4 ms·

This is amazing! "As a result, the HPV rate among women aged 18 to 24 dropped from 22.7% to 1.1% between 2005 and 2015."

masonic 9y ago
Not amazing at all to me, considering that they are completely different populations. The youngest subject at the start of that window dropped out of that population 7 years ago (3 years before the last survey). The figure doesn't count cures, or even reduced transmissions, among the original subjects. That said, I find the quoted statistic suspect. First of all, the first vaccine wasn't even licensed until 2006, and there wasn't a vaccine that addressed more than 4 of the cancer-causing subtypes until 2014[0]. Second, they only targeted girls of age 12-13 (although they provided free vaccinations on manual request through age 19), leaving out girls in the upper 70% of the age range altogether from the survey population. So, I don't take those numbers at face value, although I don't debate the safety or efficacy of these particular vaccines, being genetics-based. It's the profiteering by the planned-obsolescence model of the manufacturers that bothers me. If you're a parent and you followed the public-health experts' recommendations, and you wanted the full (nonavalent vaccine) functionality, you would have given a three-injection treatment of the bivalent spanning 6 months, then (later) a three-injection treatment of the quarivalent spanning 6 more months, then another cycle of the nonavalent vaccine... giving the manufacturers a lot of money out of your public health budget and a proof-of-concept for the drug companies to do this in lots of other vaccines and drugs in the future. [0] http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/255353/1/WER9219.pdf?ua=1 http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/255353/1/WER9219.pd... Human papillomavirus vaccines: WHO position paper, May 2017
- Lewton 9y ago
  > That said, I find the quoted statistic suspect. First of all, the first vaccine wasn't even licensed until 2006, and there wasn't a vaccine that addressed more than 4 of the cancer-causing subtypes until 2014[0]. Second, they only targeted girls of age 12-13 (although they provided free vaccinations on manual request through age 19), leaving out girls in the upper 70% of the age range altogether from the survey population. I'm guessing herd immunity kicked in at some point between 2005 and 2015
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Lots of vaccines require multiple doses and boosters, it isn't anything new.
- thedailymail 9y ago
  I don't think this represents a planned obsolescence scheme, just stages of progress in the development, testing and approval of successively better vaccines.
  - masonic 9y ago
    Check the dates again. The quadrivalent (4 strain) vaccine was licensed before the bivalent (2-strain Cervarix) vaccine, and Cervarix is inferior in other respects. Yet medical systems paid $50-2000 a dose for hundreds of millions of doses, knowing that it was obsolete.
    - thedailymail 9y ago
      Sorry, you're absolutely right on the dates! But how would planned obsolescence work if the inferior product is made by a competitor? It sounds more like a me-too drug scenario. Was Cervarix competing with Gardasil on price, with a tradeoff of less protection for lower cost?

masonic 9y ago

Not amazing at all to me, considering that they are completely different populations. The youngest subject at the start of that window dropped out of that population 7 years ago (3 years before the last survey). The figure doesn't count cures, or even reduced transmissions, among the original subjects. That said, I find the quoted statistic suspect. First of all, the first vaccine wasn't even licensed until 2006, and there wasn't a vaccine that addressed more than 4 of the cancer-causing subtypes until 2014[0]. Second, they only targeted girls of age 12-13 (although they provided free vaccinations on manual request through age 19), leaving out girls in the upper 70% of the age range altogether from the survey population. So, I don't take those numbers at face value, although I don't debate the safety or efficacy of these particular vaccines, being genetics-based. It's the profiteering by the planned-obsolescence model of the manufacturers that bothers me. If you're a parent and you followed the public-health experts' recommendations, and you wanted the full (nonavalent vaccine) functionality, you would have given a three-injection treatment of the bivalent spanning 6 months, then (later) a three-injection treatment of the quarivalent spanning 6 more months, then another cycle of the nonavalent vaccine... giving the manufacturers a lot of money out of your public health budget and a proof-of-concept for the drug companies to do this in lots of other vaccines and drugs in the future. [0] http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/255353/1/WER9219.pdf?ua=1 http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/255353/1/WER9219.pd... Human papillomavirus vaccines: WHO position paper, May 2017

Lewton 9y ago
> That said, I find the quoted statistic suspect. First of all, the first vaccine wasn't even licensed until 2006, and there wasn't a vaccine that addressed more than 4 of the cancer-causing subtypes until 2014[0]. Second, they only targeted girls of age 12-13 (although they provided free vaccinations on manual request through age 19), leaving out girls in the upper 70% of the age range altogether from the survey population. I'm guessing herd immunity kicked in at some point between 2005 and 2015
maxerickson 9y ago
Lots of vaccines require multiple doses and boosters, it isn't anything new.
thedailymail 9y ago
I don't think this represents a planned obsolescence scheme, just stages of progress in the development, testing and approval of successively better vaccines.
- masonic 9y ago
  Check the dates again. The quadrivalent (4 strain) vaccine was licensed before the bivalent (2-strain Cervarix) vaccine, and Cervarix is inferior in other respects. Yet medical systems paid $50-2000 a dose for hundreds of millions of doses, knowing that it was obsolete.
  - thedailymail 9y ago
    Sorry, you're absolutely right on the dates! But how would planned obsolescence work if the inferior product is made by a competitor? It sounds more like a me-too drug scenario. Was Cervarix competing with Gardasil on price, with a tradeoff of less protection for lower cost?