The cervical cancer vaccine saves lives, actually.
Didn’t we all feel horrible last week, on hearing the news that 14-year-old Natalie Morton died a matter of hours after receiving the HPV vaccine at school? How long would it be before we’d hear whether the vaccine actually caused her death or whether something else did? Not long, as it turned out. Three days later, an inquest was told that she’d died from a large and previously undetected tumour in her chest that could have killed her at any moment.
But by that time, it was too late. Taking their lead from an ill-informed explanation by the school’s headmistress that Natalie had suffered a rare reaction to the jab, newspapers soon whipped up a frenzy, ably catalogued by a poster on the online journalism blog, who points out that, as a result of the widespread inaccuracy of the coverage, “Google’s results will give parents second thoughts about letting their daughters be vaccinated, even though the injection will save hundreds of lives a year.”
To counteract this, he suggests concerned bloggers post link-heavy pieces to sites that give sound information on the cervical cancer vaccine , otherwise known as the cervical cancer jab and to include a link to this cervical cancer vaccine Q&A page.
OK, done.
Thanks for taking part!
[...] Skepticat has blogged a number of very important links about the cervical cancer vaccine scare cooked up by the press. The death of Natalie Morton was a tragedy, but was caused by the large undiagnosed tumour in her chest. Not the vaccine that will save the lives of a significant number of her peers. [...]
I suggest you take your hands off your truncheon, put down skepticats mythical writing and read this about the HPV scam. Download the FDA document about the disaster it caused in America and stop fantasising about the woo of vaccination.
http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_HPV_Vaccine_0.htm
Knobby, shouldn’t an FDA document be hosted by the FDA? It’s great to see you cite sources, but you shouldn’t say FDA document if what you mean is “opinions of my favourite quack”.
Here’s what the FDA says about it:
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/ucm179549.htm
As you can read there, this vaccine was tested in double blind, placebo controlled trials (still thinking there aren’t any?).
Nice one pussy, change the names to focus off the facts you really are like the Roman catholic church!
It is an FDA document, they wrote it and then took it off their site because they realised too late what they have done. Are you a priest in the church of skepticology too?
Grow up, idiot.
I have responded to you at length on the other thread.
For the benefit of anyone else reading, I will repeat what I said there:
Just to make it absolutely clear, if you continue to keep changing your name, I will prevent you from continuing to post here.
Knobby, I’ve skimmed through that piece you linked to. It’s about the quality I would expect from a website like naturalnews. Seriously, how does one conclude “most infections (by HPV) are short-lived and not associated with cervical cancer” means that HPV infections don’t cause cervical cancer? It’s like saying smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer because the lifetime risk for a smoker to develop lung cancer is only about 15 % (for non-smokers it’s about 1 %).
If Mike Adams wasn’t able to understand that this quote doesn’t support his conclusion, all he had to do was read on and he would have discovered another, more detailed quote: “Most women who become infected with HPV are able to eradicate the virus and suffer no apparent long-term consequences to their health. But a few women develop a persistent infection that can eventually lead to pre-cancerous changes in the cervix.” In other words: while HPV infection doesn’t always cause cervical cancer (because most women heal), if the infection persists for a longer time it can cause cervical cancer.
If there was a way to find out which women will develope that persistent infection when infected, it wouldn’t be necessary to vaccinate as many young women as possible. Unfortunately there’s no way to know beforehand; getting vaccinated before you are infected with the virus (it is likely that you will get infected) lowers your risk of developing cervical cancer.
@Skepticat: when I read that comment about you changing knobby’s name I was a bit puzzled, but then I realised the name appearing in the rss-feed is the name knobby chose, not the one you gave him/her. I had already thought about asking whether you could somehow indicate which comments are knobby’s because it was getting a bit confusing, but couldn’t think of a good, easy way to do that, lol.
http://www.naturalnews.com/downloads/FDA-HPV.pdf
YOU NEED TO READ THE ACTUAL FDA HEADED DOCUMENT!
This is a copy of the FDA document. In summary you can find that the following facts are clearly listed within the report, it is on the FDA headed notepaper, who found it is irrelevant.
• The FDA stating “HPV is not associated with cervical cancer and they have known this since the early 2000′s.”
• FDA Evidence that shows HPV vaccines actually increase the risk of precancerous lesions by 44.6% in some women who pre tested positive for HPV and then were given the vaccine. This fact alone means that in all girls given it in England, without a pre swab to check for existing infection, every proper doctor has breached the Ashfar ruling on informed consent and is criminally liable, right now.
• The FDA admitting that “most [HPV] infections are short-lived and not associated with cervical cancer and will clear naturally within a few menstural cycles.”
• Why mandatory vaccination policies ultimately lead to the harming of young women.
