HPV vaccine efficiacy - the evidence texas vs australia

My immediate rebuttal would be immigration. What’s the numbers of Mexican and other immigrants flooding the beaches of Australia?
Rick Perry (a Republican you probably hate) tried to make it a law that you receive the HPV vaccine here in Texas. I do not like or agree with that one bit and I am pleased to say it failed. Do you think for one second he cared about wiping out HPV or do you think he might have made some money if that law passed?
My problem with it is the risk with the vaccine. The side effects of it can be far worse that actually getting HPV. Look up some of the young girls that had an adverse reaction and tell me you would be ok with Rick Perry forcing your little girl to have it.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

So OP, anything to add?

Have a flag from me for your effort.

never mind.

a reply to: Deetermined

Yes, it is a private school.
And yes we did have to sign a consent form.
The form pretty much said "You agree to allow the school to provide the HPV immunization, or you consent to us suspending your kid until they get it."

Not those exact words, but the message is the same lol.

a reply to: Deetermined

As well, the immunization is being offered to kids in grades 7 and up.

Here is an old article from 2016 when the immunization program was introduced to our grade school kids.

link 2 article

I like turtles.

a reply to: Kentuckymama


Do you have a health unit?
The health unit here is who puts on the vaccinations at the schools.
They are the most informed ones to discuss medical advice with.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I don't see any evidence or studies to comment on. Provide some?

a reply to: Kentuckymama

I've tried to do research on it. Honestly, it's impossible. Who should a parent go to for advice on this subject.

Yeah it is a tough one. Lots of complicated stuff going on. You are doing the right thing in talking about it and asking questions. Keep on networking and doing your homework and things get clearer.

From what I have gathered so far I am resistant to vaccinations under 3 years old. There are some exceptions and would look to local data as for which ones are a priority. Polio is one for the list. If any vaccinations are to be given at a young age then just one at a time, some of these multi shots can be a big hit to a lot of development still taking place. As we get older our body gets more capable in sorting out toxins, any damage that is done is better able to repair itself.

If vaccination production can be better timed with school vaccination programs it can eliminate or further reduced some of the need for preservatives in the mix. Not all vaccinations are the same, so looking into the supplier is also important.

So, it has been 11 years since this vaccine was introduced? Am I getting that wrong?

Kids are getting it at around 9, so 9 + 11 = 20.

The average age for cervical cancer diagnosis is between 35 and 44. Even in the group who were in high school (17), they would still be 28.

So it would be hard to say conclusively just by math alone that that the HPV vaccine has made any dent especially since cervical cancer is very rarely diagnosed under 20.

Seems to me that the use of the HPV vaccine wouldn't produce hardly any mortality benefit for over thirty years as related to cancer. I am wondering what the actual figures are and how this information is actually being related. So if a hundred people in Australia in the thirty to forty year old group actually get cervical cancer a year, and there is a twenty five percent reduction of cervical cancer among the people in that group now, that means twenty five extra people do not get cervical cancer now in Australia. You know, Australia has banned some cancer causing chemicals used on foods in the last ten years also. The vaccine has only been used for about eight years now, and it did not jump start. The people supposedly benefiting from it should not be benefiting from it yet.

I do not trust how they are interpreting things, They are trying to justify their expense in inoculating the majority of the countries people at risk. You can twist figures to make them say what you want them to say. I am not saying it is not going to help some people, I am saying that their interpretation of the evidence does not make logical sense. People pushing this are going to want people accumulating evidence to show a positive outcome so they look better to the public. If someone they hired to interpret the figures came out with something that showed the politicians were wrong, they would be squashed. They pay for results that back their decision to push the vaccines.

I would bet the actual reduction is less than a hundred people in the whole country of Australia, and most of those could just go get some stuff taken out and get some treatment. I study parameters and interpretations of scientific research quite a bit, half of the interpretations exploit the figures to back what someone wants to show. It has only been twelve years, hardly any benefit should be recognized by this yet. I would bet they actually made changes to the chemicals used in the food supply like Europe did which reduced cancer incidents. Even people having better access to the internet to learn ways to reduce risk of cancers probably made more difference so far than the vaccine did.

Not sure what the problem is, really.

Idiots who don't want to get vaccinated or have their children vaccinated will, over time, become ill and die out, thereby removing the weak genetics from our gene pool.

Sounds like a win-win scenario for humanity

a reply to: rickymouse

It could also be due to other factors too. Perhaps HPV is less common in Australia. Perhaps Australians are less promiscuous and thus less prone to spread HPV. There may be different strains of HPV at work around the globe, and it could be the one most common in Australia is less prone to triggering cervical cancer.

Did the research in question examine any of these possible questions and others I'm not even thinking of or just make the preferred correlation? Remember, correlation does not always equal causation.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: rickymouse

It could also be due to other factors too. Perhaps HPV is less common in Australia. Perhaps Australians are less promiscuous and thus less prone to spread HPV. There may be different strains of HPV at work around the globe, and it could be the one most common in Australia is less prone to triggering cervical cancer.

