Kimmo

look, you've never presented yourself as a very bright cookie here, and that's ok, i don't really have any personal problems with anyone's displays of angry ignorance, but you're presented now with a golden opportunity to vindicate yourself. i mean, with all the "bullshit" i'm spewing, i'm sure you can find a little tidbit that even you can specifically find fault with. use your "science" mind.

cute, but can you tell me what facts i be hatin on? oh, sorry: "facts".

the reason i did went right over your head. like most things, seemingly.

oh wait, these "scientists" were saying additional studies were needed because it had already been proven that there was NO ASSOCIATION between any asd cases and vaccinations! yeah that's right, cuz they are the opposite scientists, the type that say the opposite of everything.

No shit! oh, now i see the problem. even though no one was claiming vaccines to be causative, you somehow read they were! ok, just a minor reading comprehension problem, folks. nothing to get worked up about. did you continue reading to the part where the researchers from Cleveland Clinic, harvard, and johns hopkins university stated "Large population-based studies will be needed to identify a possible relationship of vaccination with autistic regression in persons with mitochondrial cytopathies" i'd strongly suggest you read the online article. and actually pay attention this time.

oh boy. this is difficult for you, isn't it. it then goes on to state: is this really that hard, jim?

you cut the quote off just in time, since it goes on to say: yup, nothing to see here. right, jim?

i didn't see it. which link and where? interesting what else the same panel had to say: The NVAC repeated the oft-quoted statement that, "the temporal occurrence of this regression and the vaccination schedule is not evidence of a causal relationship," but it added: "Regressive autism does fit the recommendations of the IOM (immunization) committee for further research in rigorously defined subsets of ASD." Such studies might entail, "comparison of immune cytokine profiles between regressive and non-regressive ASD to screen for differential immune system profiles, or prospective vaccination response profiling in siblings of children with regressive ASD, a subpopulation who are at higher risk (somewhere between 3%-35% increased risk, depending on the study and number of siblings affected)," the NVAC wrote. and further: a second study, based on the same CDC data, "with improved methods," showed statistically significant associations not only with tics, but also speech and language delays. "Protective associations" with thimerosal were detected for other neuropsychological disorders, however. And a third study in the UK also suggested a relationship between thimerosal and tics, the NVAC said. The CDC had proposed looking at thimerosal and tics and/or Tourette syndrome (the presence of both phonic and motor tics) and the NVAC agreed that this was appropriate. But the vaccine experts at NVAC added: "Because two of the studies above also found associations between thimerosal and speech and language delay," these were also valid outcomes to study, and should be included. hah, funny. i don't think you really read or understood the report, if all you can glean from it is that the recommendations were entirely based on some superfluous public interest.

btw, nordicpunk, you might be interested in the following. not sure where the study is now, since the recommendations were from 3 years ago, but a rather broad panel who worked up the outline: On Tuesday, the Federal Government's leading immunization advisory panel unanimously approved a sweeping list of vaccine safety research recommendations for the US Department of Health and Human Services, including several that are directly or indirectly linked to the vaccine-autism debate. further: An "external expert committee," such as the Institute of Medicine, the NVAC said, should consider "strengths and weaknesses, ethical issues and feasibility, including timelines and cost" of various ways to study vaccinated, unvaccinated and possibly, partially vaccinated children or "children vaccinated by alternative immunization schedules." Such studies should look at outcomes like biomarkers for immune and metabolic dysfunction (for example, autoimmunity and mitochondrial problems) plus "neurodevelopmental outcomes, allergies, asthma, immune-mediated diseases, and other developmental disabilities such as epilepsy, intellectual disability and learning disabilities," the panelists said. link link

you're right, i was a bit hasty with my dismissal of your post. i guess i was feeling a little emotive. i don't recall proposing such a study. perhaps i did? i'm not sure a call for vax vs non-vax is easy to "refute", but one can certainly propose reasons why it hasn't been done yet. but let's not split hairs: which studies? really? you don't think "thousands" of non-vaccinated kids exist? i have a hard time believing that, and would love to see the source of your assertion. the way the "pro-vaccine in any and all situations" crowd yammers about the subject, you'd think there are un-vaccinated kids around every corner. yup, truly so. but when nothing else is available, might a sub-optimal approach be considered better than no approach at all? can you point to this mountain of evidence? definitely a big obstacle. i have a hard time imagining how such a study could be considered ethical. what parent would allow their child to either be vaccinated or not, based on chance.