• Why one shocking study published in JAMA (August, 2007) concluded, “No significant evidence of a vaccine therapeutic effect was observed…” and added, “… rates of viral clearance over a 12-month period are not influenced by vaccination.”
Please read the evidence and don’t come up with some silly diversion or ad hom scatterbomb, or you risk coming across all religious.
The FDA, from its research ie finding women with HPV, catagorising them and waiting found that most HPV infections go naturally within 2 to 3 menstural cycles. This is not Mike Adams opinion it is the FDA’s findings in their research!
Someone needs to help you distinguish between origional research and opinion as you seem to focus on the former when it suits you or ignore it when it doesn’t and vice versa, in the final analysis if the research shows holes in vaccine theory you right off the messenger and ignore both!
Roman and Catholic springs to mind here!
Oh, and Vicky the name change is your leader or maybe it’s you the idea that you are pretending that I put this name in is rather amusing really.
If, as you noticed, most women don’t develop cancer that have HPV surely we should be studying those people, that would be the logical scientific step to take.
So have you got kids and if so did you just vaccinate them and if so were you given the drug sheet contras before the proceedure with enough time to read all the documentation and make a proper informed choice?
So again the fear of reading has led you to delete the FDA document that supports the view that the HPV vaccine is not what it says on the tin:
http://www.naturalnews.com/downloads/FDA-HPV.pdf
YOU NEED TO READ THE ACTUAL FDA HEADED DOCUMENT!
This is a copy of the FDA document. In summary you can find that the following facts are clearly listed within the report, it is on the FDA headed notepaper, who found it is irrelevant.
• The FDA stating “HPV is not associated with cervical cancer and they have known this since the early 2000′s.”
• FDA Evidence that shows HPV vaccines actually increase the risk of precancerous lesions by 44.6% in some women who pre tested positive for HPV and then were given the vaccine. This fact alone means that in all girls given it in England, without a pre swab to check for existing infection, every proper doctor has breached the Ashfar ruling on informed consent and is criminally liable, right now.
• The FDA admitting that “most [HPV] infections are short-lived and not associated with cervical cancer and will clear naturally within a few menstural cycles.”
• Why mandatory vaccination policies ultimately lead to the harming of young women.
• Why one shocking study published in JAMA (August, 2007) concluded, “No significant evidence of a vaccine therapeutic effect was observed…” and added, “… rates of viral clearance over a 12-month period are not influenced by vaccination.”
Please read the evidence and don’t come up with some silly diversion or ad hom scatterbomb, or you risk coming across all religious.
Well you really are what people say about you aren’t you. I think classification as a ‘new religious movement’ would be fitting for septicus. Your fear of actually looking at real evidence is palpable, you hide behind a paper castle like the rest and refuse to allow anything to be discussed that exposes your empty message.
You must be amoung the only people left that actual think medical peer review is evidence! What a joke!
Knobby, obviously you don’t know what an rss-feed is, but I wasn’t talking to you so there’s no need for you to understand that part of my comment. I guess Skepticat understood my comment just fine. btw: The name she chose for you seems quite fitting.
The document you linked to is not by the FDA, it’s a petition the FDA received. I looked through it anyway, and it confirms what I said before: while most HPV infections heal on their own, some persist and these can lead to cervical cancer. It is known that vaccination of already sero-positive individuals increases the risk to develope cervical cancer (quacks didn’t discover that, peer reviewed studies did), so it is important to vaccinate before being infected (which is why I’m not vaccinated but my younger cousins are; if one day I have daughters you can bet your ass I will let them get that vaccination).
I don’t think you know what peer review is – trials aren’t peer reviewed, it’s the publications that get peer reviewed. And yes, I think peer review is important, what would be the alternative if we want to make sure that papers are scientifically sound – quack review? If you think scientific studies aren’t real evidence I wonder why you’d cite the FDA (OK, you didn’t actually cite the FDA, but you said you did) – they base their decisions on scientific studies and expert opinion.
I’ve just noticed that two of the idiot’s comments are duplicates.I’m getting a bit tired of being falsely accused of deleting stuff.
Idiot, understand this: Until you stop changing your user name, I am moderating all comments. None of them are censored or deleted. I do not sit at a computer 24 hours a day so it may be some time before your – or anyone else’s – comment appears. If you stick to one non-offensive user name and let me know your choice, I will stop moderating comments before letting them through.
In the meantime, try to control yourself because, as someone else said, you sound completely deranged. I’m beginning to wonder if your hatred of vaccines is down to your belief that you yourself have been vaccine-damaged in some way. Brain-damage perhaps?
Edited for clarity.
The petition that you are referring to has questions that are answered by the FDA that clearly point out in a number of ways that the vaccine has flawed hypothesis for neccessity, dubious action, dubious causal pathway and those vaccinated that are already HPV positive are put at 43% higher risk of harm.
http://www.naturalnews.com/downloads/FDA-HPV.pdf
It’s on FDA headed paper, it is a clear statement of their postion regarding known facts about the subject.
