Study: Not Enough Evidence That HPV Vaccine Is Safe and Effective - Page 2

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

For one thing, autism has already been shown in some cases to be related to vaccines.  (

The Autism Science Foundation Disagrees with this assessment. They say: 

Quote:

 There is no data to support an autism vaccine link. There never has been.  Vaccines don’t cause autism.

http://www.autismsciencefoundation.org/autismandvaccines.html

And The Autism Science Foundation is not a biased organization? Guess who is on the board of directors................ none other than millionaire vaccine industrialist and AoA Denialist of the Decade Paul Offit. 

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

The Autism Science Foundation Disagrees with this assessment. They say: 

http://www.autismsciencefoundation.org/autismandvaccines.html

The autism science foundation believes autism is largely genetic, in early detection, and that vaccines save lives. I find the fact they start babbling about vaccines in their mission quite telling.  Are they at heart really a more a pro-vax website than a autism science research website?   

Edited by kathymuggle - 10/21/12 at 8:54am

[Cynthia Mosher]

Wildkingdom, your comments are too personally pointed. Please keep your posts focused on discussing the topic or you will lose access to this thread. 

[Rrrrrachel]

I think that Paul offit would probably feel honored to be called an age of autism denialist. It would fascinating to compare the work funded by aoa vs asf.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

The Autism Science Foundation Disagrees with this assessment. They say: 

Quote:

 There is no data to support an autism vaccine link. There never has been.  Vaccines don’t cause autism.

 

http://www.autismsciencefoundation.org/autismandvaccines.html

So if Autism Science Foundation is asserting "there is no data to support a link.  There never has been," they are clearly lying.  There IS data supporting a vaccine-autism link. The independent studies showing such a link are certainly outnumbered by the vaccine industry's in-house studies that are carefully set up to conclude "no link!"  But even if they are outnumbered, that certainly doesn't mean that they don't exist.

How interesting--and telling--that they would lie like that.

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

see my post here, #58
I found 64 randomized placebo controlled double blind studies.

Post 58 of which thread? 

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 
 

I'm a bit leery of the lead author of this paper.  She (or he) seems to only publish papers that have a strong anti-vax agenda.

 The authors express concern over specific aspects of the vaccine schedule. 

I'm concerned about recent findings of arsenic in rice.  But then, that's just my anti-rice agenda, right?

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

As for your question about if there is a valid, scientific flaw in her work- well, she doesn't do her own research.  As far as I can tell, all of her publications are letters to the editor, opinion articles, and reviews of other studies.  No original work.  

So let's therefore dismiss all meta-analyses?  All otherwise critical analyses of existing research?

Japonica paraphrased my request but said it more eloquently:

Originally Posted by japonica 

I'd like to hear if there is a valid, scientific flaw in all of Tomljenovic's work. I've been asking for others to post rebuttals if they have them, proper peer-reviewed, scientifically valid, published ones, not just sniping in blog comments on the net, but so far, no one has been able to.

We're asking for specifics.  Can you offer anything other than sweeping statements?

[WildKingdom]

Quote:

Post 58 of which thread? 

Sorry. This one.  http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1364533/found-you-in-quest-of-an-answer-to-the-vaccination-question/40

Quote:

The authors express concern over specific aspects of the vaccine schedule. 

I'm concerned about recent findings of arsenic in rice.  But then, that's just my anti-rice agenda, right?

Are you publishing work related to arsenic in rice while being funded by a group that is anti-rice?

Quote:

So let's therefore dismiss all meta-analyses?  All otherwise critical analyses of existing research?

I'm not saying to dismiss meta-analyses.  Far from it.  However, she has not performed a meta-analysis.  Just a systematic review.

http://www.researchcore.org/faq/answers.php?recID=5

Japonica asked if there was anything wrong with her research.  TBH, I'm not sure, because all I've seen are abstracts.  Have any of you read the actual articles? Even if her review looks great, it's still just preliminary research and you should be wary of drawing conclusions from it.  It is not a meta-analysis.  It is just a review of the existing literature.

Quote:

We're asking for specifics.  Can you offer anything other than sweeping statements?

Specific enough for you?

