or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Study: Not Enough Evidence That HPV Vaccine Is Safe and Effective
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Study: Not Enough Evidence That HPV Vaccine Is Safe and Effective - Page 3

post #41 of 242
Yeah, probably not then smile.gif. You're not the only one who struggles with that. Lots of hand slaps to go around.
post #42 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkewedD View Post

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?

 

 

Hi Skewed,

 

Thanks very much for taking the time to reply. I appreciate it.

 

First off, I'm not interested in the truth so much as facts. Both sides in this debate swear that the truth is on their side. I'm not a philosopher in search of what's true as much as a concerned parent looking for facts that can be proven valid or shown as erroneous. 

 

And as you've read in my previous posts, I'm not an "anti-vaxer," but a fence sitter who is in discussion with our friendly, dependable, long-suffering, eternally-patient GP about what vaccines would be appropriate for our family.

 

I have to say, with all due respect, that although the critique was entertaining (in its own way) and yes, provided food for thought and a jumping off point for further research (you cited Buonaguro and Farez, for example), I think that many of us would like something a bit meatier. There are a lot of "concerned" parents and families out there considering when and how to vaccinate. If, as many people online contend, that Shaw and Tomljenovic are hacks who are just publishing "steaming turds" and putting children at risk, then it should be no problem whatsoever to have others publish direct rebuttals and or replicate Shaw's aluminum hydroxide studies and show the science for what it is. If it is flawed and sub-par, then the scientific community should be able to easily put them in their place. It's one thing for "those in the know," ie. people with the solid scientific background, to chuckle about Shaw's work and dismiss it and criticize it online in an informal format. Peer-reviewed papers firmly debunking it all would get more mileage. I know of at least a dozen other parents, like myself, who spend a lot of spare time perusing pub med and the like, but fewer hours checking out blogs (of either persuasion). In my case, I bring in the studies I find to discuss with our family physician. I won't give him a print out that contains many more examples of the colourful language you've used on your blog, even if the truth, indeed, lies within.

 

I hope you stay around, if you can manage not to violate the UA. It is all about discussion, and looking at the science with a critical eye, after all.

post #43 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkewedD View Post

 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.

 

 

Definitely challenging for many of us on here! Since you understand the science much better than me I'm sure (I'm a physical scientist, so get the research method stuff, but the details of biology are something I often struggle with) I think your time would be much better spent publishing more skeptical reviews of these awful flawed papers on your blog. 

 

 I found the link finally. I have indeed used it before when looking for skeptical reviews of the flawed and inflammatory articles often posted on these boards. Keep up the good work. :)

 

Skewed Distribution blog is here: http://skeweddistribution.com/

post #44 of 242

SkewD - this one inparticular I found really helpful: http://skeweddistribution.com/2012/10/01/dear-anti-vaxxer-yes-i-do-the-research/

 

Thanks for that. :) 

post #45 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

Ouch!

http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23016780

Ouch indeed!

 

HPV Vaccines: Scientists Use Manufacturers' Data to Prove Lack of Efficacy

 

 

Quote:
[t]he authors are more circumscribed in how they describe it, but I don’t have to be. These reports are stunning in their implications of malfeasance on the part of the vaccine manufacturers and the health agencies that approved the vaccines.

 

 

 

Quote:
Referencing only [these] facts and analyzing Merck’s own data, including both pre-licensing and post-licensing studies, the authors are able to show that the efficacy of the Gardasil vaccine cannot be shown to have prevented a single case of cervical cancer, let alone preventing death from it.

 

So, I am interested in why pro-vaxers "who do the research" are willing to risk this vaccine on their daughters (and even sons), given its high rate of adverse effects, its apparent uselessness and the fact that early detection via pap smears are highly effective in preventing cervical cancer. There are plenty of other vaccines that look so much better on paper than this one.

post #46 of 242
The blog talks about scientists and doctors the blogger has known. How many, exactly, or each are known? And clearly define "known", by specifying how personally they are known. Facts, not fiction, is required in a debate.

