Study: Not Enough Evidence That HPV Vaccine Is Safe and Effective - Page 7

[erigeron]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 


If you want to try to pretend that that sentence ("both vaccines may) provide...long-term protection"]means that "protection against HPV hasn't budged," go right ahead.
And the "crucial last line" is "Ongoing monitoring is essential." That doesn't mean "protection against HPV hasn't budged," either.
Fascinating, how you interpret everything to mean, "Totally safe! Totally effective!"

Taxi, you're missing the point of SkewedD's post. SkewedD read the actual article, not just the abstract, and is talking about the actual evidence presented in the article, rather than doing picky textual analysis on the abstract. 

[pek64]

Originally Posted by erigeron 

Taxi, you're missing the point of SkewedD's post. SkewedD read the actual article, not just the abstract, and is talking about the actual evidence presented in the article, rather than doing picky textual analysis on the abstract. 

Can the actual information be posted here so we can crunch the numbers and review the infomation ourselves? I find it insulting that actual data is rarely provided, and condescension and insults are tossed out instead of information.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by SkewedD 




It's not whether anyone "disagrees" with VAERS reports or not, it is whether they are caused by or coincident to the vaccine. The only adverse event that has been demonstrated to be caused by HPV vaccine is syncope (fainting). The rest are coincidental.

I find it extremely disturbing that you state with much authority that "the rest are coincidental," when the fact is, you have no idea whether they are coincidental or not because they have not been followed up.

Some of those reports involved girls who either had syncope or seizures while driving , and died in the resultant car crash. The cause of death was listed as "car accident," which was clearly related to the HPV shot, but according to the parents of the girls, Merck refused to even look into it.

And you call it a coincidence, and insult anyone who points to a coverup.

[emmy526]

So, are you categorizing all men as sex crazed machines?   That's a pretty bold statement you make right there, insinuating that the men are the ones out contracting and spreading VD...virginal bride??  LOL....how about a virginal man?  

Originally Posted by SkewedD 

This actually makes me physically ill to think about. I know that the earth is filled with judgmental people who don't have much of a grasp on reality, but this doesn't even make sense. It only takes one partner to contract HPV. One. Even if one wants to stick with the "virginal bride" model, the odds are pretty good that her future hubby is out contracting HPV right now. Further, several scientific studies have shown that HPV vaccine has no effect on "sexual responsibility". And those who subscribe to this thought pattern need to check themselves, because no one deserves to get cancer because they had premarital sex (and as I said above, intercourse is not required for HPV transmission).

[chickabiddy]

Originally Posted by pek64 


Can the actual information be posted here so we can crunch the numbers and review the infomation ourselves? I find it insulting that actual data is rarely provided, and condescension and insults are tossed out instead of information.

http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/vaccines/RomanowskiHV7-2.pdf

It wasn't difficult to find.

[Mosaic]

SkewedD, edit your last post to be more respectful or I will have to delete it. Your mental health crack is disrespectful and over the line.

Taximom, edit post #101 to remove the personally targeted comment at the end. That is also disrespectful and over the line.
Edited by Mosaic - 11/2/12 at 5:31am

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by chickabiddy 

http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/vaccines/RomanowskiHV7-2.pdf

It wasn't difficult to find.

From the conclusion of that study:

 

"Long-term efficacy and any possible need for a booster vaccination with one or both vaccines are not yet established. However, lack of longer follow-up data should not delay institution of vaccination programs combined with continued screening and ongoing monitoring of the impact of vaccination…...

Conflicts of Interest

The author’s academic institution or corporation has received research support, honoraria and consultancy fees from GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals and Merck & Co. and conference sponsorship from GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals."

The numbers of years of effectiveness cited are 5 and 8.4. 

Edited by kathymuggle - 11/2/12 at 5:45am

[Rrrrrachel]

Taxi we've been through this before. Follow up is a signal that is then invesigated with a study, its not men in black suits should show up at your house after you make a report to vaers with a portable MRI or something. You don't know that those reports weren't followed up on.
Edited by Rrrrrachel - 11/2/12 at 7:10am

[Mosaic]

Rrrrachel: edit. Or delete. Or I can do it for you.

[BeckyBird]

Edited by BeckyBird - 11/2/12 at 6:50am

[BeckyBird]

Whoah! I was typing my response before you posted yours, and by the time I clicked submit, you had already posted.

[Mosaic]

That's why we have a report button, Becky! Never take the bait!!

[Rrrrrachel]

What's wrong with my post?

[Rrrrrachel]

If my current edit isn't sufficient please let me know and I'll edit more, or just delete it. It was sincerely not meant as bait, although in retrospect it was poorly conceived.

[pek64]

Originally Posted by chickabiddy 

http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/vaccines/RomanowskiHV7-2.pdf

It wasn't difficult to find.

It has nothing to do with how difficult it is to find. It has to do with everyone providing information that is upfront and respectful that supports the claims being made. That was, I was informed during the summer, the standard here. Have the rules changed? Or maybe there's a separate set of rules for the pro-vax folks?

This 'discussion' is getting out of hand, and is hardly helpful to those who are seeking information to make a decision.

Edited for typo.

[Mosaic]

SkewedD, I am removing your ability to post on this thread due to refusing to abide by the rules.

[chickabiddy]

Originally Posted by pek64 


It has nothing to do with how difficult it is to find. It has to do with everyone providing information that is upfront and respectful that supports the claims being made. That was, I was informed during the summer, the standard here. Have the rules changed? Or maybe there's a separate set of rules for the pro-vax folks?
This 'discussion' is getting out of hand, and is hardly helpful to those who are seeking information to make a decision.
Edited for typo.

If someone references a study, it should be fair to assume she's familiar with what's in the study and can discuss the content of the study, instead of the wording of the abstract.

[pek64]

I was informed in the summer that if I reference a study, or make a comment, I needed to provide a link to the study or article being referenced or supporting my comment. I accepted those rules. But if I must follow them, so do the pro-vax contingent.

[Rrrrrachel]

The link had already been posted to the study.

[Rrrrrachel]

And it was actually taxi who quoted the abstract without linking to the study, then I found the link and posted it.