Vaccination & epidemic

[Shawnee123]

It's scary. I had a friend who died from cervical cancer some years ago, and when gardisil first came out I thought "wish that had been around when I was younger."

I just trusted that, if they put it on the market, it's OK.

I've learned a lot from this thread.

And I don't get flu shots, either.

[glatt]

The HPV vaccine article doesn't give us the total number of people who have received the injection, so when they say that x large number have experienced side effects, you can't compare it to the total number to see if it's a lot of people or not. Then they go on to say that the side effects include all these nasty things. What they don't say is how many of the side effects reported were redness at the injection site, and how many were sudden death. To absorb this information we need a chart. Boing Boing ran a link to a chart a few weeks ago. The chart shows that the vaccine is very safe for the overwhelming majority of girls.
99.9% of girls injected with the vaccine experience no side effects at all
99.993% of girls injected with the vaccine experience no serious side effects
99.9999% of girls injected with the vaccine don't die from it

the lifetime risk for a woman dying of cervical cancer is one in 500.
the lifetime risk for a woman dying from the HPV vaccine is one in 145,000.

It sucks if you are that one person in 145,000, but look at the overall numbers and compare risk.

I'm no expert in the HPV vaccine, but we will need to make the choice soon about whether our daughter should get it. It helps to have charts that show the risks, not scare articles that throw numbers around without any context. Sure, if you focus on the one girl who dropped dead an hour later, it's scary as hell, but what about 20 million who are just fine after getting the vaccine?

[monster]

Originally Posted by glatt

the lifetime risk for a woman dying of cervical cancer is one in 500.
the lifetime risk for a woman dying from the HPV vaccine is one in 145,000.

what is the risk dying from cc after you've had the vaccine?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by monster

what is the risk dying from cc after you've had the vaccine?

I think it's too soon to tell, but the vaccine only eliminates some of the causes of the cancer.

[jinx]

Thanks clod, I appreciate the perspective.

[monster]

Originally Posted by glatt

I think it's too soon to tell, but the vaccine only eliminates some of the causes of the cancer.

So it may be that it's no use at all. it could be that eliminating those causes leaves room for other causes to step in. We don't know. Or it could be that the women who die from cervical cancer die from the type caused by non HPV factors.

It's not as clear cut a decision as those stats would suggest is all I'm saying.

[Undertoad]

The Dystonia Foundation follows up on Desiree Jennings:

Because of the concern of individuals with dystonia as to whether or not to get a flu shot because of this reported case, we have sought the opinion of dystonia experts on this case. Based on the footage that has been shared with the public, it is their unanimous consensus that this case does not appear to be dystonia.

We have here a case of media failure. Who said the shot was causal? No doctors, no experts... Desiree made that connection, and the media cascaded along. 1000 stories in Google News said "Woman has shot, gets ill." Reporters don't take science classes, they don't take logic classes, and they and their editors are biased to cover stories that sound scary and alarming.

And then they make them scarier and more alarming. Inside Edition didn't interview any experts in their story. Did they ask a neurologist and not get a scary enough narrative out of it? Or did they simply not try?

[TheMercenary]

I still lean towards supporting it. We got it for our girls and my sons girl friend.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by glatt

the lifetime risk for a woman dying of cervical cancer is one in 500.

Cite please? The article linked above indicated that it was far, far lower than that, even moreso when you consider that 4 out of 5 cases are in developing countries. 1 in 500 women in America does not die of cervical cancer, even measured over a lifetime.

The question is not just how dangerous is it, the question is how effective is it. If it does not actually do anything to lower the rate of cervical cancer, it doesn't matter how safe it is or isn't.

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.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Cite please?

The cite was the chart I linked to. The other numbers in that chart pretty closely matched the numbers in the article.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

We have here a case of media failure. Who said the shot was causal? No doctors, no experts... Desiree made that connection, and the media cascaded along. 1000 stories in Google News said "Woman has shot, gets ill." Reporters don't take science classes, they don't take logic classes, and they and their editors are biased to cover stories that sound scary and alarming.

