Need Another Reason to Get a Flu Shot?

If reducing the risk of suffering from the flu this winter isn't quite enough to convince you to get a flu shot, consider this:  according to two studies presented at the Canadian Cardiovascular Congress, it turns out getting a flu shot can actually decrease the risk of a heart attack by as much as 50%!

So not only can you avoid the flu, you might actually save your life.  Sort of makes you wonder how antivaxxers will spin this to make it look like a bad thing... because saving lives isn't exactly the type of side effect they like to talk about.

Is this the kind of thing that should be reported to VAERS?

Read more here:  The Shot That Prevents Heart Attacks (via Yahoo Health)

Will Antivaxxers Embrace the HIV Vaccine?

I was reading the latest news about one of the many HIV vaccines in development, and even though the results of the initial phase of testing appear to be very positive, I couldn't help but wonder to myself... how will the antivaxxers spin this to make something as beneficial as a HIV vaccine to be a bad thing?

I understand full well we are a long way away from an actual usable and functional HIV vaccine, but the initial clinical trials suggest that such a vaccine could be right around the corner.  So if we assume a HIV vaccine is within our grasp, and we already know over 33,000 people a year are diagnosed with HIV / AIDS and over 9,000 die from the disease annually, will there be a major push from the antivaxxer community to proclaim the vaccine is more harmful than HIV itself?

Perhaps it is too early to tell.  We don't yet know of any potential side effects of the HIV vaccine so we can't say what harm it may cause.  However if we look to other vaccines as examples of what we might expect it seems highly unlikely that antivaxxers will support such a vaccine even if it is shown to save thousands of lives.

How do we know this?  Simple... just look at something like the HPV vaccine (Gardasil). We know the lifetime risk of developing cervical cancer in the US is 1 in 147 for those women who are unvaccinated while it is only 1 in 400 for those women who are vaccinated.  Knowing the fatality rate of cervical cancer is around 35%, we can use simple math to determine that the HPV vaccine could potentially save approximately 2,500 lives per year in the US alone.  Now antivaxxers are quick to point out that within one year of receiving a Gardasil vaccine there have been at least 68 reported deaths.  Some sources cite slightly higher numbers, some cite lower numbers, but the 68 number is accurate as of June 2011 and came directly from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).  What they fail to tell you however, is that that total includes all deaths... even those which were a result of suicide, car accidents, or unrelated medical conditions.

Now in case you are curious, even if we use the full 68 deaths, and we consider that at that point in time over 35,000,000 doses of the Gardasil vaccine were given it would mean that 68 works out to be 0.0004%.  It is probably also a good time to mention that 0 of those deaths (0.0000000000%) have actually been attributed to Gardasil... and that number doesn't change no matter who has reviewed the data.

However, I'm in generous mood and I'm trying to make a point, so for the sake of discussion, let's just go ahead and assume out of those 68 deaths that the vast majority were a direct result of the vaccine.  For the sake of argument, we will ignore all common sense and logic and simply assume that 50 of those 68 deaths were a direct result of Gardasil.  Now let's also assume that VAERS only captures about 10% of the actual adverse events tied to vaccines, and therefore we need to now extrapolate that 50 deaths to be a total of 500.  So out of 35,000,000 doses of the vaccine given, we are making a wild assumption of 500 deaths.  In case you are curious that works out to be an effective rate of 0.00142%

Do you have any idea how small a number 0.00142 really is? That is roughly one out of 70,000.  That means  if you injected one person each day with Gardasil, you could continue to do so for 192 years before someone might actually die as a result - and that is under the huge assumption that all of these deaths can be directly linked to the vaccine (which we know they cannot).

Great - so the chances of dropping dead within one year of receiving a Gardasil vaccine are 0.00142%.  Fine... I know it is a huge stretch, and we know the numbers are nowhere near that level, but even if we use worse case scenario logic coupled with idiotic assumptions, we still come up with a value which is incredibly small.

