Studies demonstrating HPV vaccine is both safe and effective - Page 8

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I don't know that they haven't published those results, though, because I haven't seen the full study. Neither have you. Seems like a lot of jumping to conclusions.

The point is, the assumption that HPV is both safe and effective is jumping to conclusions, and ignores the most recent research indicating that aluminum adjuvanted vaccines are causing autoimmune disorders.

[Chicharronita]

I "jump" to these kinds of conclusions because they do lovely things like test the HPV and other vaccines on unwitting subjects in the third world without informed consent. 

The Independent – Without Consent: How Drug Companies Exploit Indian ‘Guinea Pigs’

Quote:

When The Independent visited the pink-painted Government Girls' Ashram and High School in the nearby town of Bhadrachalam, the hostel warden confirmed that health officials had come to the hostel and outlined their plan to vaccinate 300 girls [with Gardasil]. He said that because it was a government project, he had been told he could authorise the trials without parental permission. "

 

I wouldn't be surprised if they've hidden data, or done whatever they can to make their product look good. 

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

The point is, the assumption that HPV is both safe and effective is jumping to conclusions, and ignores the most recent research indicating that aluminum adjuvanted vaccines are causing autoimmune disorders.

According to you.

[chickabiddy]

Jumping to conclusions or assuming that data must be hidden just because is about as valid a discussion/debate strategy as my saying "I trust vaccine manufacturers because they want to help the world".

[Chicharronita]

*Shrug* Where there's smoke there's usually fire.

ETA: As far as hypothetically "trusting vaccine manufacturers because they want to help the world" goes so far the data points to corruption and profit motive more than altruism.

So "jumping" to conclusions about them is legitimate.

[Rrrrrachel]

Pssst, chickabiddy was, I believe, using hyperbole. The fact that the idea is so naive as to be redo cultus is kind of the point.

[Chicharronita]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Pssst, chickabiddy was, I believe, using hyperbole. The fact that the idea is so naive as to be redo cultus is kind of the point.

What idea? That some people " trust vaccine manufacturers because they want to help the world"? 

Actually, I bet a lot of the unaware masses who tend to not research this subject like we do very much agree with that statement.

But because of its unethical track record (which most of the unknowledgeable public doesn't know about or else they would lose that trust), I will continue to be skeptical about this industry.

Edited by Chicharronita - 11/20/12 at 8:56am

[Rrrrrachel]

On never mind.

[chickabiddy]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Pssst, chickabiddy was, I believe, using hyperbole. The fact that the idea is so naive as to be redo cultus is kind of the point.

Yes, Rachel gets it!

Jumping to conclusions is either legitimate and fair and a sound debate strategy, or it isn't.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by chickabiddy 

Yes, Rachel gets it!

Jumping to conclusions is either legitimate and fair and a sound debate strategy, or it isn't.

Well, then what we are we left with?  Dismissing the clinical trials as discussed in the link because we do not have the full study?   Okay by me.  It hardly changes the real issues that exist with HPV.

[Rrrrrachel]

Uh, no, why would you dismiss the whole study? Personally I take the information I have for what it's worth an acknowledge there's information I don't have. One thing I know for sure, the constant insistence that hpv wasn't tested against a placebo is incorrect if not a lie.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Uh, no, why would you dismiss the whole study? Personally I take the information I have for what it's worth an acknowledge there's information I don't have. One thing I know for sure, the constant insistence that hpv wasn't tested against a placebo is incorrect if not a lie.

It goes both ways…we either have enough information to draw some conclusions or we don't.  It isn't:  "I can draw conclusions that support my hypothesis - but you can't."  

Oh, it is clear it was tested against saline in one of the 7 studies - but the overall saline portion is small, and the results were mixed in with AAHS for numerous vaccine reactions as opposed to separated out. It does not give us much information.   None of us have the full study.  The lack of information we have is what is important here.

I am out where this study is concerned. No one has the study and we are bickering for bickering's sake, as far as I can tell. 

