Studies demonstrating HPV vaccine is both safe and effective - Page 2

[Rrrrrachel]

Sure, but either way the results are confounded.

[pek64]

I agree the test was a waste. The original point, made by a pro-vax person, was it was a waste because of using a true placebo, as is the preference of a vax questioner. My point is the use of the true placebo was not necessarily the problem. That supports the point that true placebos can, and possibly, *should*, be used in other studies. I hope now the points are clear to all.

[Rrrrrachel]

The point is you want the thing you're testing for to be the only difference between the two groups, or your results are confounded. If ou use a true placebo you don't know if the adverse event is due to the new component (the pathogen) or the other elements of the injection.

[pek64]

Then multiple tests are required, so that each ingredient is tested independently. That way, the findings are accurate, and there are no assumptions being made. How can anyone claim a study to be scientific when the entire study stands on a foundation of untested assumptions?!?

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by pek64 

How can anyone claim a study to be scientific when the entire study stands on a foundation of untested assumptions?!?

Because those claiming it's scientific know that if you tell a lie often enough, people come to believe it. By this point, they've probably convinced themselves that it's true.

[Rrrrrachel]

Pek, the idea is the other components have already been determined to be safe or have a known rate of adverse events. There is no evidence that the other components of hpv cause an unusually high rate of serious adverse events, including things like fainting.

[pek64]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Pek, the idea is the other components have already been determined to be safe or have a known rate of adverse events. There is no evidence that the other components of hpv cause an unusually high rate of serious adverse events, including things like fainting.

Can you post links to studies that, in fact, test the other components?

[Rrrrrachel]

I've already been round and round about the safety profile of things like aluminum adjuvants and how it was established, I'm not really interested in doing it again.  You are welcome to disagree with the assumption than these components have been established as safe, I'm just explaining to you the reasoning behind the design.  It's not that scientists are just too dumb to do it better or willfully trying to mislead.

[pek64]

I wasn't around for those discussions. Perhaps you can post links to those threads. Otherwise, I must conclude you have no evidence to present.

[Rrrrrachel]

You're welcome to conclude whatever you'd like. I'm sure you can use the search feature as well as I can.

[pek64]

I'm not the one with the unsubstantiated claim.

[Rrrrrachel]

Well you warned me!

[Cynthia Mosher]

Personal attacks and petty picking at each other will result in you being removed from the forum. Please back off and talk about the subject, not the person. If you don't want to post information to participate more fully in the discussion that's fine. Just step out. But don't continue with personal bicker posting.

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

 I actually wonder sometimes if the processed food companies, especially in the US, aren't laughing about all the fuss there is on vaccine safety, while there seems to be much less fuss about the real concerns over the gallons of high fructose corn syrup most children in the US eat annually, or the dubious animal rights practices of the people who produce the cheap meat most people happily buy from the supermarkets. It seems much more likely to me that the rise in chronic health issues (if it's even a rise in actual occurance rather than a rise in diagnosis) that many seem keen to link to vaccines are actually more likely related to poor nutrition and reliance on processed foods. But that's off topic. 

So your assumptions are based on negative stereotypes about how children are fed in the U.S.?  That's not scientific at all, and not true.  

And even if what you say is the case, wouldn't that mean that you believe that the processed food companies are part of a vast conspiracy, the kind that you say could not be possible for vaccine manufacturers? 

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

And even if what you say is the case, wouldn't that mean that you believe that the processed food companies are part of a vast conspiracy, the kind that you say could not be possible for vaccine manufacturers? 

Lol.

I am not thrilled with frankenfood, however….

No one is saying I must or must not serve my kids frankenfood for them to go to school

No one is screaming that I am a selfish conspiracy nut who does not understand science based on whether I do or do not serve frankenfood.

Edited by kathymuggle - 11/11/12 at 4:27pm

[Rrrrrachel]

Beause there is a large body of science supporting bad food being bad for you.

[pek64]

Crap food sells well, regardless of what anyone says about it
So, there's no need to insist you must feed it to your children in order to send them to school. But last time I checked, crap food was what the school provides for lunch for the students. I guess the school officials don't pay attention to large bodies of scientific evidence.

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Beause there is a large body of science supporting bad food being bad for you.

And yet it's bought and sold, and marketed to children.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Beause there is a large body of science supporting bad food being bad for you.

Oh really? Here's some "scientific" research that shows high fructose corn syrup is not bad for you, from a nice industry sponsored website.

http://sweetsurprise.com/hfcs-science-and-research

HFCS SCIENCE AND RESEARCH

So what does the science say? While media and blog headlines have slammed high fructose corn syrup, scientists and experts have been evaluating the controversy and coming to different conclusions. Their view? Research shows HFCS, sugar and other sweeteners are basically the same from a health perspective. They have the same number of calories, are metabolized the same, and have the same impact on the feeling of fullness.

Here we have Coca Cola Company Beverage Institute for Health and Wellness [sic] telling us how good aspartame is for us. They have a nice section for health professionals.

http://www.beverageinstitute.org/en_us/pages/beverage-aspartame.html

Consumer safety concerns regarding aspartame often stem from a misunderstanding of its metabolism, and animal studies that have been misinterpreted to infer that aspartame could increase hunger and food intake. However, the National Cancer Institute and an independent international expert review panel have confirmed that aspartame does not cause cancer, seizures or other health problems, and an evidence-based research review by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics confirms aspartame does not increase in appetite or food intake. Aspartame is permitted for use in more than 100 countries worldwide including India and is one of the most thoroughly studied food ingredients in the world. Aspartame is found in table top sweeteners like Equal®.

 

Here is yet another industry sponsored web site, with the unapologetic name of aspartame.org extolling the many virtues of aspartame. 

http://www.aspartame.org/

Aspartame is one of the most thoroughly studied food ingredients ever, with more than 200 scientific studies supporting its safety. In addition to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) of the World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization, the Scientific Committee on Food of the European Union (SCF), and regulatory agencies in more than 100 countries have reviewed aspartame and found it to be safe for use.

This kind of industry sponsored marketing propaganda is no different to what the pharma industry does with vaccines.

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

And yet it's bought and sold, and marketed to children.

I don't think I understand your point.