Kimmo
-
Posts
1741 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Kimmo
-
-
Kimmo's new autosig.
----------------------------
Kimmo, PhD (Phact Hating Degree)
cute, but can you tell me what facts i be hatin on?
oh, sorry: "facts".
-
I love that you put "scientists" in quotes.
"Science." lol, right?
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!Although there may have been a temporal relationship of the events in this case, such timing does not prove causation.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.
-
Do you know what you are reading?? It says that ASD may be associated with ICS - so what?? then goes on to comment on the "no difference in ICS and childhood diseases - all prefaced by the comment that there is NO EVIDENCE relating all this to vaccines. WTF?
oh boy. this is difficult for you, isn't it.
it then goes on to state:
"Large population-based studies will be needed to identify a possible relationship of vaccination with autistic regression in persons with mitochondrial cytopathies," the authors wrote, and it looks like members of the NVAC concur.
Mitochondrial dysfunction, "carries an established risk of brain damage subsequent to infectious disease," the NVAC wrote. "Thus, a small and specific subset of the general population (such as those with mitochondrial dysfunction) may be at elevated risk of reduced neurological functioning, possibly including developing ASD, subsequent to live virus vaccination."
is this really that hard, jim?
-
From your link:
And though vaccination, "almost certainly does not account for the recent rise in ASD diagnoses," public concerns over vaccines, and the fact that ASD is such a common and severe disorder warrant, "additional study in well defined subpopulations."you cut the quote off just in time, since it goes on to say:
One reason for the "important" caveat about high-risk subgroups, the NVAC wrote, was "recent case studies and research reports around the incidence of mitochondrial dysfunction in children with ASD," which have been estimated at somewhere between 7%-to-30% of all ASD children, and possibly higher among children who regressed following normal development.In December, researchers from Cleveland Clinic, Harvard and Johns Hopkins Univeristy wrote in PLoS Online that mitochondrial dysfunction "may be present in a substantial percentage of children with ASD." And they said there "might be no difference between the inflammatory or catabolic stress of vaccinations and that of common childhood diseases, which are known precipitants of mitochondrial regression."
yup, nothing to see here. right, jim?
-
I noticed you failed to post this salient point in the article:The committee chose to comment specifically -- and only -- on the clinical outcome of ASD. "The relationship between vaccine exposure and autism/ASD is an area of intense public interest," the panelists said. But they were, "assured by the many epidemiological studies that have demonstrated no association between vaccination and autism spectrum disorders in the general population."
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.
And later in the article it points out that the only reason they are going to look at data is because of "some public interest". What a waste of money.
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.
-
Yep. Generic.
Because it's basic info that anyone in the medical field could jot down in a few minutes to answer your vax study question. I could tell you didn't have knowledge of how that worked- sorry I tried to take a few extra min to explain something so "generic". I cut it up into bite sized pieces for you but I guess you just don't like the way logic tastes...
you're right, i was a bit hasty with my dismissal of your post. i guess i was feeling a little emotive.
Yeah I could, I didn't read the whole thread but I think I remember you proposing a vaccinated vs unvaccinated study.i don't recall proposing such a study. perhaps i did?
This is a common trope of anti-vaccinationists and easy to refutei'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:
a lesson in human subjects research...First off, there are studies of vax vs. unvax that have not bolstered the claim that vaccines cause autism, overwhelm a child's immune system, or make them more susceptible to disease in any way.
which studies?
One problem with these studies is that youre looking at a small sample because the thousands of unvax children needed to determine a difference simply don't exist.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.
Also, it's not the best comparison as your control(unvax) is very likely to be different (and possibly homogenous) in many ways to the experimental. This leads to problems with confounders and statistical inference of the results.yup, truly so. but when nothing else is available, might a sub-optimal approach be considered better than no approach at all?
The best study (and usually what antivaxers are clamoring for) would randomize subjects into a vax and unvax group. Why not? Two main reasons: One, the epidemiological studies up to this point show no reason to suspect vaccines cause autism. Even though there is no randomized study, there is a mountain of good evidence showing the theory to be implausible.can you point to this mountain of evidence?
Good luck finding the massive funding needed to do the study you want.definitely a big obstacle.
Secondly, and more important, it would be highly unethical. For the control group, there is a very real personal risk(possible severe illness, permanent injury, or death from vaccine preventable diseases) as well as risk to the population (possible lowered herd immunity).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.
-
Yeah I could, I didn't read the whole thread but I think I remember you proposing a vaccinated vs unvaccinated study. This is a common trope of anti-vaccinationists and easy to refute so- a lesson in human subjects research...