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

So if Autism Science Foundation is asserting "there is no data to support a link.  There never has been," they are clearly lying.  There IS data supporting a vaccine-autism link. The independent studies showing such a link are certainly outnumbered by the vaccine industry's in-house studies that are carefully set up to conclude "no link!"  But even if they are outnumbered, that certainly doesn't mean that they don't exist.

How interesting--and telling--that they would lie like that.

But those don't count, you see.

[japonica]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

Japonica asked if there was anything wrong with her research.  TBH, I'm not sure, because all I've seen are abstracts.  Have any of you read the actual articles? Even if her review looks great, it's still just preliminary research and you should be wary of drawing conclusions from it.  It is not a meta-analysis.  It is just a review of the existing literature.

I linked one of her articles in this post:

Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity...

And here's another one that has been uploaded online:

Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are They Safe?

I have read those two and a few others. I'm not a biochemist or neuroscientist. I appreciate the issues involved and the argument Tomljenovic is making. However, like I mentioned, it would be helpful to have a specific, valid, professional critique of her science. Sniping on a blog is not a professional critique nor satisfactory rebuttal of her work IMO.

[WildKingdom]

Again, both of those articles are just reviews of literature.  I have no idea if she cherry-picked data or not, that's why systematic reviews of literature are really not that valuable on their own.  They are used in one of two ways: 1) as a jumping off point to develop a hypothesis, which is then tested, or 2) to use a large series off ALL data that meets criteria to do a meta-analysis.

Here's a meta analysis regarding HPV vaccination;  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21226933

Another one (safety in pregnancy) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20197322

Safety of both vaccines in Europe: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20197141

Another one (funded by GSK) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19221517

Interesting comparison between condoms and HPV vaccine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18507603

Another large meta analysis from Italy.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17996990

Massive meta analysis: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1950172/

Overall, I would consider all of these studies to be a much higher quality of evidence than what you linked, japonica, by virtue of the fact that they are meta-analyses, not just reviews of literature.

Also, I'm not sniping when I point out her conflicts of interest.  They are legit.  She has the same three sources of funding for both articles- one is the Katlyn Fox Foundation- founded by parents who feel their daughter's death was due to vaccines; The Dworskin foundation, already discussed above; and the Lotus Foundation. I have no idea what the Lotus foundation is- my computers malware safety program won't let me open it, saying it's an unsafe site.  That doesn't speak well to its legitimacy.

[japonica]

I'm not suggesting that you are sniping unless you are in fact SD from the blog you linked in another post. That is sniping, to call the research a big pile of crap (paraphrasing) but then refuse to dissect it piece by piece to show where the analysis is flawed and where the misinterpretation of the literature lies. Someone who is purported to be of high credentials and professional integrity should have no problem generating a professional quality, publishable, peer-review worthy rebuttal. Name calling, alas, does nothing for me or others wanting clarification of the issue. It also makes me think that when authors stoop to that level, they have come to the bottom of the barrel argument-wise.

Again, conflicts of interest exist on both sides. Manufacturers fund studies. There is bias in everything. Any reasonable person notes where the money is coming from in any published paper and makes a mental note of it. The key is whether or not the science can stand up to scrutiny. 

Edited to add: I was also thinking of Shaw's work (who is second credit on many of her articles). As far as I can see, this one was original research, rather than lit review.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819810/

FTR, position-wise, I'm on the fence. We're considering a very few select vaccines, but unless I can find the studies can completely debunk all of Shaw's work (and Tomljenovic's "cherry picking" lit reviews), and proves to me that aluminum adjuvants are completely inert and do not contribute in any manner to autoimmunity nor neurological impairment, then I have to delay until those questions are answered to my satisfaction.

Edited by japonica - 10/21/12 at 5:08pm

[Storm Bride]

I agree about the spin on the Natural News website, but:

Originally Posted by pers 

Yes, his shocking revelation is that most HPV infections do not cause cervical cancer.  Apparently this was news to him.  I'm pretty sure that it is not news to anyone else.  After all, don't we know that over half of all sexually active women have been infected with HPV at one point or another? 

Again, this is news to who?

Who has claimed that the vaccine can be used to treat women who have already been exposed?  

 Also, there is no "mandatory 'vaccinate everyone'" policy with Gardasil.  It is on the schedule for girls...

