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.
Sorry it’s not prevent 1% of those given the vaccine it was prevent 1 case in …………… guesswork really on their part but it looked good in advertising ‘will you be the one!’
There we go ban the posters!
There we go I have been banned it really is like the Catholic Church here, high priests and good books!
There we go like the catholic church you have banned the heretic!
What makes you think you’ve been banned you idiot?
Oh, perhaps you don’t realise we’re onto a new page – lol! Try the link that says, ‘newer entries’, moron.
No one is posting?
What a shame, I love the kudos of being banned by religious zealots!
“The cervical cancer vaccine saves lives, actually.”In the light of ASA and CAP codes you need to give people proper links so that they can make informed choices here cos this title has no basis in either science or truth:
Why have the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries chosen to experiment with the first ever, large scale application of a new, unproven, genetically modified, inter-species gene mixing vaccine technology on the female youth of an entire generation with the cervical cancer vaccine?
Under the ruse of attempting to eradicate cervical cancer, Merck is actually engaged in the first large scale, real world deployment and testing of genetically modified DNA, genetically engineered proteins and genetics produced by the combining of genetic material from more than one origin or species in a vaccine.
Dr. Diane Harper was the lead researcher in the development of the human papilloma virus vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix. She is the latest to come forward and question the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines. She made the surprising announcement at the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination, which took place in Reston, Virginia on Oct. 2nd through 4th, 2009. Her speech was supposed to promote the Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines; but instead, she unexpectedly turned on her corporate bosses, in a very public way.
All trials of the vaccines were done on children aged 15 and above, despite them currently being recommended to, and marketed for 9-year-olds. So far, 15,037 girls have reported adverse side effects for Gardasil alone to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (V.A.E.R.S.), and that is just for the small percentage of people who went through the hassle of reporting them.
So far, 44 girls are officially known to have died, needlessly, from these vaccines. The reported side effects include Guillian Barré Syndrome (paralysis lasting for years, or permanently — sometimes causing suffocation), lupus, seizures, blood clots, and brain inflammation. Parents are usually not made aware of these risks.
Dr. Harper claimed that she was speaking out, so that she might finally be able to sleep at night.
“About eight in every ten women who have been sexually active will have H.P.V. at some stage of their life. Normally there are no symptoms, and in 98 per cent of cases it clears itself.”
– Dr. Diane Harper
I’m sorry to say it, but you ARE a moron. I never questioned that a prior infection is a counterindication, I even told you that I am not vaccinated because of a prior infection! I also told you that we know this from scientific studies.
You’re still banging on about the flu vaccine, even though I have made clear that
a) the reviews you cite contradict your claims as they say the vaccine is effective
b) the effectiveness of a flu vaccine varies because they’re using different influenza strains every year
c) the effectiveness of the flu vaccination doesn’t tell us anything about the effectiveness of other vacciations.
With all the talent of interpreting studies you’ve shown so far I don’t think anyone believes you can review scientific trials in a meaningful way. The full text is not “made to be difficult”, it’s just precise and therefore contains “technical language”, if you’re unable to fully understand it you’re probably not qualified to interpret it. I also don’t believe you have the full texts and suspect you’re simply talking out of your arse, but that’s my personal view.
By the way: you’re not banned as your moronic repeated posts make clear.
Umm, you may want to read this:
Cancer jab fantasy closes down a debate”
Ben Goldacre talked to Dr Harper about those reports, and she said
I have yet to see you post a link that helps people make informed choices.
How about attending a Phillip Day seminar, you can ask him what his references are rather than just lazyly reading conclusions on PubMed.
Vicky you are a hypocrite, I haven’t called you a moron or an idiot but that is what one has come to expect from a septic, when you loose the discussion you start getting rude.
Ben Goldacre is hardly someone with an independant mind Vicky, like Ernst who spends his time conjouring up support by publishing cherry picked rants in the Daily Mail.
The failure of the flu vaccine, which uses the same medieval idea of protection through humors, has a total relevance to the failure of all vaccines you dolt, they all use the same unproven theory of ‘stimulating immunity’ through injecting a pile of jet trash.
What we see every time someone takes one vaccine and studies it’s actual effect in preventing disease, is a total no result.
It really is like talking to a Jehovas Witness Vicky, keep it up anyone reading this blog must be pissing themselves!
The data that Harper critised ie was tested on older people is not out of date! Of course we all know vaccines save shareholders pensions!
Ben Goldacre ASKED Dr Harper, hard to see how his bias could have influenced her position on HPV vaccines.
Again, flu vaccines don’t fail (as the reviews you cite – but don’t link to – tell us), but they’re not useful for everyone. They’re not recommended for everyone, so there’s no contradiction in that.
I feel like I’m talking to a stubborn child. You’re citing reviews that don’t support your position, you claim the lead researcher in the developement of HPV vaccines spoke out against vaccination even though she complained to the Press Complaints Commission about those reports and while you haven’t cited one decent source, yet you declare yourself the “winner”. To win an argument, you have to cite evidence.