I find these debates somewhat boring, as the same posters tend to post the same arguments over and over, but resorting to quoting someone else's blog, when the blog author is a fellow poster, is the height of laziness.
post #47 of 242
The blog author was not a,poster until after the fact. I fail to see how personal details are relevant to the debate.
post #48 of 242

Japonica,

 

Thank you for your response; I think you offer some fair criticism. As a scientist writing a blog, there is always a fine line between the technical writing and having people actually read the blog. In my day job, I do in fact publish many of those scientific papers that you are asking for. The blog, on the other hand, synthesizes the knowledge I've gathered over the years.

 

It would be very difficult, for example, to post concisely but yet provide all of the scientific literature about why we know beyond any doubt that HPV causes cervical cancer, a scientific fact that Tomljenovic and Shaw seem to dismiss in their paper. Such a journey would begin in the 1800's when cervical cancer was a "whore's disease" and progress through the present day, when we've come to realize that up to 85% of the population has HPV; fewer with oncogenic HPV;  and fewer still who develop cancer.

 

So I'm at a bit of a loss, because the scientific papers that I take the time to craft are not going appear on a blog; they will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. This is because they are the culmination of 6-12 months plus of work. Since I am not paid to blog, I cannot devote that amount of time to blog entries.  What I try to do with my blog is give a view at 30,000 feet, based on my years as an epidemiologist.

post #49 of 242

Thanks for the shout-out. All are welcome.

post #50 of 242

The blog post talks about the fact that I do the research, despite accusations by anti-vaxxers that I don't. But this does not mean that I need to accept bad science. In addition, I wasn't a poster here until about 2 days ago, when I arrived to address a comment regarding my blog. I feel badly that people here would be accused of nepotism when I just burst onto the scene uninvited, and they were kind enough to provide a link to my blog.

 

Everyone is welcome to read and comment there. My posts can be very polarizing, which you may observe via the comments sections, but again, everyone is welcome.

post #51 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkewedD View Post

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.

 

A large subgroup of "parents who are concerned about vaccines" is made up of those whose children have had severe reactions to vaccines, or who have had such severe reactions themselves, or who have seen first-hand such severe reactions in family and/or friends.

We've all had frighteningly similar experiences: we were initially told that our reactions (or our children's reactions) were either coincidences or one-in-a-million flukes.

And then we learned that far, far more people have had the reactions than our doctors had known.

So we try to save others from the kinds of reactions we've had to deal with. We research, and post the research we've found, and invariably, someone calling himself or herself "proscience" or "science-based" appears and dubs us "anti-vaccine," "anti-science," and dismisses every single bit of research showing problems with vaccines as "misleading,""misrepresenting," "steaming turds."

Any researcher who dares to question or criticize vaccines is summarily dismissed by these posters, but there is never a mention from them of ANYTHING that could possibly raise questions about vaccines or those who profit from them. Ever.

You know, those of us who have lived with the results of vaccine injury DID believe in vaccines. We had our children vaccinated on schedule--and we share the regret--the regret we will live with for the rest of our lives.

You'll see the "proscience" and "science-based" bloggers and posters saying things like, "oh, I had pertussis, and coughed for 100 days, and I never want to go through that again so I vaccinate!"

They might sing a different tune if they or their child had a severe reaction to vaccines. Severe reactions have lifelong consequences for the whole family. 100 days of coughing is nothing in comparison.

Luckily, more and more mainstream doctors are starting to see what's going on--maybe because their own family members are being affected, since the vaccination schedule keeps adding more shots. Even the doctor who initially told me that reactions are a one-in-a-million thing now understands, and doesn't ever want to see such reactions again on his watch.

So you can come here and pretend that you do the research.