Did the research in question examine any of these possible questions and others I'm not even thinking of or just make the preferred correlation? Remember, correlation does not always equal causation.

Correlation and causation is what I am addressing. There could be many factors involved, including people's awareness and acceptance of the evidence that unprotected sex can lead to cancer. Indirectly awareness of HPV can be caused by people being informed by the evidence supported by the vaccine that sex can lead to cancer some times. But that does not mean the vaccine is actually causing the decline, especially in this short of a time frame. If they started adopting the vaccine in 06 in Australia as a way to fix the problem, it probably took three or four years to get enough people vaccinated to make any difference and the cancer risk takes many years to develop. I would expect maybe twenty years and it would give a picture, taking into consideration that other changes have occurred that lower the risk. taking out other considerations to determine the true numbers is done in lots but not all of the research. Education is a factor, so is removing certain chemicals out of the food supply that destroy some of our ability to kill cancer when it forms. There are lots of chemicals that dampen apoptosis of cancer cells and some foods and additives and meds that dampen our cells ability to communicate properly to keep our immune system working properly. All the European countries are starting to test these chemicals added to foods using their own scientists now to reduce the overall health costs by eliminating their acceptance in foods. One of those is glyphosate pre-harvest treatment of grains. But glyphosate in higher amounts probably is not a risk for cervical cancer. P53 inhibitors can be problematic and so can corticosteroids and anti-cholinogenic chemicals and meds that interfere with communication between the mind and cells.

We have lots of problems, in Australia and Europe they are starting to address these issues, in America they just want better treatment options after people get cancer, they are not addressing the issue properly because it will lower income to the medical and pharmaceutical industry and put lots of people out of work.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: ignorant_ape

The difference of 300 people in a population of 25+ million....
If anything that's proof of how infective the vaccine truly is.

Your assertions are simply not correct. If all of the 53+ million (total population for Texas and Aus) is infected with HPV then you would be correct whereas CDC statistics show its much much lower so the overall reduction is more significant that you are implying.

www.cdc.gov...
www.cdc.gov...

Also the number of cases will continue to drop as exposure and infection will remain a lifetime threat for the un-vaccinated and decidedly less so those that do

originally posted by: noonebutme
Not sure what the problem is, really.

Idiots who don't want to get vaccinated or have their children vaccinated will, over time, become ill and die out, thereby removing the weak genetics from our gene pool.

Sounds like a win-win scenario for humanity

I would agree with you to a point, but these idiots we see in the ICU with vaccine preventable illnesses are hugely expensive to save. A full on ICU level measles or meningiococcemia may run into the several millions and even if insured we pay for this one way or another.

a reply to: FredT

Your assertions are simply not correct. If all of the 53+ million (total population for Texas and Aus) is infected with HPV then you would be correct whereas CDC statistics show its much much lower so the overall reduction is more significant that you are implying.

But is the vaccin the cause of that?

www.cdc.gov...

It only declined in the 15-19 and 20-24 age groups. It actually went up for the other groups but that is irrelevant here.

More than half of the American teens are having sex before they turn 18. However, contraceptive use has also significantly increased over the years, says a new study by the National Survey of Family Growth, which is administered by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDS).

www.ibtimes.com...

And these are the groups that are more prone to STD's. So an increase in protected sex is going to decrease the number of STD's and it also shows in the teen pregnancy numbers.

The increase in the use of protection among teenagers has helped lower the birthrate to 22 per 1,000 females in 2015 from 62 per 1,000 in 1991.

Aligned with these results, the rate of teen pregnancy and births in the U.S. has been steadily decreasing since the early 1990s. In 2015, a historic low of 22.3 births per 1,000 teens was recorded.

Most of the 55 percent of teens who have had sex by the age of 18 used some type of protection, typically a condom, the study said.

If pregnancies declined than HPV infection must have declined for the same reason, in some magnitude anyway.

a reply to: FredT

I completely agree. I was being slightly sarcastic in my generic 'culling' of morons.

But yes, the ideology of the anti-vax movement increases unnecessary spending on the treatment of otherwise 'cured' illnesses; by cured I mean effectively eliminated by vaccination, such as polio, small pox and measles.

The latter of which is now re-rearing its ugly head in the US due to the stupidity and ill-educated people who refuse to vaccinate their children.

a reply to: noonebutme

What about the corporate ideology which has been losing public confidence? The reputation of congress is a bad joke if it was not so serious. JFK, 9/11, WMD, Muller... No wonder people are saying no. If Big Pharma can produce clear and concise evidence backed data for public comment then it will help the public confidence with these and similar products. Instead we get a blank wall surrounded by trade secrets with a big 'Trust Me' stamped on it. Watch out for the thought police if you ask too many questions.

People accept that there are risks with vaccinations. Without the trust and communication we are left with fear.