Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Girls sharing their stories is not scientific. They are not doctors, they are not immunologists. They don't have the ability to evaluate the data. Even my doctor wouldn't be a credible source on the wider picture, as he hasn't treated a single person, male or female, that has had a serious adverse reaction to HPV vaccine. And yes, he does administer them. He recommends them very highly. My son has been vaccinated for HPV, and the doc estimated a couple of years ago that about half of the boys in his practice were taking the vaccine. I would bet that it's higher now.
And to say that "medical journals" are a single source is a little sketchy. There are multiple medical journals, and, as such, they cite their sources pretty stringently. One can read an article and find further sources. That's what makes them credible. A Danish documentary may be compelling, but it is not produced to the same standard as an article citing all of its sources. I often read things from Mother Jones, but I know that as a source is not considered credible by many, so I try to go to a primary source, or a more unbiased one. It's not hard, and it is very educational.
I will tell you, I take issue with people using biased, one-sided info to bully parents into not getting vaccinated out of baseless fear. So, I guess we're even, there.
I will also tell you, it's not all your fault. You are victim to human nature, which digs in when challenged, triggered by a fight or flight reaction. We're not going to sway you with scientific evidence, and I know that. But to let you continue posting biased, one-sided info that is, at its very core, erroneous, would be reckless. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm trying to show those on the fence that there's a lot of misinformation and outright fabrication out there, and that caution, while a good thing when measured and intelligent, can be manipulated by fear and propaganda to lead to poor choices. Oh, and here's a bit about the study that addresses the human mind's seeming inability to accurately process facts: Effective Messages in Vaccine Promotion: A Randomized Trial
Like I said, I get my information from a wide variety of sources. I read scientific studies, I talk to doctors but I also listen to people's personal stories as well as gather info from other sources. I think it's a huge mistake to think that scientific journals are the one and only true source of info. Scientific studies are just as prone to manipulation bias, suppression, etc. as any other source. You're fooling yourself if you think that is the only information worth any merit.
No one is pressuring people into not getting vaccinated. All of the pressure is coming from the pro vaccine mandate people. We are not the ones limiting our info to just one side or one source. All we want is choice. We want to keep informed consent intact.
My decision have only been made after reading and looking at info from a wide variety of sources including information shared by the medical journals you seem to hold so dear as well as info from the CDC, etc. I'm not close minded and these decisions were only made after numerous hours of research and were not made lightly. I'm sorry if that offends you because it doesn't fit your fantastical stereotype of "anti-vaxxers". I'm also sorry that you feel so very threatened by that you feel it is ok to bully parents into submission. Your way or the highway, huh?
Is it compassionate to allow them to continue to scapegoat vaccines that did not kill their daughters? To prevent others from getting vaccines that could, literally, save their lives down the road? It's like knowing that a convicted murderer is not guilty, but staying silent because to contradict what the family believes would somehow hurt them. This is a distraction, and it is not allowing for true closure by continuing to perpetuate the myth. If what I said to a parent could potentially help them, damn right I would say it. Who are you to define what compassion is? From my perspective, you are obfuscating the facts. You are spreading misinformation that will hurt someone. You are holding up propaganda (yes, propaganda) and giving it the same weight as fact. Girls' stories do not equal fact. Parental grief does not equal fact. You are the one utterly lacking in compassion, in my opinion. And before anyone goes all crazy, I know you all think differently, that I am brainwashed, that I am a cruel person, that I am a sheep, that I am just the meanest thing ever. So save it.
Why do you think they are lying? Cervical cancer can be prevented via routine pap smears. You're putting way too much stock in the vaccine to save people. It's not the only way
Why do you think they are lying? Cervical cancer can be prevented via routine pap smears. You're putting way too much stock in the vaccine to save people. It's not the only way
As I have said before, several times, I don't think they're lying. I think they are WRONG. I think they are often used by people who actually should know better than to say with certainty that it is the vaccine that caused it to further their agendas, which may be very egocentric.
It is not the only way to prevent certain cancers, but it is a damn good way. And routine pap smears can detect precancerous and cancerous cells, but they don't prevent the underlying infection, and they can miss things, and they can also lead to false positives, which are terrifying. The vaccine can prevent the virus which causes the infection which can lead to cancer. So instead of catching and treating a condition, you can prevent it entirely. Honestly, which one seems the better option?