In England there is no pre testing so anyone who has been vaccinated here without being made aware of the known facts of harm have been criminally maligned. Read the Ashfar ruling on informed consent, I am sure all vaxxers have never read it because they believe in the ‘millions of doses years of experience argument’.
The only discussion you seem to capable of having is the blind circular one ‘we all know vaccines save lives!’. This of course has no evidence base to support as a statement, it is an anecdote. Vicky I hope you are going to get your potential daughters pre tested as know you know this evidence you may be at risk of producing an Ashfar result.
Does it not interest you to know why most women with HPV don’t develop cancer? Or do you prefer the mystic magic of the disease of cancer that appears for no known reason and may strike us down randomly? 100years of donation to the cancer charities has produced crock tiddly.
So you can call me ad hom if you like, it still means you haven’t engaged in anyway at all in discussion and chosen to divert.
Oh and Vicky if the ex editor of the BMJ is on record as saying you can’t believe anything written in a medical peer reviewed journal your idea of evidence would seem to be firmly in the camp of quack.
I don’t have an emotional tie to vaccination skepticat, I neither love nor hate the subject. I look for evidence of good theraputic neccessity and find none, but plenty of good evidence the intervention is both not needed and out of date as a theory and downright causitive of massive harm.
So the logical scientific way forward Vicky is not only to identify the few women who go on to develop cancer but see what is different about them. We may find all sorts of prodromes that help us understand that it is not mystic mystery but totally logical. This would not only save millions of pounds of NHS funds it would mean only people at risk would have to consider the options and all those useless vaccines could be binned
I find your idea that it is ok to spray the whole population with disinfectant just to make sure that the few are ‘covered’ rather wierd really.
So Skepticat you have the power to change my name to Nobby, you imply you may want to discuss so lets see the removal of polemics and get on with the business of science please.
The document you link to doesn’t contain a single page of FDA headed paper. If you want to use the FDA document as an argument, link to the FDA document.
My potential daughters will know that you should get the vaccine before you’re sexually active and that whatever they tell their physician will between them and him/her, so even if they don’t feel like they can be honest with me about their status they can still be totally honest with their physician. I don’t live in the UK so I don’t know how much information patients get there, but when I was a child my mother was made aware of the possible side effects of vaccinations before I got them. When I got the MMR shot (at age 12 in school), my parents got a leaflet detailing the risks of that vaccination and had to sign a consent form before I could get it, and later when I became of age and could choose for myself, I was told about both the risks and benefits of the vaccinations I was about to receive. I don’t think that has changed over the years.
Sure, I’d like to know why, but since we don’t know yet the best thing we can do is prevent infection. Research shows vaccination is one way of preventing those persistent infections; I wouldn’t recommend to rely solely on vaccination, but that goes for all preventive measures. What makes you think I believe in magic? Controlled trials aren’t magic, quite the opposite.
Huh, is that what he said? I thought he said that even with peer review scientifically poor studies are published, so he thinks the “filter then publish” system doesn’t work as it should (that’s quite different from saying you can’t believe anything written in a peer-reviewed journal, isn’t it?). He proposes a “publish then filter” system, I happen to disagree.
I never said (or even implied) we shouln’t try to find out what makes those “few” women who develope cancer different, but that doesn’t mean we should wait and do nothing until we can predict who will develop cancer. Newer studies imply that vaccinating males is beneficial (for those males), too, therefore I even support vaccinating males.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20307839?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21288094?dopt=Abstract
So yes, I think it’s OK to vaccinate “the whole population” if it safes those unlucky ones who’d develop cancer. (I also think it’s OK to vaccinate everyone against other diseases that lead to permanent damage in “only a few cases” – like measles.)
Treatment and subsequent monitoring of “those few” who get cervical cancer isn’t cheap, by the way, you can buy a lot of vaccine for that money.
Come on skepticat change the names back so it flows a bit better
http://highwire.stanford.edu/cgi/medline/pmid;2055970
Ok Vicky making an informed choice is about having as much relevant information to hand. It is known now that having mumps can protect you against ovarian cancer, very few people if any die of mumps. Will you be telling your girls about this so they can decide?
The data from the US showed that the vaccine put the cervical cancer rate up in those who pretested HPV positive. That fact alone is a disaster. There are no long term studies in humans (apart from the BCG disaster that showed it caused TB), that show against a control group of those choosing not to vaccinate that the cervical cancer vaccine even works, there is no pretest system in place in the UK so why knowing this would you even consider it an option? What evidence is there that it has any benefit at all?
The best way to prevent this idea of ‘infection’ is to understand why some do and some don’t get cancer per se. Then no one needs to be put at risk from an out of date idea.