i guess my 5 minute suggestion was a rather optimistic number, since 20 didn't produce much beyond a rather generic soliloquy on the subject....

it's a little more sophisticated than that, bob.

what makes you think we went to the moon, kevbone?

that's a nice sounding theory, ennit? what outside source do you like to have your iconoclastic beliefs validated by?

did you know pot can bring on psychosis in susceptible individuals? although cognitive difficulties are much more prevalent.

it's an anti-vaccine conspiracy, bob. they are out to fool ya, but you're too smart for them.

what was the ridiculous claim again? still waiting.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You did it again! and still waiting....

what was the ridiculous claim again? still waiting....

there's no way i can get my hair to do that. not that i haven't tried....

what was the ridiculous claim again?

are you a "scientist"? for reals? if it would take you a year to dissect "all the misinformation", i'm sure you could dissect just a little in, say, 5 minutes? as long as it took you to post your assertions above?

I did. My difficulty in believing this comes from your quote below: I think an unbiased reading of her article(s) leads any rational player to conclude that her point is beyond simple "business tactics" and "public health economics" concerns; while she has obvious concerns with both, these concerns are in service of her larger concern, namely having informed participation in this particular medical procedure. Many may have chosen to continue with a lifetime of Pap screening and forgo the vaccines, with the unknowns of duration of efficacy and safety unable to be answered for many more years. how you personally derive such a different meaning from her articles is a little perplexing, although i suppose we all tend to see that which supports our own particular brand of bias. (regarding my understanding of VAERS, i believe i only quoted harper's take, so how you might assert that i have a misunderstanding is also perplexing). again, i think her point is that this should be a personal choice based on informed consent, a choice made differently by different people (for a variety of reasons). i think the mistake you might be making is believing your interpretation of the facts (along with some non-facts in your case) is somehow the only interpretation available. Reporting a serious, post-vaccine medical event to VAERS in no way establishes causal link. On investigation almost none of VAERS serious adverse events such as death, GBS, or blood clots could be shown to be a result of Gardasil. Other risk factors with far higher likely causal linkages were almost always present. nobody has claimed a causal link; the only claim is an "association". please read the articles again. an "association" is enough to cause me concern, but evidently not you, and that's fair and fine. and can you provide a link to your source for the above assertions regarding the presence of "Other risk factors with far higher likely causal linkages" being "almost always present."? Correct, but pointless in any rational discussion - one should obviously be employing both vaccines and smears. again, your brand of "rationality" isn't everyone's. i've seen you accused of adopting a rather irrational take on what you believe to be rational on other threads, and am seeing it up close here. not sure what you're talking about with "other suspected cancers", but Cervarix induces antibody titers for HPV 16 and 18 that are at least ten fold higher than natural infection titers; the antibody titers for the other three cancer causing types (HPV 31, 45, 33) are also significantly higher than natural infection titers, and the titers stay high for at least 7.4 years - lasting the longer of either vaccines. • Gardasil only maintains antibody titers for HPV 16 (not 18, not 11, not 6) at five years, making the true long lasting (five years) coverage of Gardasil only for one type of cancer causing HPV. and regarding warts: Regarding wart protection promotion, there is no mention that the data showed protection against genital warts in men for only a 2.4-year period of time. so in other words, better be getting your shots a heck of a lot more often than your current 15 year schedule, for both wart protection AND the cancer causing HPV strains. well, i suppose KP declaring it "safe" is good enough for you! they did have help from merck, after all.... but just for fun, can you link to the study, along with its protocols? can you post the link to the graph above? curious about which particular strains of hpv are included in the graph, where the data was collected, when, etc. etc. (same with the other graph you posted). really? can you link to where you got the efficacy length data? it seems to squarely contradict harper's statements above, and since she was directly involved with the vaccine's development.... and since you claim that the efficacy length is unknown, when do you plan on revaccinating? another consideration entirely overlooked is this notion to "have her vaccinated". you said she was 16; did you simply say "time to have your hpv vaccine. now now, no complaints. father knows best." i'm entirely comfortable saying this isn't the way i'd proceed with a daughter of mine....