Diane Harper who was a principal investigator for the clinical vaccine trials for Merck and Glaxo Smith Kline on the HPV vaccine:
Quote:
"The most important point that I have always said from day one, is that the use of this vaccine must be done with informed consent and complete disclosure of the benefits and harms of Pap screening and HPV vaccines. The decision to be vaccinated must be the woman's (or parent's if it is for a young child), and not the physician's or any board of health, as the vaccination contains personal risk that only the person can value.
As I have said before, several times, I don't think they're lying. I think they are WRONG. I think they are often used by people who actually should know better than to say with certainty that it is the vaccine that caused it to further their agendas, which may be very egocentric.
It is not the only way to prevent certain cancers, but it is a damn good way. And routine pap smears can detect precancerous and cancerous cells, but they don't prevent the underlying infection, and they can miss things, and they can also lead to false positives, which are terrifying. The vaccine can prevent the virus which causes the infection which can lead to cancer. So instead of catching and treating a condition, you can prevent it entirely. Honestly, which one seems the better option?
Why do you think they are wrong? They all have independently gone to their doctors and reported very similar symptoms including fever, fainting, seizures, extreme fatigue, debilitating headaches and paralysis that all came on suddenly after getting their HPV vaccination. Why are their doctors baffled by their conditions? Surely the doctors would be aware of this illness if it was common prior to the HPV vaccine's introduction. The doctors don't know what is wrong with them yet any connection to the HPV vaccine is dismissed even though it is the common denominator in all of the illnesses.
No thank you. I will stick to routine pap screenings which have proven to be very effective in preventing cervical cancer. Too bad the school children in RI have had the choice taken away from them by the state.
Like I said, I get my information from a wide variety of sources. I read scientific studies, I talk to doctors but I also listen to people's personal stories as well as gather info from other sources. I think it's a huge mistake to think that scientific journals are the one and only true source of info. Scientific studies are just as prone to manipulation bias, suppression, etc. as any other source. You're fooling yourself if you think that is the only information worth any merit.
No one is pressuring people into not getting vaccinated. All of the pressure is coming from the pro vaccine mandate people. We are not the ones limiting our info to just one side or one source. All we want is choice. We want to keep informed consent intact.
My decision have only been made after reading and looking at info from a wide variety of sources including information shared by the medical journals you seem to hold so dear as well as info from the CDC, etc. I'm not close minded and these decisions were only made after numerous hours of research and were not made lightly. I'm sorry if that offends you because it doesn't fit your fantastical stereotype of "anti-vaxxers". I'm also sorry that you feel so very threatened by that you feel it is ok to bully parents into submission. Your way or the highway, huh?
I am not bullying anyone. I am supportive of the choice to not vaccinate, with appropriate consequences. Sorry if that measured approach offends you.
When I cite a medical journal or the actual study itself, it's because I've read something somewhere, perhaps on a website or in a magazine or in a blog or forum, and I want to know more. I want to find out if it's credible, if it's been thoroughly researched. I don't trust something simply because it's in black & white online. I don't spend my time reading Lancet or the the Journal of American Pediatrics--but when I look to those sources they are more credible than Huffpost or Mother Jones or someone's blog. I don't trust 40 mins of personal stories. Media is, at its very heart, manipulative. So a documentary is produced--that doesn't mean the information in it meets a standard of truth or fact. That means someone is telling a story, and their own biases will be shown. Do you think that if there was something completely contradictory, that would refute the basis of that Danish documentary, that the filmmakers would keep it in? No. They would edit it out. Because it's not the story they are telling. A study is different--you evaluate the raw data. Can it be manipulated? Sure, to an extent. You can change your thesis question, you can change a scale of a graph. But you don't look at the data that says 100 of 450 subjects experienced a certain reaction and say that there were no reactions. The data is the data. That's why I like to find the actual study publication if I can. You can learn a lot just from the abstracts. I like to know things, and this is something I've been doing since college, when I had to go to the library and actually take books off the shelves to read an abstract. Now, the internet puts things out there, and it's like the wild west--there's no sheriff saying, "this is reliable, this is biased." So based on all of what I've read, I reject the theory that the HPV vaccine is causing all of these problems. Because when the data is looked at, it doesn't support that. I am confident that is true. I know you disagree.