What is this magic evidence or belief that you seem to have in this proceedure? Because I and a lot of other people just can’t find it.
Want to see what a comparitive trial between vaccinated and non vaccinated produces as a result? Have a read of this.
http://vonhapsburg.homestead.com/haywardstudyonvaccines.html
You should look at the Cochraine review on the 96 season study for flu vaccine if you want more orthodox evidence that vaccination is all hype and marketing. In healthy adults the vaccine was ‘effective’ in less than 6%, this is worse than placebo which is widely accepted to be 20%!
Vaccination uses the same flawed idea that provoking ‘aquired immunity, and we will leave that chesnut alone for a while’ somehow provides priming protection for all vaccine production. So if we find one proper long term view that ‘it doesn’t work’ it is logical to assume none of them work. Fact is we find more and more evidence every day that the whole procedure is a dud. So why are you so into it?
In a review of 51 studies involving more than 260,000 children, including 17 papers translated from Russian, researchers concluded that there was “No evidence that injecting children 6-23 months of age with flu vaccines is any more effective than placebo.”(3)
For healthy adults, the results were similar. A total of 25 studies were reviewed that included more than 60,000 study participants. Again, The Cochrane Group found that vaccination reduced risk of influenza by a meager 6% and reduced the number of days missed from work by less than one (0.16) day. Researchers concluded,”Universal immunization of healthy adults was not supported by the results of this review.”(4)
For the elderly population, the prime target group for flu shots, The Cochrane Group reviewed 64 studies and chided that, “The runaway 100% effectiveness touted by proponents [of the flu shot] for the elderly was nowhere to be seen. What you see is that marketing rules the response to influenza, and scientific evidence comes fourth or fifth.” (5)
With this much evidence that flu shots are ineffective, why would anyone proceed to inject three viruses and a load of toxic chemicals into their body in an attempt to avoid the flu when Vitamin C and hand washing will no doubt be more effective?
(3) The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. “Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children.” 1-(2006).
(4) The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews “Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults.”. 1-(2006)
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/543226
Want to know what the % of aquired immunity to any disease is according to the Pasteur institute? 2% yes 2 %
So even if it worked, and there is no evidence it does, you got 2% for risking a whole load of unknowns.
The rest is non specific that is sweating, vomiting, diah, fever. And guess what proper doctors do when any of the preceeding happen? Try to stop them with meds!
We’re discussing the HPV vaccine, and I’m waiting for that FDA document. You told me that I “NEED TO READ THE ACTUAL FDA HEADED DOCUMENT!”, so where is it? Don’t think you can send me on a runaround reading stuff that is either not relevant (“Tracheal injury caused by intubation for compressive endothoracic goiter.” WTF?) or a theory that has little to no recognition in mainstream medical science (“vaccinosis”).
Yes, flu vaccination doesn’t seem to be beneficial for everyone. I’d hazard a guess and say that’s why it’s not recommended for everyone. There’s also not “the” flu vaccine but a different one every year, so it’s not really comparable to other vaccines. The same review that found vaccination of under two years old children was no more effective than placebo found efficacy for children aged two years and older.
Please, no more diversions.
P.S.: Last time I checked the Institute Pasteur was pro-vaccination.
Vaccination and autoimmunity-’vaccinosis’: a dangerous liaison?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10648110
Mainstream medical science does recognise the term vaccinosis, it was still used as a cause of death on death certs up to the 1960′s. It is well known as a term in vetenary medicine so maybe you need to come up to speed on that.
40years of study by the national cold and flu unit failed to proove the contagen theory of flu and was shut down. The trial with kids did not have a control group that did not vaccinate so that’s another anecdote.
I offered my family as a non vaccine control to the Oxford vaccine group that continually asks people to take part in trials with other peoples kids. They said that they had no non vaccine control group in any trial on any kids vaccine!
So how they made up that it was more effective than what – nothing or even placebo, it still amazes me that an obviously intellegent woman like yourself is prepared to accept anecdotal trial evidence!
It doesn’t matter whether the Pasty institute is pro or anti they said that aquired immunity only represents 2% of any immune reaction to any disease. The fact you are still looking for the good news in vaccine support with that statement is quite remarkable.
The problem with medical scientist groups is they all study a bit of the knowledge but no overview. If one dept can tell us the 2% what on earth is the other one who is trying to make drugs to stimulate this into action doing? Do they not have intranet?
From that article’s abstract:
From the article (shortened):
So vaccines overall are a safe and beneficial procedure and while apparently some people develope autoimmune diseases after being vaccinated it’s not clear if there’s a causal link.
Sorry, I won’t take your word for that – how do I know that you didn’t misunderstand what they said? Link please (to a Pasteur Institute document of course, not some random website).
