Waukesha (WI) girl dies hours after getting HPV vaccine

WAUKESHA, Wis. —As parents get their children ready to go back to school, getting them vaccinated is probably on the list.

A popular shot for young girls is the HPV vaccine, but a Waukesha mother said her daughter died hours after getting the shot.

It occurs to me that what you keep doing on this thread is tossing out the "sex card" - much like liberals use the race card. That is, when libs can't stand someone disagreeing with them, they'll say "you're a racist" in order to shut them down and dismiss anything further they have to say. You call people mysogynists and terrorists and "anti-vaccinators", accuse them of disregard for their child's health, claim they want to punish their daugthers for sex, fear-monger with all the "consequences" of forgoing this vaccine (without, incidentally, addressing a single one of the very real controversies about it) and on and on. ALL without a single shred of evidence. You actually think that Merck or a pediatrician or YOU have more concern from my daughters' health than I do?! Take a hike.

I am more concerned with health outcomes than I am about how a person gets a disease. Since the majority of people posting here against the vaccine rationalize refusing to vaccinate their daughters on the basis that any woman who gets HPV related cancerous conditions deserves it--well, it's hard to interpret that as something other than misogyny.

The fact is that Merck, your pediatrician, and I all know and understand far more about this vaccine than you do. And the information about it that you find at the CDC is way more accurate than anything you'll find on an anti-vax site.

Given the history of this vaccine, if you, with true intellectual honesty, cannot understand WHY parents have concerns and questions, I don't know what else to say to you. You either profit from forceful marketing of this drug or you are "less ex Dem" than your name implies and you like the control aspect.

I try to dispel myths. I provide accurate information that parents can use to make an *informed* decision. The fact is that 75% of all people get some sort of HPV infection. The fact is that those HPV viruses sometimes insert their DNA into a chromosome, so that the virus becomes a permanent part of the infected tissues. The fact is that, depending on where the virus inserts itself in the host DNA, it can start an oncogenic process that leads to dysplasia and sometimes to cancer. The fact is that this vaccine was tested for years before its inventors collected sufficient data demonstrating its safety and efficacy to satisfy the FDA requirements, and they are still collecting data because the FDA requires it. The fact is that the moment this vaccine was approved, anti-vaxxers jumped all over it and started a disinformation campaign that continues to this day.

BTW, the stock accusation of all anti-vaxxers that anyone presenting accurate scientific information must be profiting from doing so is beyond stupid. If I were concerned about profit, I'd do everything I could to discourage vaccine use. There is a lot more profit in people getting sick and needing hospitalization, drugs, IV fluids, nursing care, etc., than there is in them staying well. According to the insurance company Aetna, it costs over $1,700 to stay one night in the hospital--you'd have to give 14 HPV vaccine series to get that much profit.

Of course I agree, and you are correct. Your post is the reason that I get my regularly scheduled pap smear as recommended by my doctor, and I would encourage all women to do so.

According to the CDC 90 percent of cervical cancer is caused by HPV. This still leaves 10 percent that are not prevented by a monogamous marital relationship or the HPV vaccine. The reason why women should always still get a PAP smear regardless of their sexual habits or their vaccine status.

I do believe that parents have reason and a right to be cautious when new medications are offered to their children, and I do not believe the government should mandate HPV vaccine for children, it should be at their parent’s discretion.

No, you didn't report the results of the study. You merely repeated the blogger's opinion, which was based on anecdotal evidence (i.e. the people he has talked with).

The blogger said these were the results of the psychology study:

The study found two significant associations with older virginity: regular attendance at religious services and abstinence from alcohol.

IOW, people who live chaste lives outside marriage tend to be sober and religious. The idea of "social awkwardness" and "shame" came from the blogger, not from the study.

“I seriously do not understand the desire to load up one’s body with foreign chemicals...”