Edited by kathymuggle - 11/19/12 at 3:19pm

[Chicharronita]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chickabiddy 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Pssst, chickabiddy was, I believe, using hyperbole. The fact that the idea is so naive as to be redo cultus is kind of the point.

Yes, Rachel gets it!

Jumping to conclusions is either legitimate and fair and a sound debate strategy, or it isn't.

 

Gets what? That some unknowing people out there completely trust Big Pharma? BTW that's not hyperbole but fact. It's kind of funny that she used an example that is NOT an exaggeration of some people's attitude.

I stick by my conclusion-jumping until I see there's a reason not to. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

I am out where this study is concerned. No one has the study and we are bickering for bickering's sake, as far as I can tell. 

 

You're right. I wonder if it will be possible to see all the data?

Edited by Chicharronita - 11/20/12 at 8:57am

[Mosaic]

Chicharronita, calling people on any side of the vax debate naive is not within the UA. Edit your posts.

All members: you have done a great job of digging into the study, examining different facts, schooling me on statistics, etc.

However, when you cross into judging how others are interpreting these data, you're crossing into UAV territory. People can look at the same data and come to different conclusions. Some members may find issues with and disregard a study or aspect of the data you feel is very important; you can point to information you feel may be overlooked but not judge or criticise them for their decision. Does that make sense?

[prosciencemum]

All the data on deaths does seem to be on the insert - you just have to read it. Even for deaths. They list (pg 8 of this http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM111263.pdf) all the different causes of death. I put it in the below table to make it easy for you. Turns out there was 1 death in the saline group, 18 in the AAHS and 21 in Gardasil. All have the same rate of around 0.15% deaths, and all causes of death were considered found at normal rates for the sample population and unrelated to the injection. 

Broken down here. I put the statistical error on some of the numbers (including the "rule of 3" errors for zero incidence rate in a sample). 

                                     Gardasil                        AAHS control           Saline placebo

 

Cohort size                        15706                        13023                     594

Total deaths                        21  (0.13+/-0.03%)      18 (0.14+/-0.03%)    1 (0.16+/-0.16%) 

Motor vehicle accident         5   (0.03+/-0.01%)       4 (0.03+/-0.02%)     0 (0.0+/-0.5%)

Drug overdose/suicide          2  (0.01+/-0.01%)        6 (0.05+/-0.02%)     0 (0.0+/-0.5%)

Gun shot wound                   1  (0.006+/-0.006%)    3 (0.02+/-0.01%)     0 (0.0+/-0.5%)

Pulmonary embolus/deep      1   (0.006+/-0.006%)  1 (0.007+/-0.007%)  0 (0.0+/-0.5%)

  vein thrombosis 

Sepsis                                 2                                0   (0.0+/-0.02%)         0 

Pancreatic cancer                 1                             0                                  0 

Arrythmia                              1                             0                                  0 

Pulmonary tuberculosis          1                             0                                  0 

hyperthyroidism                     1                             0                                  0 

post-operative pulmonary        1                             0                                  0 

   embolism and acute renal                            

    failure

traumatic brain injury/cardiac   1                             0                                  0 

    arrest

systemic lupus erthematosus  1                             0                                  0 

cerebrovascular accident         1                             0                                  0 

breast cancer                          1                               0                                  0 

nasopharynegeal cancer           1                                0                                  0 

asphyxia                                  0                                  1                            0 

acute lymphocytic leukemia       0                                 1                            0 

chemical poisoning                   0                                  1                            0 

myocaridal ischemia                0                                  1                            0 

medulloblastoma                     0                                  0                                1

[Chicharronita]

Interesting table! I don't know if I want to be driving around in traffic with anyone who's had Gardasil, lol.

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by Chicharronita 

Interesting table! I don't know if I want to be driving around in traffic with anyone who's had Gardasil, lol.

But the rate is no different to that in the general population. 

[Chicharronita]

Yes but slightly higher than the saline group. I think we need more placebos in our life. 

[chickabiddy]

never mind

[Rrrrrachel]

You should do some reading about the idea of "statistical significance"