And while you’re at it, that FDA document I have to read, would you please link to that, too?
So if the dogs given vaccines develop autoimmune antibodies and the dogs who didn’t get the vaccine didn’t what do you not understand about that statement, I am gob struck by your desperate scramble to find pro vaccine stuff Vicky, I know dog owners who have never vaccinated their dogs at all and can produce a titre cert showing highest levels of antibodies against all the known ‘infectious canine diseases’. The number of dog owners now not vaccinating is growing day by day. The American vets recommended vaccinating in the tail and leg of dogs who have yearly vaccines as they know from research that the site of cancer in these dogs is the site of the vaccine! That way they can amputate! How’s that for progress?
The statement ‘a variety of autoantibodies have been recorded but no frank autoimmune diseases’ is interesting. Also the commmon mythologogy of ‘for the general population vaccination is a safe and beneficial proceedure’ again weasel words. With no comparitive studies between vaccinated and non vaccinated this statement, an anecdote, is the usual ‘If I don’t say vaccines work I won’t get published’ cover arse statement that anyone daring to try to test vaccine saftey is ‘obliged to include’.
LOL how you must have struggled to cherry pick this, let me translate ‘some people seem to develop life threatening or fatal immune collapse after vaccination but instead of doing a comparitive study we prefer to believe the vaccine can’t possibly of caused it or maybe it did and the actual process of vaccination itself was at fault or it was a faulty batch but any implication that the actual idea of vaccination can’t possibly be at fault because lots of clever people spent million of pounds coming up with this idea.
There are subjects who, subsequent to vaccination (apparently), have developed diseases that they may not have developed had they not been vaccinated. [...]
Would those subjects who acquired autoimmune illnesses after immunization, have acquired those illnesses had they been exposed to the infection? They may have, or they may not.
For the vast majority of the population machine gun bullets are harmless but if you happen to stand in front of the barrel there maybe a link between discharge and reception!
Oh and another name for vaccinosis was vaccinia:
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/vaccinia.htm
Just in case you are not sure ‘not sure if there is a causal link or not’ then requires the obvious, do the comparitive test between non vaccinated and vaccinated groups and study them for 20 years not 3 weeks.
I would happily offer my kids up for the trial, in the non vaccinated group and know dozens of others who would be completely happy to do this. You can join the vaccinated group by all means and then all we have to do is wait.
Just a word of warning, check out the trial they did on the BCG like this, you won’t like the result epecially the beginning statements ‘No evidence of a protective effect whatsoever’. Since Germany banned it and so did Holland I believe on the back of this why do we inject every newborn Asian child with this stuff, maybe this is why the Asian community has higher TB? Definitely a breach of the Ashfar ruling on informed consent here.
whale.to? Yawn.
You were the one saying that the mere presence of antibodies proves nothing – now you’re saying if there are antibodies it proves the presence (or developement) of autoimmune diseases? I think you’re the one struggling here; I didn’t cherry pick and I didn’t search hard – all I did was read the review you suggested I should read.
Still no link to the FDA document, and no link to the Institut Pasteur one – can I expect to see them anytime soon? Nah, forget them, I’m bored now. Chances are you misrepresented them anyway, as you did with the BCG vaccine. I checked, Germany didn’t ban BCG, they just stopped vaccinating against TB. You can still get vaccinated, but since 1998 it isn’t one of the recommended vaccinations. Wanna know why? Because there are so few TB cases that the adverse effects – as few as they are – outweigh the benefits. That’s the “magic way” scientists decide which vaccines to give: weigh pros against cons.
Find some good scientific evidence that shows you’re right about the HPV vaccine, and I’ll be happy to discuss it, but I won’t let you sidetrack this discussion to other vaccines you think you know more about. The topic is HPV vaccination, and “vaccine XY is only 50% effective” says nothing about the HPV vaccine.
As I already said, I’m bored with this conversation. Most of what you say is either demonstrably false (like that there are no placebo controlled tests of vaccines) or only half-true(yes, Richard Smith thinks peer-review should be abandoned; no, he doesn’t think you cannot believe anything written in peer-reviewed articles).
I won’t waste more of my time chasing after the grain of truth that’s hidden in your claims, so any claim without link to scientific evidence (you know, the kind you find on PubMed, not “whale.to” and “naturalnews”) will be ignored.
I checked, Germany didn’t ban BCG, they just stopped vaccinating against TB.
You are a revolving door!
yes, Richard Smith thinks peer-review should be abandoned; no, he doesn’t think you cannot believe anything written in peer-reviewed articles).
That’s like saying it’s not the cliff fall that killed the patient it’s the sudden stop at the end!
Well at least the natural selection process at some point will kick in and those of you who believe in the nonsense of vaccination at all costs won’t be passing your genes on to the next generation.