I’m still waiting for that FDA document.
That should read: … you haven’t cited one decent source that supports your position …
Come on Vicky, you can rant all you want about not fair but the complete lack of comparative studies between vaccinated and unvaccinated means there is no epidemiological evidence that vaccinated populations either don’t ‘get’these diseases or are healthier.
In fact there is plenty of evidence that I have already posted like:
Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?
http://het.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/05/04/0960327111407644
In lay terms this means: as the infant vaccine schedule adds more vaccines and currently that’s over 35 in the UK for every baby, the infant mortality goes up not down. There is no argument here Vicky there is a statement of fact.
Being rude to people is what little kids do when they can’t think how else to ‘win’ an argument, there is loads of repentent anger and verbal violence on this site, nuff for a conference.
Go to a Phillip Day conference, they are usually about a tenner and you will get all the referenced answers you are obviously in need of to show you that ‘proper doctors’ have no idea about either health or disease, acute trauma is the only thing that has advanced and even that is up for review in some areas.
With Statin scams, flu vaccine scams, arthritis scams, cancer scams all paid for by the taxpayer why would anyone go to a doctor having made an informed decision? I am totally fascinated with you blind faith in this crap!
So Dr Harper was biased by admitting that the group of girls used in the first study were way older than those actually given the vaccine so it had not actually been tested on the final recipiant group prior to introduction!
Great question Ben, how about asking Dr Harper if something corporate had biased her decision to totally do a u turn on her actual findings and come to the religiously accepted dogma that vaccines do kill some but alway work eventually until we find a better safer one, if anyone dies from a vaccine it’s the actual process of vaccination that always kills not the vaccine itself unless of course it was a rouge batch not stored correctly………………
So if she was accidently completely wrong at the first conference why didn’t she discuss her intention to stuff her career before as she must have known that saying the vaccine was crap, which it is, would not get her a knighthood!
You actually believe, yet again, this chain of events! Did I hear weapons of mass distruction?
LOL
Vicky what did you read on the flu vaccine? Here is Tom Jefferson in the BMJ talking about evidence and policy:
http://www.bmj.com/content/333/7574/912.ful
I can see why you and skepticat have decided to concede defeat on this one.
You will find here that the grand statements about how marvellous this vaccine woo is just don’t stack up.
ie: “A metaanalysis of inactivated vaccines in elderly people showed a gradient from no effect against influenza or influenza-like illness to a large effect (up to 60%) in preventing all-cause mortality. These findings are both counterintuitive and implausible, as other causes of death are far more prevalent in elderly people even in the winter months.1516 It is impossible for a vaccine that does not prevent influenza to prevent its complications, including admission to hospital.
A more likely explanation for such a finding is selection bias, where one half of the study population (hemi-cohort) systematically differs from the other in one or more key characteristics.14–16 In this case, the vaccinated hemi-cohort may have been more mobile, healthy, and wealthy than the control hemi-cohort, thus explaining the differences in all-cause mortality.1114″
So selection bias ie picking healthy people who are then vaccinated, how can you accept different cohort groups and produce anything positive out of that, except bucks for shareholders.
“The third problem is the small and heterogeneous dataset on the safety of inactivated vaccines, which is surprising given their longstanding and widespread use.”
No it’s not when these people ‘believe’ in vaccination anything is possible including not keeping negative data.
The funniest claim for flu jab efficacy is:”flu vaccine halfs winter deaths” Tom Jefferson made a comment on this “in order for this claim to be true the flu vaccine would have to have an impact on road traffic accidents as flu like illnesses only account for 10% of winter deaths.
Hey Vicky you should read some of the bloggers on that Benty goldilocks article on HPV the following is a good example:
The jury is out.
There are NO population-based studies showing reductions in cervical cancer rates in two matched populations.
There are some “process-based” intermediary outcomes including raising antibodies from vaccinaton and preventing CIN 2. If you believe that cervical cancer arises from a steady continuum of CIN1 CIN2 CIN3 microinvasive, invasive – then you are not telling it straight. Few gynaecologists believe that.
Finally show us a precedent for virus-induced cancer, AND, its prevention by vaccination. The evidence for EB virus in Burkitt’s lymphoma was produced under duress – and looks flimsy.
Vaccination to prevent cancer is premature at best – pure marketing at worst.
The silence is deafning!
Yeah, it’s so unusual that there’s no answer for two days you’ve definitely won this debate! O_o
The study you linked to (about IMR and vaccines being correlated) has been deconstructed by David Gorski back in May, so no, I’m not impressed with the correlation they found (and, you know, correlation doesn’t imply causation).
You could read his blog post over at sciencebasedmedicine:
Vaccines and infant mortality rates: A false relationship promoted by the anti-vaccine movement,
but I’m pretty sure you won’t, so I’ll summarise it for you.