So how many lives have been saved by the vaccine during that same period of time?  The Gardasil vaccine was approved by the FDA in June of 2006, so five years later in June 2011 by the time those 35,000,000 doses were distributed, we could have potentially saved 12,500 lives from the vaccine.

So let's be clear - if the vaccine saves 2,500 lives a year (12,500 lives over five years) and if the vaccines results in 500 deaths during that same period, that tells us the end result is a net increase in lives saved.  This means the Gardasil vaccine actually saved at least 12,000 lives.  Yes you can argue the number is larger or smaller, but in the theme of keeping things simple, this is a fairly conservative figure.

So what do antivaxxers say when presented with these numbers?  Do they admit that the net effect of the vaccine is that lives are saved?  No.  Do they admit that even if the vaccine isn't perfect that it is still better than nothing?  Nope.  Instead of looking at the net impact, antivaxxers do what antivaxxers always do when the numbers don't help their cause.  They deny the numbers and claim the math doesn't add up.... or better yet they simply refuse to talk about it.

Now we know it is impossible for even the most diehard antivaxxer to deny basic arithmetic, so instead they simply flatly deny that the vaccine saves any lives.  They even go so far as to claim there is no connection between HPV and cervical cancer.  Yes seriously.  (In case you are wondering, the claim about HPV not causing cervical cancer is flatly untrue and stems from a misunderstanding of the virus.  It is true that not all strains of HPV cause cancer and it is also true that many HPV infections are short-lived and don't result in cervical cancer, but it is widely know that some strains of HPV (namely HPV 16 and HPV 18) do in fact cause more than 99% of all cervical cancers).

So we can see with our own eyes that antivaxxers with do anything and say anything rather than admit a vaccination is actually beneficial.  They will misinterpret data, they will misreport the facts, they will misrepresent scientific studies and even cherry-pick statements out of context.  Even worse, when all else fails... they will just flat out lie.

So if one day we are presented with a HIV vaccine that could potentially save tens of thousands of lives each year, is it possible that antivaxxers would actually embrace the vaccine and admit that it benefits the health of the human race?

Considering many antivaxxers don't even believe that the HIV virus causes AIDS... not bloody likely.

Gardasil: Fact vs. Fiction

As you get to know Mr. Hubbs you realize his medical and vaccine conspiracy theories are not only limited to autism or mercury or thimerosal, but rather to pretty much any vaccine ever developed. This includes the MMR vaccine, the polio vaccine (I'm working on a post related to his "sugar causes polio" nonsense), and of course the Gardasil vaccine.

In fact, for quite some time you could even say Gardasil was Mr. Hubbs' favorite topic, and he considers himself one of the world's foremost researchers on the subject. Granted 100% of what he knows has been obtained via Google searches and he has never set foot in an actual scientific research lab and has never taken a single college course on biochemistry (or any other college course for that matter) nor has he ever bothered to read the numerous medical studies which were performed on the vaccine prior to the FDA approval, but lets try to avoid those issues for now.

So although it doesn't surprise me that Mr. Hubbs would write about Gardasil, what does surprise me is that he makes claims which he himself has never been able to substantiate with science. Case in point is the following comment left on a Gardasil discussion by our very own Mr. Hubbs:

"The fact is 90% of HPV infections clear on their own. This vaccination is unproven to how long immunity lasts, may be no more than 5 yrs at best. HPV is not proven to cause cervical cancer, only that HPV sometimes resides in precancerous cervical lesions. The theory that any virus causes cancer is also unproven and questioned by several medical reseachers. [sic]" ~Lowell Hubbs

So here we have Mr. Hubbs giving us facts about HPV as if he has first hand knowledge. Don't bother asking for a source to validate his statements however as Mr. Hubbs is likely to refer you to his own blog as evidence. The simple truth is HPV may clear on its own, but so can the mumps or measles or any number of other viruses. Meningitis could also clear on its own if you really want to get technical, but does that mean nobody should get vaccinated because the virus MIGHT clear on its own with no side effects?