First off, there are studies of vax vs. unvax that have not bolstered the claim that vaccines cause autism, overwhelm a child's immune system, or make them more susceptible to disease in any way. One problem with these studies is that youre looking at a small sample because the thousands of unvax children needed to determine a difference simply don't exist. Also, it's not the best comparison as your control(unvax) is very likely to be different (and possibly homogenous) in many ways to the experimental. This leads to problems with confounders and statistical inference of the results. The best study (and usually what antivaxers are clamoring for) would randomize subjects into a vax and unvax group. Why not? Two main reasons: One, the epidemiological studies up to this point show no reason to suspect vaccines cause autism. Even though there is no randomized study, there is a mountain of good evidence showing the theory to be implausible. Good luck finding the massive funding needed to do the study you want. Secondly, and more important, it would be highly unethical. For the control group, there is a very real personal risk(possible severe illness, permanent injury, or death from vaccine preventable diseases) as well as risk to the population (possible lowered herd immunity). Meanwhile, the experimental group is conferred a known benefit (an undeniable advantage of protection from vaccine-preventable illnesses). This would never pass a human subjects IRB. Regardless, these studies aren't warranted since research generally tries to build upon the evidence we already have and the evidence is overwhelmingly against a causal relationship between vaccines and autism.
So, that took me more like 20 min cause I'm a slow at typing, but now any of the antivaxers here won't have to embarrass themselves in public forums anymore by dragging out the 'ol vax vs unvax study.
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....
-
Anyone who has seen the moon photos can tell how unusual the shadows are, they're obviously fake.
it's a little more sophisticated than that, bob.
-
I would not try to aurgue with him. He does not carry on a reasonable conversation. Simply throws out the "we never went to the moon" therory every time someone posts a new topic that he does not agree with.
what makes you think we went to the moon, kevbone?
-
Everybody likes to have their beliefs, the more iconoclastic the better, validated by an external source, particularly sources that bill themselves as secret wellsprings of TRUTH. Pursuing one's desire for Snowflakeyness in a blizzard of 7+ billion is getting tougher. One must have faith, resolve, and a thick skin. Fortunately, there is no shortage of ridicule for those precious few who really see real things the real way they really are...no, really - so the iconoclast's requirement for minority persecution, even if your minority includes 150 million other lemmings, remains conveniently satisfied in that modern, at-your-fingertips kind of way.
that's a nice sounding theory, ennit?
what outside source do you like to have your iconoclastic beliefs validated by?
-
It only takes a handful of diligent psychotics to provide the Kimmos and Kevbones
did you know pot can bring on psychosis in susceptible individuals?
although cognitive difficulties are much more prevalent.
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You did it again!
it's an anti-vaccine conspiracy, bob.
they are out to fool ya, but you're too smart for them.
-
the Kevbone/Kimmo model of research:
Step 1: make some ridiculous claim
what was the ridiculous claim again?
still waiting....
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You did it again!
and still waiting....
-
the Kevbone/Kimmo model of research:
Step 1: make some ridiculous claim
what was the ridiculous claim again?
still waiting....
-
Here's a shot of kimmo da scientist testifying in court about bad bad people with horrible ideas
[img:center]http://ickmusic.com/pics/spector.jpg[/img]
there's no way i can get my hair to do that. not that i haven't tried....
-
the Kevbone/Kimmo model of research:
Step 1: make some ridiculous claim
what was the ridiculous claim again?
-
it would take me a year to dissect all the misinformation that Kimmo has posted here. Needless to say this thread is as funny as it is scary when read by a scientist. Go get your flu vaccines folks.
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?
-
joe, it doesn't sound like you read the articles.
I did.
My difficulty in believing this comes from your quote below:
No, I believe you are the one misunderstanding both what Harper is saying (mostly business tactics and public health economics)and how VAERs works.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).
"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."Effecting a surgical cure is much less desirable then dodging the bullet to begin with.
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.
"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.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."?
"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.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.
What is left out is that warts, and other suspected cancers don't necessarily clear on their own. And being afflicted with warts in the absence of cancer is also not a desirable outcome.
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.
Kaiser Permanente did (a study)an HPV4 safety study within their system with full access to patient records and declared it safe.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?
The point is prevalence - as in:
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).
The efficacy period has been validated for that period because that's how long we've been tracking it. No one knows for sure how long the efficacy will be for each subtype or when or if boosters will be required. The research to date favors a longer efficacy period rather than shorter at least with subtype 16.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?
We are still entirely comfortable with our decision to have her vaccinated.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....
-
[video:youtube]
I find this interesting. Of course the nay sayers and sprayers will pounce on this simply because I am the one posting.
3....2....1....go.
that was interesting, but, if legit, i guess not terribly earth shattering info, no?
i've certainly read similar, years ago.
-
Imperfect protection is better than no protection and unless you are confident that you can predict the character of all of your son's future partners and the precise range of his sexual behaviors the balance of risks is decisively in favor of vaccinating.
what about one's daughter (the original topic)?
(i haven't looked at incidence in males, so won't comment.)
-
Dr. Harper's main complaints are around business practices, public health matters around the interplay of HPV vaccines and Pap Smears, and with how long the vaccine will have efficacy. Issues around cancer prevention are epidemiological and public health issues.
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.
(HPV prevalence was 24.5% among females aged 14 to 19 years, 44.8% among women aged 20 to 24 years, 27.4% among women aged 25 to 29 years)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.
and we had and have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about having had our daughter vaccinated.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).
Add to that if she only gets a decade of efficacy that still gets her through to age 26 in our case.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!).
Again, all things in the balance we are entirely comfortable in our decision and would make the same call today.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!
Had Your Flu Shots Yet?
in Spray
Posted
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.