They’re counting vaccines rather arbitrarily – while they claim to count per “shot”, they in fact counted the antigens – this is easily verifiable as they used publicly available data. For Sweden, they count 12 shots, while their source shows that DTaP, IPV and Hib are given as one shot, so Swedish children get six shots in their first year (they actually claim to count DTaP as three shots – that would mean the Swedish vaccination schedule calls for 18 shots, but I guess they just couldn’t remember what they were counting as one shot).
They made some mistakes in their counts (based on their count of the Swedish schedule): Finland, the way they count it (per antigen, except for DTaP) would have 15 shots (+2), Malta would have 10 shots (-5), Slovenia 10 (-5), Germany 22 (+4), Switzerland 14 (-4), Italy 13 (-5), Czech Republic 20 (+1), UK 17 (-2), Spain 15 (-5), Portugal 15 (-6), Luxembourg 21 (-1), Ireland 19 (-4), Greece 21 (-2), Netherlands 16 (-8!). They counted correct for Sweden, Norway, Denmark, France and Austria. (I only checked the data they extracted from euvac.net and made sure the schedules hadn’t been changed since 2009; the data for countries outside Europe is probably just as creatively counted).
Why did they choose this data set? If there’s a true correlation, including other years and other countries would not change that. Why did they only choose the countries that are “better” than the USA? Why not compare all the countries of North America with all European countries? (Hungary, for example, has only 12 shots in the first year, 10 of them mandatory, yet their IMR is 7.86, worse than that of the US! Does that mean more shots mean less infant mortality?)
IMRs is counted differently in the US and in other countries (with the US definiton of live birth being the broadest), so it’s shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries, even if the rest of their data wasn’t flawed.
The average “naturalhealth” reader will no doubt be impressed with this study (it confirms their beliefs), the scientific community (and the scientifically minded layman) isn’t.
Tom Jefferson wrote that BMJ piece in 2006; in 2010 he was one of the authors of the Cochrane review you cited (and then, when I pointed out their conclusion, dismissed). It’s a good example of the difference between science and pseudo-science: if new evidence suggests a previous conclusion was wrong (or premature), the conclusion changes. There’s no doubt that policy isn’t always based on scientific evidence only, yet it seems with more scientific trials the case for influenza vaccines is getting stronger.
Here’s the newest review on the effectiveness of influenza vaccination that is available (it’s still in pre-publication state):
A systematic review of the evidence on the effectiveness and risks of inactivated influenza vaccines in different target groups.
This is the last time I’m discussing influenza vaccination here as it has still got nothing to do with the effectiveness of HPV vaccines.
If you want me to read blog articles, you should link to them. Please note that I’m still not interested in quack websites (such as naturalnews, whale.to, mercola, …).
By the way: Where’s the FDA document? I’m waiting.
Vicky you can harp on about the complaints once the horse has bolted but it’s tobacco science. Conclusions that dimiss the actual data findings have long been the weasel ways of the pharma boys and this is nothing new.
That’s how we get WMD, swine flu scams, cholesterol scares the list is endless.
As to HPV there is no ‘effectivness data’ because we need to wait 20 years before we know if it worked or not, unless you have some future visionary so again claims of effectivness are just that – fantasy.
As to ‘critique by Gorski’ a basic search shows the man is in the employ of the people he seems to love defending. The website ‘science based bananas’ is that Vicky:
“The potentially profitable drug Gorski is in the process of conducting a clinical trial for is the ALS drug Riluzole, made by Sanofi-Aventis and marketed as Rilutek. Amplifying the conflict further is that the same drug is also being studied for the treatment of autism. At Autism One, the National Institute of Mental Health was handing out recruitment pamphlets for children ages 7-17 to take part as subjects in a clinical trial of Riluzole for its effectiveness in the treatment of autism spectrum disorders, and repetitive and stereotypical behaviors in particular.”
Funny how Gorski is a supporter of mercury in vaccines and likes denying its role in causing autism and then is helping to get a drug to treat autism on the market?
Apparently the same company that make tartrazene also make Ritalin too!
Clever man huh!
Why on earth would anyone who was into rational EBM type thinkology espose the likes of Gorski! He has built in population bias, funding bias and just about any other kind of bias you could think of!
Is this the best you can do?
Hey Vicky I have a great idea, let’s devalue food by processing it and make people ill. Then we build an artifical construct that makes ‘medicine’ to ‘treat’ these ‘diseases’ and also sell vitamin pills to people made from the extracts we took out.
We could take it further and get lots of really rich people to fund ‘medical scientists’ to convince lots of people that we really need them to stay well and at the same time diss anyone who points out the fallacy.
We could have lots of websites whose sole job is to diss anyone who points this mess out with people pretending to be casual bloggers? Interested?
We could even give multi billionaires a great way to avoid paying tax by setting up bogus vaccine charity programmes that they hold shares in and then push for mandating vaccines in law so that no one has a choice. Imagine that using the police to enforce the use of a product!
If we also invent big pandemics, epidemics etc. we could all do very well.