Jump to content

Had Your Flu Shots Yet?


Kimmo
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 628
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

jay needs the vaccine that inoculates against using acronyms in ever sentence :)

 

Vanya needs the vaccine that inoculates against substance-free narcissistic intrusions into ongoing conversations

had it already - just made my balls bigger n' hairier :)

 

don't think narcissism quite covers me neither - like most normal people, i can't quite stand looking at meself in the mirror...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

joe, it doesn't sound like you read the articles.

I did.

 

"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.

 

"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. And in those which weren't the odds as I listed previously indicate the risk involved. So this:

 

Gardasil has been associated with at least as many serious adverse events as there are deaths from cervical cancer developing each year.

Is a totally misleading statement which in no way reflects causality but rather just a reporting relationship to VAERS.

 

"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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

Absolutely true and that will remain the case until we all have e-medical records. But Kaiser Permanente did an HPV4 safety study within their system with full access to patient records and declared it safe.

 

(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.

The point is prevalence - as in:

 

joc70010f1.png

 

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).

No, I believe you are the one misunderstanding both what Harper is saying (mostly business tactics and public health economics)and how VAERs works. The risks are quite real.

 

m_joc70010t2.png

 

Add to that if she only gets a decade of efficacy that still gets her through to age 26 in our case.

... 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!).

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.

 

We are still entirely comfortable with our decision to have her vaccinated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

 

joc70010f1.png

 

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....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You intelligent fuckers amaze me.

 

But did anybody notice that the trailing ad is about prostate cancer? We men almost always with age and wisdom have that going on. Let's talk about that next while we wait for a new election or the climbing season of your choice to begin.

 

And until the day I die I will choose sex, climbing, and beer and work when necessary. Flu is a necessary evil in the meantime.

Edited by matt_warfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about god's wrath to vaccination as defined by Dr Lorraine Day

 

For those of you who are attacking me or the TRUTH I am telling, please be warned that there are SERIOUS consequences for you: you immediately will be placed on my Prayer List and I will pray for you daily! You may sneer at that, but if you do, it is only because you are poorly informed about the Power (and mechanism) of Prayer.

 

But I do not pray for retribution for you. God is not in the business of punishment. There is no punishment for sin - - - there are only consequences, meaning that you will reap exactly what you have sown!

 

"Don't be deceived; God will not be mocked; whatever a man sows, that shall he also reap." (Galatians 6:7)

 

In other words, you will bring your own consequences on yourself! You will eventually receive back exactly what you have done to others, and you will receive trouble up to five times more than you have brought on others, according to God's laws of restitution (Exodus 22:1-4).

 

God says, "Vengeance is Mine. I will repay." (Romans 12:19) But God's vengeance - His wrath - is defined in Romans 1:18, 24,26,28 as giving man (or woman) over to his (or her) own desires, allowing them to make a mess of their life, then allowing them to reap what they have sown. God is not vindictive. He just lets you follow your own desires and reap the ultimately painful consequences.

 

You have now been warned!

 

Source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need more graphs and pie charts. Preferably with colors next time. Also some flow charts, references to obscure academic studies, and maybe a power point presentation would really improve this fascinating discussion.

i don't think they got the new memo re: tps-reports and cover sheets :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shoot, it took me 8 pages to figure out Rob is ridiculously sarcastic and hilarious (I hope I have drawn the correct conclusion here) and that 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.

Edited by nordicpunk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shoot, it took me 8 pages to figure out Rob is ridiculously sarcastic and hilarious (I hope I have drawn the correct conclusion here) and that 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.

 

Sifting out the sarcasm, the humor, the knowledge, and profiling the posters is part of the joy of this site. But have no doubt that scientists, physicists, engineers, architects, archeologists, doctors, etc. visit this site. And a lot of good climbers.

Edited by matt_warfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sifting out the sarcasm, the humor, the knowledge, and profiling the posters is part of the joy of this site. But have no doubt that scientists, physicists, engineers, architects, archeologists, doctors, etc. visit this site. And a lot of good climbers.

Warfield's got it. Yes, there is wheat and chaff here: information, insight, goofiness, vindictiveness and vile. This is cc.com. Since day one, we take the good with the bad and come back because it is mostly good.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...