I notice you have no reservations about loading up the body with foreign chemicals such as prescription drugs and vaccines. If the FDA were doing their job, i.e., to protect we the people, most prescription drugs would be verboten because of the serious, and sometimes fatal side effects. Same is true of vaccines. You can rant all you want, but vitamin C is not a ‘foreign chemical’. All mammals except primates, bats and guinea pigs produce their own vitamin C.

Under stress the animals that produce their own vitamin C produce 100’s of times their ‘normal’ levels. And they get well. Same result for humans if high doses are used in times of stress. And in these times bowel tolerance goes up to match the need…and with absolutely no adverse effect on the various body organs. Your saying otherwise in your espousals on behalf of the drug industry does not make what you say true.

The problem with the promises made by the vaccine manufacturer is the false sense of security that it will give women.
They’re going to be thinking that if they have the vaccine, they don’t need to worry when being promiscuous and that they won’t need to bother with pap smears.

The recommendation for PAP testing has not changed because of the vaccine, but because of review of efficacy data.

What makes you think that a girl who is vaccinated is more likely to become promiscuous? Promiscuity existed long before any vaccine, and I seriously doubt that any woman is thinking, "Wow, I am now 70% protected against cervical cancer--time to sleep around with every guy I encounter!"

Also, at the time I was treated for pre-invasive cancer at the age of 29, I had been married for 9 years and had two children. So I *really* appreciate the assumption that I got the disease (and presumably deserved the pain) by being promiscuous. I sure wish there had been a vaccine when I was a pre-teen!

Pap tests can detect cervical cancer when it’s easily treatable.

Pap tests have about a 10-20% false negative rate. About 1% of the time, false negatives can occur in three consecutive tests, allowing time for the cancer to become invasive. Women who have regular PAP tests can and do die of cervical cancer.

There is also about a 15% recurrence rate of cervical disease after treatment. As a gynecologist who specializes in treating cervical disease told me, it's like trying to weed your yard. Sometimes, you get the entire weed. Sometimes, the weed comes back and starts taking over the yard. Some of her patients had recurrence of disease even after total hysterectomy.

You have a choice. You can protect your daughter against the most virulent strains of HPV virus with a safe and effective vaccine, or you can hope that if she develops disease, she is not in that 10-20% false negative group or in that 15% treatment failure group. (I was lucky, the condition never recurred and I am now low risk for the disease.)

Almost 4,000 women die of cervical cancer every year.

HPV causes other cancers, too, in both men and women. In fact, HPV caused oropharyngeal cancer incidence is on track to overtake cervical cancer by 2020. The vaccine will protect against that, too.

The fact is that, when vaccinations are administered, usually the doctor or nurse hands you a piece of paper that lists all of the possible risks. That information comes straight from the CDC. Often, one of the possible risks is fatality.

Don't place so much significance on that patient information sheet. If you compare those pieces of paper between different vaccines, there is a list of risks that are always the same--they are a stock list of risks that the FDA requires to be distributed with all vaccines. The risks that are specific to the vaccine are those that state the exact incidence of the side-effect, for example, that swelling and localized inflammation or headache are seen in more than 10% of patients.

It doesn’t matter if the risk of fatality is one in a million; statistics are no consolation if your child happens to be that one in a million.

The annual risk of dying of cervical cancer is about 1 in 80,000. That is a rough estimate based on the total population of the US, uncorrected for gender or age. The death rate of teenagers age 12-19 between 1999 and 2006 was about 1 in 2,000; the death rate increases with age. The death rate of participants in this HPV vaccine study was about 1 in 1,200 regardless of whether they were in the vaccine or the control group (the death rate was actually slightly, but insignificantly, higher in the control group). I wouldn't worry about some hypothetical 1 in a million chance of dying from a vaccine; I'd worry about all those other things killing kids.

The bottom line is that we each have the right to determine whether or not immunization shots (how many, which ones, etc.) are OK for us and our families.

The bottom line is that an honest risk/benefit analysis supports the decision to vaccinate. Infectious disease is and always has been a major killer.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.