that was interesting, but, if legit, i guess not terribly earth shattering info, no? i've certainly read similar, years ago.

what about one's daughter (the original topic)? (i haven't looked at incidence in males, so won't comment.)

joe, it doesn't sound like you read the articles. "The number of women who die from cervical cancer in the US every year is small but real. It is small because of the success of the Pap screening program." "The risks of serious adverse events including death reported after Gardasil use in (the JAMA article by CDC's Dr. Barbara Slade) were 3.4/100,000 doses distributed. The rate of serious adverse events on par with the death rate of cervical cancer. Gardasil has been associated with at least as many serious adverse events as there are deaths from cervical cancer developing each year. "Pap smears have never killed anyone. Pap smears are an effective screening tool to prevent cervical cancer. Pap smears alone prevent more cervical cancers than can the vaccines alone. Gardasil is associated with serious adverse events, including death. If Gardasil is given to 11 year olds, and the vaccine does not last at least fifteen years, then there is no benefit - and only risk - for the young girl. Vaccinating will not reduce the population incidence of cervical cancer if the woman continues to get Pap screening throughout her life. "The informed consent/full disclosure as I described initially must be disclosed to parents and young women. The questions should be raised, 'How do you want to prevent cervical cancer? Pap screening? Vaccination? Both?" the cumulative incidence of HPV infections for women in the U.S. through the age of 50 years old is 80%. That statement is true. That statement infers that nearly every one is infected with HPV at least one point in their life. What is left out is that 95% of all HPV infections are cleared spontaneously by the body's immune system. The remaining 5% progress to cancer precursors. Cancer precursors, specifically CIN 3, progresses to invasive cancer in the following proportions: 20% of women with CIN 3 progress to invasive cervical cancer in five years; 40% progress to cervical cancer in thirty years. There is ample time to detect and treat the early precancers and early stage cancers for 100% cure. here's an interesting excerpt, about vaccines in general: Are the protocols of the CDC and VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) properly processing reports of adverse reactions and deaths due to the vaccine? What do you see as the weak link in the VAERS system of collecting data? "VAERS is biased in both directions, not allowing any veritable conclusions to be drawn about vaccine safety. If an association with an adverse event is detected statistically, there is not enough information collected in VAERS to determine causation, which is a multi-step process. Likewise, if no association with an adverse event is detected statistically, there is not enough information to reassure the public that no serious adverse events occur. the above hpv stats indicate TOTAL hpv incidence (among those tested!!), NOT the strains that gardasil offers (very good) protection for: those strains are less than 5%, closer to 2% i believe. that's fine, but make sure you are sharing correct information about the vaccine, and you simply are NOT doing that right now (whether it's because you simply misunderstand, or are willfully "disagreeing" with me (this gets my vote), i don't know). PLEASE read the articles, and understand that the efficacy period is 4-6 years! i believe dr. harper states 5, specifically. don't have the false impression that your daughter is protected for longer. also keep in mind the vaccine does not protect against all types of cancer-causing hpv's, so women still need pap smears (which are more effective than the vaccine in preventing cervical cancer!). i'm glad you were comfortable. it's a challenge being a parent and navigating a path through a world rife with decisions regarding every aspect of one's child's life and safety!