And then they make them scarier and more alarming. Inside Edition didn't interview any experts in their story. Did they ask a neurologist and not get a scary enough narrative out of it? Or did they simply not try?

Her neurologist says she has dystonia, as that is what he diagnosed her as having. She did not just head over to WebMD and diagnose her own symptoms. Frankly it's irrelevant whether it is specifically dystonia or not; she sure as fuck has something neurological going on. You are correct that no one can prove the flu shot caused it, either directly or indirectly. But so far no one can prove another cause for it either--and severe neurological diseases do not suddenly show up one day in normal healthy people. Historically it's already been proven that severe neurological impairments can sometimes occur as a result of rushed, poorly tested flu vaccines.

As glatt pointed out, it's a question of risk versus benefit, as is everything in life. But what if there is no benefit at all? There's a lot of evidence that the flu shot does not protect you from the flu, and the lead research developer of Gardasil says that it isn't going to measurably reduce the rate of cervical cancer in this country. 44 girls should not have to die for that, even if they're only 44 out of 20 million.

[Clodfobble]

Well the blog author doesn't say how he calculated the 1 in 500 number (he acknowledges that at least some of the risk numbers were calculated himself, and he has already adjusted those numbers 3 times at the bottom of the post after commenters pointed out his faulty math.) He does generically cite the CDC as a source.

The CDC says that:

In 2003, 3,919 women died from cervical cancer.

That's deaths actually in the US (compared to 250,000 worldwide, according to the National Cancer Institute.) I have a hard time believing that 4,000 out of roughly 150 million total population of women equals a 1:500 chance of cervical cancer death over one's lifetime, but I'd be happy to see the math.

Keep in mind though, that you have to compare equal populations--according to your link, there were roughly 750 cases of severe side effects (like blood clots and transverse myelitis) after 20.4 million doses. Multiply by a factor of 7.35 to see the number of side effects that would be seen if the entire population of women were vaccinated, and you've now got just over 5,500 women severely damaged by this vaccine, compared to under 4,000 who are dying from it. Some might say you should also multiply by three at this point, because one must get at least 2 more booster shots of the vaccine to retain immunity over the years, but on the other hand someone who's already been vaccinated once with no side effects is probably less likely to suffer side effects later on. Not impossible, but less likely. So now we're at somewhere more than 5,500, but less than 16,500. In the meantime, the number of deaths from the vaccine has also gone up to somewhere between 150 and 450 (using your site's numbers of 20 deaths) or somewhere between 320 and 970 (using my site's numbers of 44 deaths.)

Now also, don't forget that fully 30% of those 4,000 cervical cancer deaths are caused by other types of HPV that are not included in the HPV vaccine. So really, only 2800 people are dying each year from the type of HPV that could be prevented by the vaccine. And the National Cancer Institute still notes that the majority of those could also be prevented by getting regular pap smears and sticking to a few monogamous relationships over one's lifetime.

[glatt]

Let's use your numbers. The vaccine has killed 44 people since its inception a few years ago. It's been out for a few years now, so it's like 10 deaths or so a year. (a guesstimate) On the other hand you have 2,800 cancer deaths in a year. That's the fair comparison. 10 vs 2,800. Death vs. death. Cancer is 280 times deadlier than the vaccine.

The chart said that the odds of dying of cervical cancer are 1 in 500 and dying of the vaccine are 1 in 145,000. According to that chart, cancer is 290 times deadlier than the vaccine.

The chart talks about lifetime risks, and your numbers are annual risks, but the comparison winds up in the same ballpark. Cancer is 280 times deadlier according to your numbers and 290 times deadlier according to the chart's numbers.

When you compare injuries to death, the results can be wildly different but then you aren't comparing apples to apples. If you want to talk about the number of serious side effects, then on the other arm of the scale, you should be talking about women who have survived cancer.

