmithKline, which makes the Cervarix vaccine currently used in a national immunisation programme ( ... )

Thread 5

Dig deeper to the cervix. elbowfetish October 30 2009, 07:25:23 UTC

I don't claim to know what's really going on.
What Dr. Harper actually said is being wildly misquoted with different slants. There's big pharma money involved. There are big political, sex, and religious lobbies involved.

Try to start with the actual words of her talk. Look at whom she was talking to. Look at who was paying her before and who's paying her now.

Apparently what she decided to say in her last speech is that the drug is not needed in US schools, but *is* important to sell to other countries.

Somewhere buried in the murk is a wishy washy reality that few groups will be happy with.

Meanwhile, self proclaimed experts in tin foil hats are busy revealing the truth behind influenza vaccines.

Re: Dig deeper to the cervix. nights_promise October 30 2009, 12:26:44 UTC

Love your last sentence. I think that'll be my quote of the day!

Thanks for posting this it is something I want to follow up. musicman October 30 2009, 11:06:48 UTC

I am extremely skeptical of this, it contradicts many other sources in a major way. "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.”

Bull. Major publications look for good and reliable stories. I doubt very much if Dr. Harper's opinion in this stands up to scrutiny but I'll find out next week. I also doubt if the article in the Bulletin holds up to scrutiny. I don't see where the reporter has gone the extra nine yards and checked with other known and trusted experts, something which is necessary whenever someone in science starts going off in another direction.