It probably doesn't matter to Mr. Hubbs that those with HPV could spread it to others just as those with measles or mumps could spread it to others. Mr. Hubbs doesn't seem to care about those who might contract a virus from another person however, he just wants to prevent anyone from ever being vaccinated. The fact that a virus could be passed from person to person and could eventually lead to one or more people being diagnosed with cancer, or in some cases that people could actually die as as direct result from a simple preventable virus just isn't that important to Mr. Hubbs.

Of course his care for others doesn't stop there, and his comments continue:

"some Gardasil ingrediants,[sic] polysorbate 80, (said to disperse the ingrediants [sic] in the vaccine more uninformly [sic]), causes infertily [sic] in mice, and no research on that by Merck was done. The vaccine also contains histidine, also known to cause severe allergic reacions [sic], additionally the vaccine contains sodium borate, similar to Borax and has been used as roach killer, tell me whay [sic] that is in the vaccine? Do the homework, stop first, research this on the net extensively like I have for weeks. The benfits [sic] do no outweigh the risks." ~Lowell Hubbs

So according to Mr. Hubbs, the benefit of preventing a young girl or woman from contracting cervical cancer doesn't outweigh the risks of getting the vaccine. Granted he doesn't provide any facts or figures to show us why these risks are so significant, and he doesn't compare the number of doses given of the vaccine with no side effects versus the few claims of vaccine injury.

So let's go ahead and do that for Mr. Hubbs since he seems incapable of doing so for himself. According to the CDC as of September 30, 2010, approximately 32 million doses of Gardasil have been distributed in the US. That is 32,000,000 doses and according to Mr. Hubbs, 32,000,000 chances that a risk would outweigh a benefit.

So of these 32,000,000 doses, how many resulted in negative side effects or "risks"? Well, again according to the CDC as of September 30, 2010, there were 17,160 Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports of adverse events following Gardasil vaccination in the US. Of these reports, 92% were reports of events considered to be non-serious, and 8% were reports of events considered serious.

So out of 17,160 events, approximately 92% (or 15,787 events) are non-serious. This includes things like pain at the injection site (common for any shot), dizziness, headache, fever, or fainting. Since these events are not serious and typically clear up on their own, lets disregard them for the sake of this discussion.

This leaves us with the 8% (or approximately 1,373 events) which are classified as serious. Of this 8%, some of these events include girls being diagnosed with Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), although once again if we refer to the CDC source material we find "there has been no indication that Gardasil increases the rate of GBS in girls and women above the rate expected in the general population, whether or not they were vaccinated."

So what does that mean? Well it simply means the incidence of girls being diagnosed with GBS occurs in the same rate whether they were or were not vaccinated with Gardasil. Therefore scientifically speaking we cannot link the rate of GBS with the vaccination and the only reason these types of events are reported to VAERS is because the system is intended to collect all events whether related or not. Since there is no proven increase in the rate of GBS, it doesn't appear this is a significant risk.

Another serious event reported included blood clots. This isn't so much of an issue with Gardasil as it is with an injection itself of course, but as it turns out those girls and women who experienced blood clots were in the "at risk" category which includes those who smoke, those who take oral contraceptives, and those who are considered obese. Thus in this case, a number of factors may have contributed to the blood clots including lifestyle choice... so is this something we can blame solely upon the Gardasil vaccine? Not very likely.

An example of this would be building a home. The foundation is designed to support a single family home with one story above ground, and assuming the house is build as designed everything will be fine. However decades later, the new owner of the house decides he needs more room, so he adds another two stories to the house. He doesn't bother to reinforce the foundation, and assumes everything will be fine. He finishes the project and decides to put a new hot tub on the third floor which holds 1,000 gallons of water. A few weeks after living in the new expanded house it starts to settle. A few weeks after that the foundation develops a huge crack on one wall, and soon the foundation fails and the house falls down bringing the hot tub and the 1,000 gallons of water into the basement.