I am not bullying anyone. I am supportive of the choice to not vaccinate, with appropriate consequences. Sorry if that measured approach offends you.
I consider your approach to be bullying and blackmail. "If you don't get all of the injections that the state say's you must, you lose your right to a public education.". Sorry if that offends you but I'm just calling it as I see it.
Quote:
When I cite a medical journal or the actual study itself, it's because I've read something somewhere, perhaps on a website or in a magazine or in a blog or forum, and I want to know more. I want to find out if it's credible, if it's been thoroughly researched. I don't trust something simply because it's in black & white online. I don't spend my time reading Lancet or the the Journal of American Pediatrics--but when I look to those sources they are more credible than Huffpost or Mother Jones or someone's blog. I don't trust 40 mins of personal stories. Media is, at its very heart, manipulative. So a documentary is produced--that doesn't mean the information in it meets a standard of truth or fact. That means someone is telling a story, and their own biases will be shown. Do you think that if there was something completely contradictory, that would refute the basis of that Danish documentary, that the filmmakers would keep it in? No. They would edit it out. Because it's not the story they are telling. A study is different--you evaluate the raw data. Can it be manipulated? Sure, to an extent. You can change your thesis question, you can change a scale of a graph. But you don't look at the data that says 100 of 450 subjects experienced a certain reaction and say that there were no reactions. The data is the data. That's why I like to find the actual study publication if I can. You can learn a lot just from the abstracts. I like to know things, and this is something I've been doing since college, when I had to go to the library and actually take books off the shelves to read an abstract. Now, the internet puts things out there, and it's like the wild west--there's no sheriff saying, "this is reliable, this is biased." So based on all of what I've read, I reject the theory that the HPV vaccine is causing all of these problems. Because when the data is looked at, it doesn't support that. I am confident that is true. I know you disagree.
That is why it is important to look at sources from a wide variety and not just say, "oh, no medical journals are the only thing worth reading". All sources can be biased but I'm not going to discount people's personal stories simply because "science" hasn't yet taken the task of truly evaluating reactions. All of the information factors into my decision, not just one documentary or five medical journals. That is why it is entirely possible for two parents who have done their research to ultimately make two different decisions when it comes to vaccines. Neither is right nor wrong. They should retain their right to do so without fear of losing their right o access public schools. That is true informed consent.
I shared this awhile back about manipulation is scientific studies. It's actually more complicated then you are making it out be.
In view of this control and the conflicts of interest that permeate the enterprise, it is not surprising that industry-sponsored trials published in medical journals consistently favor sponsors’ drugs—largely because negative results are not published, positive results are repeatedly published in slightly different forms, and a positive spin is put on even negative results.
Quote:
It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of TheNew England Journal of Medicine.
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
I agree with her. Informed consent. Not coerced consent.
Dr. Harper was concerned about the MARKETING of HPV vaccines. Which is valid. I get that. I've worked in marketing, and you sort of sell your soul if you intend to do a good job. She also had early concerns about how long the protections from the vaccines would last (which are less worrisome, since the vaccine is showing protection for at least 11 years now). She was worried that the marketing would prevent women from preventing other STDs. Again, a valid concern, and one that needed to be addressed.
She never spoke about the vaccine being dangerous or anything of the sort. She was actually approaching it as a cost-benefit issue, and that was her point about it. She wasn't a "principal investigator," by the way. She was some sort of project manager for a Gardasil trial, but didn't have a hand in development of the vaccine. And she didn't work on Cerevix (from G-S-K) at all. There is all sorts of information available about her support of HPV vaccines. They are a remarkable tool, and can prevent cancer, and Dr. Harper agrees, if you care to find recent interviews.
Dr. Harper was concerned about the MARKETING of HPV vaccines. Which is valid. I get that. I've worked in marketing, and you sort of sell your soul if you intend to do a good job. She also had early concerns about how long the protections from the vaccines would last (which are less worrisome, since the vaccine is showing protection for at least 11 years now). She was worried that the marketing would prevent women from preventing other STDs. Again, a valid concern, and one that needed to be addressed.
She never spoke about the vaccine being dangerous or anything of the sort. She was actually approaching it as a cost-benefit issue, and that was her point about it. She wasn't a "principal investigator," by the way. She was some sort of project manager for a Gardasil trial, but didn't have a hand in development of the vaccine. And she didn't work on Cerevix (from G-S-K) at all. There is all sorts of information available about her support of HPV vaccines. They are a remarkable tool, and can prevent cancer, and Dr. Harper agrees, if you care to find recent interviews.