There are enough of us here who know better, first hand, because we, unlike you, have LIVED it. We will neither be dismissed nor be silenced.
post #52 of 242
SkewedD, please edit your post as it falls outside of the vaccination forum guidelines. I know you're new to MDC, so here is a link to the guidelines as well as a short excerpt:
Quote:
While no one should be labeled as irresponsible or uninformed for deciding to vaccinate, neither should parents here who have chosen to not vaccinate be accused of irresponsibility, not caring for their child, or presenting a threat to others.
http://www.mothering.com/community/a/vaccination-forum-guidelines
post #53 of 242

Well, dang it, my time here was short. I won't edit my post because it is scientifically accurate and factual, but I also understand that this leaves you with little choice but to ban me. I appreciate the time you allowed me to spend here.

 

And thanks Rachel, I appreciate your post.

post #54 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkewedD View Post

 

 

The fact remains that serious adverse events to vaccination are exceedingly rare. You have provided an anecdote that cannot be verified and which adds nothing to the data on this subject. You post is an emotional appeal, devoid of any supporting data. This is a very effective--and dangerous--tactic used by the anti-vaccination movement.

 

 

     All sides tell stories about adverse reactions - be it serious vaccine reactions or serious VAD complications.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


All the actual research I've seen points to serious adverse events being vanishingly rare. I have only your say so to the contrary, and I've never been able to get you to even estimate an incidence rate.

Bolding mine.  Vanishingly rare - do you think serious reactions are getting less common? Why do you think this?   DTaP is safer than DTP, and smallpox (which was a reactive vaccine) is gone, but the fact we keep adding vaccines to the roster would make me think adverse reactions are probably going up, not down.

 

In any event, it is very difficult to give an incident rate for vaccine reactions. Most reactions reported by parents are not accepted by the medical community.  VAERS has severe limitations.  The only reactions that are accepted by health care professionals are those they see with their own eyes - so serious, quick reactions.  Most other reports are dismissed as "coincidence."  CDC pink book has baseline reaction rates as  do vaccine inserts.  Of course, what is a serious reaction and what isn't also comes into question - febrile seizures are fairly common in MMRV, febrile seizures are also linked  with twice the risk of epilepsy later in life.  I think that is a big deal - but febrile seizures are not a contraindication to vaccination. Indeed, a lot of stuff that would give many people pause are not contra-indications to vaccines.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/vac-admin/contraindications-vacc.htm

post #55 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

 dubious reasons.

Dubious?

post #56 of 242
I agree with Rachel. Skewed seems to have implied that anti-vaccination scare tactics used on websites which publish misinformation as facts about the dangers of vaccination, could be dangerous, not that anyone just choosing not to vaccinate poses any danger. So I wouldn't interpret him as being against the UA, but obviously it's not my call.

Personally I think it would be a shame to loose him so quickly.
post #57 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Personally I think it would be a shame to loose him so quickly.

You must be pretty chummy with him to know that he is, in fact, male. Nothing in his posts indicates gender. And with this bein MOTHERING.com, not parenting.com, it's usually assumed that posters here are mothers, unless they post info to the contrary....
post #58 of 242
Wow, I am amazed at the hatred expressed in Skewed's site. It's as bad as whale dot to, only it targets those who question/criticize vaccines rather than targeting a religious group. Same M.O., though. Mods, may I suggest that it be added to whale dot to as a site that should not be mentioned here?
post #59 of 242
People post far more hateful things on this forum than I saw on that blog. Seems like a pretty blatant attempt to shut down a source of information you disagree with.
post #60 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

People post far more hateful things on this forum than I saw on that blog. Seems like a pretty blatant attempt to shut down a source of information you disagree with.

"Information?"

You must be joking.

The author stops spewing vindictive epithets at both researchers and parents who question/criticize vaccine safety and efficacy long enough to fervently recommend "vaccine cocooning" to protect your children from pertussis, even after MAINSTREAM SCIENCE determined it to be ineffective.

Lack of validity aside, such viciousness does not belong on MDC.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Study: Not Enough Evidence That HPV Vaccine Is Safe and Effective