There are many people who are educated and know this stuff. I've talked to multiple people who believe that the HPV vaccine is will prevent cervical cancer - no questions asked. They are unaware that it doesn't work if the woman has already been exposed to HPV. They are unaware that one can have an HPV infection and not develop cervical cancer. They are unaware that there are strains of HPV linked to cervical cancer that aren't covered by the vaccine. They are unaware that half of sexually active women have been infected with HPV. This stuff is news to a lot of people, whether it should be or not.

Also, many people are under the impression that the schedule is mandatory. They don't even know it's legal to refuse a vaccine that's on the schedule. I've known multiple people who have been told by doctors and/or teachers that vaccine non-compliance is illegal.

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

Are you publishing work related to arsenic in rice while being funded by a group that is anti-rice?

 The direction in which you're taking this analogy would sound terribly compelling...if only you were right. 

Do you have proof, (and no, linking to an inflammatory editorial blog does not constitute proof) that the organizations behind this work are anti-vaccination, i.e. opposed to all vaccinations for all children for any reason whatsoever?  The only evidence that I am finding is that they are pro-research, (i.e. seeing too many gaps in vaccine research) and pro-informed-consent. 

Stormbride, I share a lot of your concerns.  Namely, I worry that this vax will imbue people with a false sense of confidence.

[erigeron]

Originally Posted by Turquesa 

 Namely, I worry that this vax will imbue people with a false sense of confidence.

That's more a problem of public education than a problem with the vax itself. Of course I think that people need to learn that the vaccine won't prevent all cases of HPV or all cases of cervical cancer, and that they still need to use other precautions to guard against pregnancy and other STDs. But it does help improve their odds when it comes to HPV and ultimately cervical cancer. It's also a plus considering that HPV can often be passed even if a couple is using condoms, and there aren't any symptoms in men (or, iirc, an easy screening test for men), so a lot of guys will not know if they have it. 

[SkewedD]

Japonica,

Thank you for your interest in my blog. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that in my critique of the Shaw HPV paper, I provided plenty of scientific analysis. I am sorry if my classification of the paper as a "steaming turd" invalidated the critique in your eyes, but I call it like I see it.

I suppose I could polish up my words a bit and instead define the paper as 'a misleading and deceptive misinterpretation of the entire body scientific of literature regarding HPV vaccine, funded by organizations with a profound anti-vaccination belief system', rather than a 'steaming turd' of a paper. But the politesse doesn't quite wipe away the truth, does it?

[prosciencemum]

SkewedD  - welcome to Mothering.com. Thanks for sharing that, and that for writing scientific critiques to papers like the Shaw HPV paper. I'm not sure if I've visited your blog before, but I have used others like it many times to help provide the alternate viewpoint to the anti-vaccination links posted on these threads.

Natural parenting in my opinion has nothing to do with a choice to avoid potentially live saving medical advances due to unfounded fears of side effects which are either scientifically impossible implausible or extremely rare.  I just want to make sure you are aware that not all of us Mothering Mamas are anti-vaccination. In fact most people posting here I think call themselves "pro safety" - in that we all want to just make sure that vaccinations are as safe, and effective as possible for our families. 

[SkewedD]

Thank you for the welcome. I dropped by because someone had emailed me regarding a comment left here about one of my posts and I wanted to clarify a few points. My page is a science blog and all of my opinions are based on the scientific literature, though my writing style is unquestionably informal.

You seem to have a very nice, supportive board here. I doubt I will make any more appearances, as my position regarding vaccines and anti-vaxxers is probably not in line with what is acceptable here, and I respect the rules of others' boards.

[Rrrrrachel]

Opinions here are more varied than they seem. All informed and thoughtful opinions regarding vaccination are welcome here.

[Rrrrrachel]

And I'm loving your blog.

[SkewedD]

Thank you for visiting my blog, Rachel, and for your kind words. I hope you keep reading there, and feel free to comment any time.

What I meant by my comment is that it seems clear that on this board all opinions must be treated with respect, and I'm afraid I cannot do that with staunch anti-vaxxers. Parents who are concerned about vaccines? That's another story, and I respect their concerns. But I don't respect the opinion of those who are strictly anti-vax and who post inflammatory and misleading articles, and my position is that nobody should have to. I absolutely acknowledge that this approach is not one with which everyone agrees, and that is okay. But it also means I am not a good fit for some boards, which I also understand.