So is the hot tub to blame for the foundation failing? Obviously not - because there was a known weak point in the home. Had the foundation been strong enough to accept a larger structure, there wouldn't be a problem, but we don't blame the failure on the hot tub merely because we didn't know about the weak foundation.

The same is true with a case where a vaccine or medication might result in a condition which was underlying. Even if we didn't know about the condition, is it the fault of the vaccine if it comes to the surface? If we did know about the condition, but didn't think it would impact us, is it still fair to blame the vaccine if we are proven wrong? I dare say there is inherent risk in everything we do, but we can no more blame the vaccine for an underlying condition when we knew about the risk factors than we can blame the hot tub for the failing foundation when the builder knew about the weak foundation.

All of this said, the one primary serious event that everyone is concerned with is the risk of death, so if it is determined that Gardasil results in girls dying simply by taking the vaccine, then surely it needs to be addressed. Looking at the CDC material, we can see that out of those 32,000,000 doses of Gardasil that have been given thus far, there have been 56 deaths reported among females who have received the Gardasil vaccination.

Now if we assume every woman receives the full recommended three dose schedule of the vaccine, that tells us that 10,700,000 woman have received Gardasil thus far, and of those 10,700,000 woman 56 have died. I don't mean to trivialize 56 deaths. In fact I don't even mean to trivialize one single death, but the math tells us these 56 deaths account for approximately 0.0005% of the women who received the Gardasil vaccination. In other words the remaining 99.9995% of women are still alive and with us.

More importantly however, according to the CDC out of these 56 deaths (which of only 30 have been confirmed thus far), there was "no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine". This means that if a woman died of a totally unrelated heart issue within days or perhaps even weeks of receiving the Gardasil vaccine, that event would be reported to VAERS. It doesn't mean Gardasil caused the issue, but to err on the side of caution, all such events are reported.

However since the analysis of these deaths does not include any pattern or clustering when compared to non-vaccinated control groups, no reasonable researcher or scientist (or even anyone with an open mind) can claim that these deaths are all related to the Gardasil vaccine itself. In fact if you read about the actual deaths in greater detail, you will find in some cases the deaths were directly attributed to causes such as illicit drug use and heart failure. Can we really blame a death upon a vaccination when the women decides to inject herself with illegal drugs and dies of an overdose? I personally don't think so.

Now it is quite possible a woman out there has died or been seriously injured as a direct result of the vaccine. Each person is unique, we all have different genetic traits including dominant and recessive genes. We each have different risk factors, different traits such as allergies or reactions to chemical compounds, and we each have our own medical histories which may include other prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, supplements, nutrient intakes etc, etc. Therefore no medication, supplement, or even food is compatible with all humans, and as such there will always be a risk when someone decides to eat a new food, take a new supplement, use a new brand of toothpaste, or yes even take a new medication or vaccination.

Obviously anything and everything we do has risk, and it is up to each individual to determine if they feel that risk is acceptable when compared to the benefits of eating the food, swallowing the supplement or vitamin, taking the medication, receiving the vaccine, or undergoing a medical procedure etc. I don't believe that is my place to tell someone else that they must get vaccinated, but at the same time I don't believe it is in Mr. Hubbs' place to tell them they can't. It is a personal decision best left up to the individual when they take all of the risk factors into mind.

However it seems clear in this case, the risk of receiving a Gardasil vaccination is no greater than the risk of choosing to eat a sandwich for lunch or the decision to take aspirin to relieve a headache. For all of the screaming and yelling and arguments made against this vaccine really don't live up to scrutiny when you look at the facts and examine the real numbers.

Granted I'm not the only one who feels this way, as a poster named "Amber" who responded to Mr. Hubbs' comment had the following to say:

"Ah, well, we all know internet research trumps firsthand experience…"

Well played Amber... well played indeed.

http://www.hpvhometest.com/merck-gardasil-has-your-child-been-vaccinated-tell-us-your-story/

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/7/750

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/HPV/jama.html

http://vaers.hhs.gov/index