Compare deaths to deaths, and injuries to injuries. Compare annual risks to annual risks, and lifetime risks to lifetime risks.

[Undertoad]

You have to add some anal cancers, such as what Farrah Fawcett died from.

Frankly it's irrelevant whether it is specifically dystonia or not; she sure as fuck has something neurological going on.

Something neurological OR something psychosomatic. Sure as fuckity-fuck!

You are correct that no one can prove the flu shot caused it, either directly or indirectly. But so far no one can prove another cause for it either--and severe neurological diseases do not suddenly show up one day in normal healthy people.

This sentence seems like an argument from logic but isn't. I parse it as, "Something had to have caused it, because something caused it."

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Something neurological OR something psychosomatic.

And yet you are so personally offended (and rightly so, in my opinion) when someone suggests your symptoms are psychosomatic, and yours don't even have overt physical symptoms. You are dismissing this woman's problem as psychosomatic only because she has made the connection that the vaccine happened just before onset, which is exactly the reason the dystonia foundation has "reviewed the videos" and come to that conclusion as well. Except for you, the reason is only cognitive dissonance--you know vaccines are safe because you believe pharmaceutical researchers have been honest with themselves and with you, so it must not be possible that this vaccine damaged her in the way she says it has. (Which is funny, since the CDC will readily admit such things are possible, they just point out the numbers are very small and the benefits outweigh the risks.) In the case of the dystonia foundation, it is both cognitive dissonance and political pressure. Maybe some had doubts, maybe some didn't, but it would certainly be a career-ender for any member of that team to come to any conclusion other than the one they did.

This is a woman who received a flu vaccine every single year up to this point; she was not an anti-vaccine proponent looking for a scandal. You want to tell me that 'them's the breaks, one woman with a severe muscular disorder is worth it for thousands of people to be saved from the flu,' then fine, I'll accept that you feel that way. But it is hypocritical for you to broadly declare that all she needs is a little talk therapy, and just as offensive to me as when someone says it to you.

Originally Posted by glatt

Let's use your numbers. The vaccine has killed 44 people since its inception a few years ago. It's been out for a few years now, so it's like 10 deaths or so a year. (a guesstimate) On the other hand you have 2,800 cancer deaths in a year. That's the fair comparison. 10 vs 2,800. Death vs. death. Cancer is 280 times deadlier than the vaccine.

The chart said that the odds of dying of cervical cancer are 1 in 500 and dying of the vaccine are 1 in 145,000. According to that chart, cancer is 290 times deadlier than the vaccine.

The chart talks about lifetime risks, and your numbers are annual risks, but the comparison winds up in the same ballpark. Cancer is 280 times deadlier according to your numbers and 290 times deadlier according to the chart's numbers.

When you compare injuries to death, the results can be wildly different but then you aren't comparing apples to apples. If you want to talk about the number of serious side effects, then on the other arm of the scale, you should be talking about women who have survived cancer.

Compare deaths to deaths, and injuries to injuries. Compare annual risks to annual risks, and lifetime risks to lifetime risks.

That's a fair numbers-to-numbers comparison. It would be interesting to know what the rate of lifelong complications are among cervical cancer survivors. But I would still point out that getting cervical cancer is not a purely statistical chance. The rate of cervical cancer deaths has not gone down yet despite the use of the vaccine, because the people responsible enough to go to the doctor to get vaccinated are by and large not the people who are getting the disease in the first place. If you believe your daughter will attend her annual gynecological exams, and have a responsible sex life as an adult, then her personal risk of cervical cancer is far, far lower than the national average. No one can yet pinpoint the risk factors for vaccine reaction though, so her risk for that is going to stay just as high as it is now until someone can.

Everyone's got to make their own call about their own risk level. But it's not a game of Russian Roulette, individual behavior does play a role.