There is only con in vaccine, it’s so boring talking to a vaccine religious type, can’t see anything but pubmed nonsense. These are the people who have made up SARS, Avian flu swine flu, why on earth do you give them so much cred!
Choosing to ignore people who point out that your bits are hanging out is up to you, why on earth you think that medical peer review is anything but corporate scam is amazing, you really are quite fascinating really.
Did you have a swine flu vaccination Vicky?
By the way American never adopted a TB vaccine and their cases fell off at the same rate as other non vaccinated supposed communicable diseases like scarlet fever so claiming it was a vaccine that did it when the longest ever field trial showed the BCG to be worse than useless is truth fabrication or denial, something vaccine believers seem to have almost magical ability to do.
“You were the one saying that the mere presence of antibodies proves nothing – now you’re saying if there are antibodies it proves the presence (or developement) of autoimmune diseases?” Vicky
The whole cornerstone of vaccine theory is about stimulatiing antibody production. For example with rubella all pregnant women are checked for antibody levels to see if they are protected but funnily enough they don’t check gynaecologists, midwifes or doctors just in case they are ‘carriers’.
Doesn’t matter what vaccine you study none of this makes sense. If one decides to have their HIV status checked they look for the level of circulating antibodies to make a judgement on whether you are infected and have disease potential!
Apparently the production of autoimmune antibodies in dogs who are vaccinated, according to you, is not a sign that the vaccines are producing the potential disease state! So apparently the antibody production here is not a sign of disease! What because we are studying vaccines and vaccines can’t produce disease because they are marketed as disease stoppers – what!
Which one is it Vicky, who decides what the truth is and why are you so sure that vaccination is logical and sane when the facts just don’t add up when you look beyond the hype.
If they left the dogs to adult maturity we would have got the answer, shame they decided not to see whether all those antibodies meant anything at all.
My kids and those of dozens of people I know are still available for the control group, the non vaccinated co hort that is missing from every vaccine trial, apart from the only one that showed the vaccine actually caused more disease (BCG).
Did you have a swine flu jab Vicky? and how about Skepticat did you have one too? Do either of you have your seasonal flu jab? Or is that just for other people?
I’m not sure what you mean by “your” seasonal flu jab. I’m not in any of the at-risk groups recommended to get it.
Edit: I would have got it when I was the main carer for my dying mother if anyone had thought to mention it to me. But at that time (five – seven years ago) I got the impression from my GP surgery that it was only recommend for old people.
Sorry I haven’t had to time to read the other posts of the last few days. I’ll try to catch up soon. xx
You obviously don’t keep up to speed with EBM Skepticat. The Cochraine review on the seasonal flu jab showed that it has absolutely no impact on carers in care homes provding protection at all. The only people it ‘works’ on are fit healthy people which in laymans terms means it is a placebo!
Did you have a swine flu jab skepticat? and what about Vicky?
So Vicky I think we can take it that ‘antibody theory’ is nonsense then, that logically leads us to state that the mechanism of vaccine’s efficacy has no plausibility.
Considering the infant mortality goes up for every vaccine added to the infant schedule it would appear to be true, I suppose the danger of vaccines, apart from the toxic ingredients, is that people think they are protected, from what I don’t know, and then they carry on eating crap/poor lifestyle habits.
Uh hang on isn’t this your argument for ‘dangers of alternatives’, that they stop people getting proper treatment?
If you sub the word vaccine for ‘chiropractor’ in most of your threads there is no perceivable change to the argument, how weird is that.
a) We’re discussing the HPV vaccine. You still owe me that FDA report. Told you I’m not going to let you sidetrack the discussion.
b) Again, claims without adequate sources, how lame is that.
Reference please? I’ve checked the Cochrane database and this review you speak of doesn’t appear to exist.
What makes you say that? The Cochrane review on the flu jab in healthy adults suggests its of very limited use in healthy people.
It means nothing of the sort.
Why do you keep asking irrelevant personal questions? No, I haven’t.
I do with you’d learn to argue properly and not make stuff up.
Just how hard can’t you see what is staring you in the face Vicky?
From:
Vaccines For Preventing Influenza In Healthy Adults, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews July, 2010
“Vaccination had no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates.”We found no evidence that vaccinations prevent viral transmissions.Inactivated vaccines caused local harms and an estimated 1.6 additional cases of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (a form of progressive paralysis) per million vaccinations.
“Industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size.”
“Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines.”
In English Vicky this means that ‘privately funded’ research that you seem to be really into tends to produce ‘favourable’ conclusions for vaccines. You seem to cherry pick all the pubmed crap that is funded by the companies making the stuff!