She presented honest information regarding the risk of getting the vaccine and the risk of not getting the vaccine. She was concerned about the marketing of the vaccine and concerned about people not having true informed consent. What is happening with RI mandating the HPV vaccine for school entry is an example of denying people their right to choose, true informed consent. She says quite clearly that, "The decision to be vaccinated must be the woman's (or parent's if it is for a young child), and not the physician's or any board of health, as the vaccination contains personal risk that only the person can value. "
Does it concern you at all that the mandate in RI goes against this advice?
Did you read the article? She was the Principal Investigator. They even define this role in the article. She did mention the confirmed risk of autoimmune attacks after Gardasil injection here,
Quote:
"Neurologists at the American Neurological Association have indeed concluded that Gardasil is temporally associated with autoimmune attacks on the neurologic system. The range of neurologic disorders is unknown."
Please share the articles with Diane Harper that contradict this one. She has shown that she is very much in favor of informed consent.
Last edited by MissTerri; 09-03-2015 at 11:57 AM..
I am glad you linked to that video on youtube. Anyone who takes the time to listen to it (as I did) can educate themselves on the difference between a study and a the type of propaganda presented in that six minute; 40 second film.
The film starts out by quoting VAERS reports o the HPV vaccine and not bothering to state that VAERS reports are not substantiated, but merely self-reported data.
If there are 30,000 self-reported adverse events from taking Gardasil, it would be highly relevant to know quite a number of things:
1. How many total shots were given? (the number is in the millions)
2. What is the temporal or time relationship between each adverse event and the date the shot was given? (This is only alluded too by a couple of the testimonials. One girl died in her bed eighteen days after the shot was given. Many don't even tell us how far before an alleged event a shot was given.) I could allege that I ate celery with my dinner two weeks ago and that today I have a headache because of it. Is that convincing to you?
3. Many of the girls claim to have suffered seizure disorders. Do you know that without taking Gardasil Vaccine the prevalence of seizure disorders among teens and pre-teens is fairly high? Neurologists spend much of their time treating juveniles with seizure disorders. Very often, the seizures are said to be "idiopathic" in nature. This means there is no known cause. Someone trying to make the argument that Gardasil causes seizures would attempt to study the prevalence of seizure disorders in children in similar age groups who have received Gardasil and those who have not. Since girls overwhelmingly take the Gardasil vaccine it would interesting to compare seizure rates in girls with seizure rates in boys.
4. Two or three of the girls mentioned in the film died. Sadly, a few people out of a population of millions will die at random. The issue can be defects in the heart or arteries. Again, without correlating these numbers with a group of people who are not vaccinated, these stories mean nothing.
5. Anecdotal information is not equal to information derived in numerous studies that have been done of the efficacy and safety of the Gardasil vaccine.
6. Finally, the people who produced this video call themselves the "Canary Party". They are apparently against all vaccination, not just the Gardasil vaccine. On their website, they continue to assert there is a "cover-up" of the alleged link between autism and the MMR shot. This is really getting tiring. Eleven separate studies have proven there is no link, yet this keeps going and going and going. That's when people really lose me, when they deny the validity of eleven separate studies.
Keep carrying on like you are persecuted and ignored. I read your links. However, I do something you do not do: I actually analyze them and that's why I find them very wanting indeed.
To be fair, propaganda comes from all sides of the isle. Everyone is trying to get our attention, and we've grown up being taught that this is the way to do it. Doesn't mean there aren't valid points on both sides. Yes, no doubt vaccines have prevented disease and it's spread and on the other hand certain individuals I believe are injured or died from vaccines.
The choice has to be made if it's worth the risks, no matter the size to each individual because not everyone will see the risk assessment the same way. It's personal. We are all different, inside and out. Which is a strength and as humans has kept our species from dying out so far.
That said, these people aren't trying to make money off this, they truly believe their injuries revolve around the hpv vaccine and are trying to have a voice. The truth is we simply don't know if it did, we just don't think so. We aren't that far into the detection business, at least not as far as we think we are in the treatment business. Why, well, you know what I'm going to say. One makes money and the other doesn't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