This Cochrane Review included one of the largest collections of randomized evidence on influenza. It consisted of 36 trials, 15 of which were conducted by industry and, given the above, were likely biased. It still found no evidence of benefit for hospital admissions, flu complications, or transmission rates, and only a weak benefit for symptom reduction. It’s difficult to remain noncommital about vaccinating anything when an independent, international, evidence-based group of researchers says:
“The results of this review seem to discourage the utilization of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure.”
So how did you miss that Vicky, are you a ‘vaccine believer’ or is it just sloppy research methodology, you decide.
So if it doesnt work in old people Vicky cos they are unable to mount a sufficent immune response and is not recommended for fit healthy people who is it for?
This Cochrane Review included one of the largest collections of randomized evidence on influenza.
Are you unable to read anything that dares to diss the mythology of vaccination? How scientific is that? Medically scientific I suppose.
Nobby, as I said before: even if the flu vaccine didn’t work, that wouldn’t imply other vaccines also don’t work.
That said, you’ve decided to cite only half of what the review summary said, let me refresh your memory:
Emphasis mine; from Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults
So it’s not that there’s no effect, just too little to recommend vaccinating healthy adults.
You’re claiming it “doesn’t work in old people”, but you were either unable to check the Cochrane Library carefully enough, or you were just turning a blind eye to the review that looked at that very question – Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly:
Sure, one RTC isn’t enough to draw firm conclusions, but this one it seems to show an effect. More good quality studies need to be done, no question about that, but the review isn’t saying it doesn’t work for old people.
There’s another Cochrane review you either didn’t find or chose to ignore, and it suggests the vaccination might also be beneficial for children over two.
Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children:
The authors note that there was only one trial in children under two.
Not only was I able to read those summaries, I was also able to understand them (and post a link to them so others who might someday read this conversation don’t need to believe me but can read them for themselves).
Now, let’s get back to the HPV vaccine, where’s the FDA document? You made it sound so very important, as if it said something to suggest the HPV vaccine was useless. I do want to read things that show a specific vaccine doesn’t work, I just want to read them myself and refuse to take your (or Mr “Health Ranger” Adams’) word for it.
I’m waiting for two things from you, nobby.
1. the FDA document
2. the reference for “the Cochraine review on the seasonal flu jab showed that it has absolutely no impact on carers in care homes provding protection at all”.
Please don’t turn up without them.
Sorry Vicky you are loosing this, it always amazes me how a few people can’t see that there is no evidence. If this was homeopathy that you were ranting about you simply would not accept any of what you have posted as ‘evidence’, of more than weasel words.
How on earth does ‘We identified one RCT assessing efficacy and effectiveness.’ Which ‘it was underpowered to detect any effect on complications’. ‘Due to the general low quality of non-RCTs and the likely presence of biases, which make interpretation of these data difficult and any firm conclusions potentially misleading, we were unable to reach clear conclusions about the effects of the vaccines in the elderly.’ Mean anything at all?
So this is your argument to dismiss the uselessness of flu vaccine in the elderly, no conclusion, presence of bias making interpretation difficult. Hardly a grand slam endorsment is it?
Working well in healthy kids is nonsense, healthy people don’t go down with flu Vicky, that’s like saying people in tanks are less affected by machine gun bullets!
The data they referenced for nurses’ and doctors’ low uptake of flu vaccines was from 1999. One must ask what they knew when they were pressing their patients to have vaccinations.
I don’t know why you refuse to be able to see the conclusion on the vaxxing of carers having no effect on protecting the elderly Vicky, have you got septicmyosis?
In explaining why it’s believed that healthcare workers should be vaccinated, the authors stated:
Healthcare workers are the key group who enter nursing and longterm care facilities on a daily basis. Immune systems of the elderly are less responsive to vaccination, and vaccinating healthcare workers should reduce the exposure of elderly people to influenza.
The authors examined four studies of influenza vaccinations on healthcare workers, with a total of 20,300 subjects, all healthcare workers involved with the care of people aged 60 and over. They concluded:
No effect was shown for specific outcomes: laboratory-proven influenza, pneumonia and death from pneumonia.
So, for all the concerns about protecting the health of the elderly from unvaccinated healthcare workers, what was the study’s finding? Nada. Nothing. Nil. They found that vaccinating healthcare workers did nothing to protect the elderly from flu or its effects. They found very small associations in a couple of the studies, which may reveal more about the bias of those studies’ authors than anything else.
You have the FDA correspondance that forms part of a failed appeal and details why the FDA were not happy to endorse, the cited reasons for refusing giardisil as a cancer diagnostic were in the opinion of the FDA, what more do you need, the FDA clearly state there is no causal pathway between HPV and cervical cancer?
You need to be able to look at data and understand the conversation not just read the conclusions Vicky or you run the risk of being bamboozled by wordiology and that’s simply not scientific, well it is medical scientific I suppose.
If you don’t think Cochrane Reviews are reliable you shouldn’t have brought them up, but you have so it’s perfectly fine for me to argue that if they find effectiveness for the seasonal flu vaccine this vaccination is efective. It’s also untrue to say that healthy children “don’t go down with flu” – people of all age groups get flu, and both children and the elderly are at higher risk for complications, which is why vaccination is recommended for them.
by the way: The best way for a layman to understand what they say is to read the conclusions because a) as a layman you don’t have the full text, so you don’t have the data to interpret and b) even if you did, you’re not qualified to interpret that data. What makes you think that you’re in a better position to make conclusions than the authors of a review? I’m able to look at data, but I’m also able to understand that I have no expertise in epidemiology, so I rely on experts to interpret data.
Finally, we’re back on topic, but still all you produce is hot air. Why don’t you just admit that you can’t link to this FDA document because there is no FDA document that supports your position? You’re either a moron or a liar, pretending to link to an FDA document (more than once) when in fact you’re linking to a petition the FDA received that you obviously either didn’t read or didn’t understand. This petition cites the FDA as saying that there is a link between persistent HPV infection and cervical cancer, and the FDA does in fact recommend vaccinating, so there’s little reason to expect that they don’t think there’s a link. Gardasil is a vaccine, of course they wouldn’t recommend it as a diagnostic (are you even reading what you write?), but – let me repeat it – they recommend vaccinating!
@Skepticat: let’s drop this flu vaccine discussion, nobby is only using it to divert this conversation from the HPV vaccine and from the fact that s/he has made untrue claims. Whatever the effectiveness for a flu vaccine (which is against different strains every year, so the effectiveness is likely to vary anyway) is, it’s not possible do infer the effectiveness of a HPV vaccine from that.
There are studies about the HPV vaccine, and they show the vaccination works, i.e. lowers the risk of getting infected considerably. They also show that a prior infection with the HPV strains the vaccine contains is a counterindication, so the vaccine should be given prior to the first contact with those HPV strains – as infections is almost exclusively from sex, that means it’s best to vaccinate before first sexual contact. As a result of these studies, many countries now recommend the vaccine for girls, and I expect that in the future they will also recommend it for boys.
@Vicky: I agree it is a diversion. I am simply highlighting the fact that Nobby has failed in what should have been a supremely easy task to provide the references to two papers he claims to have read. I am satisfied that neither paper exists and that Nobby is a lying toad.
So girls it took that long for you to admit that:
“They also show that a prior infection with the HPV strains the vaccine contains is a counterindication”
This is amazing use of weasel words. What are your plans to make sure that pre infection with HPV is highlighted, the girls in the USA who were pretested were tested at the right time to exclude sexual transmission, they just ‘had it’.
If pre infection puts the cervical cancer rate up by 44% when one is given the vaccine, considering it is only supposed to prevent what is it 1% it would only take less than one girl given the vaccine in what you call a contra indication to erase that stunningly negligible effect. Again massaging stats the vaccinators friend raises it’s head again.
Considering, like with all vaccines, there is no long term study (this vax has only been out what 2 or 3 years) to show that the vaccined group against those that don’t have it either prevents mythical HPV pathways to cervical cancer you can’t claim it works either.
Like the way you dropped the flu jab conversation that was showing up your lack of ability to support the mythology of vaccination.
It’s ok for you to have a go at one homeopathic remedy and then imply that the whole of homeopathy is wrong, why is vaccination any different?
I wonder why you didn’t have a flu jab, we were all told that swine flu attacks the most fit, that’s why according to history only the fit and young died in 1917 19. According to the scribes the virus turned their own immune systems inward!
If you look at the demographic of age of death from that time you will see old and young people didn’t die it was young ‘fit’ men generally aged 15 to 35.
So the at risk group means that those in prime of life should have queued up for a shot, old people were not at risk, or maybe using fear from that time but reversing the at risk group made better commercial sense? I notice from the few septic sites where this came up a complete shy away from admitting that no one had gone for it? How’s that for belief in proper doctors.
Funny when I stop posting your site grinds to a halt.
“by the way: The best way for a layman to understand what they say is to read the conclusions.”
Not true Vicky, and that is the big issue with all vaccination. The full text and in some case the non disclosed findings of these systemic poisons is what reveals the lack of real evidence for efficacy.
The conclusion is for people like you, who choose to put their faith in ‘proper doctors’, the full text is made to be difficult to read because that is where the real data is. and if, as I hope, drug companies are to be forced by law to disclose all research data rather than cherry picking for profit.
It’s not good enough to run a trial that shows an intervention is dangerous and then conclude with the mantra ‘of course we all know vaccines save lives’. This statement is always an anecdote, HPV vaccine is no exception, how can they say that when the damn thing has not been around long enough to draw that conclusion? Suppose it must be faith, to be honest I have tired of talking to religious septics.