or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Studies demonstrating HPV vaccine is both safe and effective
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Studies demonstrating HPV vaccine is both safe and effective - Page 3

post #41 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


I don't think I understand your point.

 

My point is that there are thousands of people involved in the production and marketing of junk foods and beverages that most people know are harmful.  They do this with clear conscience.  Yet one poster contends that it would be impossible for an industry to be successful at making a product that they know is dangerous, because it is the kind of conspiracy that would be too great to execute.

post #42 of 218

those foods aren't harmful in small amounts, though, and the fact that they are harmful in large amounts is not a secret.  I don't think the claim about impossibility was about producing harmful products, there are many many products that would disprove that claim, but somehow keeping the fact that it was harmful a secret despite scrutiny by many many different parties.

post #43 of 218
post #44 of 218

According to dr mercola.

post #45 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

According to dr mercola.

You think he was just making this up? He was just reporting the facts. Here's another "messenger":

 

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/sweet-misery-a-poisoned-world/

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Aspartame is an artificial sweetener, an additive. And it’s a chemical. It’s not a natural product, it’s a chemical. The molecule is made up of three components. Two are amino acids, the so-called building blocks of protein.

One is called Phenylalanine, which is about 50% of the molecule and the other is Aspartic Acid, which is like 40%. And the other 10% is so-called Methyl Ester, which as soon as it’s swallowed becomes free methyl alcohol. Methanol. Wood alcohol, which is a poison. A real poison.

 

You are now defending aspartame in the very same way you defend vaccines? 

post #46 of 218
I think drawing the parallel between big pharma and the food industry is appropriate. We're talking about giant corporations that have to serve their own financial interests. These are not touchy feely organizations that care about ethics and children's welfare. They have a responsibility to their shareholders to push for ever increasing profits, to the full extent that they are legally able (and sometimes beyond). That anyone thinks it would EVER be ok to let these companies take part in creating legislation or safety checking their own products just blows my mind. It's not conspiracy per se, it's business as usual.
post #47 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

You think he was just making this up? He was just reporting the facts. Here's another "messenger":

 

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/sweet-misery-a-poisoned-world/

 

 

 

 

 

You are now defending aspartame in the very same way you defend vaccines? 

 

I am not defending aspartame, although I think his head line is really overstating things.  I'm just pointing out your source

post #48 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

You think he was just making this up? He was just reporting the facts. Here's another "messenger":

 

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/sweet-misery-a-poisoned-world/

 

 

 

 

 

You are now defending aspartame in the very same way you defend vaccines? 

 

I am not defending aspartame, although I think his head line is really overstating things.  I'm just pointing out your source

 

 

So you were engaging in typical pro vax MO? I know who the source was, because I posted it, the information was correct.

post #49 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

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

 

Does  healthy food prevent disease?  And if so, why do you believe the government does not mandate healthy food for children?

post #50 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

You think he was just making this up? He was just reporting the facts. Here's another "messenger":

 

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/sweet-misery-a-poisoned-world/

 

 

Quote:

Aspartame is an artificial sweetener, an additive. And it’s a chemical. It’s not a natural product, it’s a chemical. The molecule is made up of three components. Two are amino acids, the so-called building blocks of protein.

One is called Phenylalanine, which is about 50% of the molecule and the other is Aspartic Acid, which is like 40%. And the other 10% is so-called Methyl Ester, which as soon as it’s swallowed becomes free methyl alcohol. Methanol. Wood alcohol, which is a poison. A real poison.

 

 

 

 

What's with the "so-called" qualifier before "building blocks of protein?"

 

Methanol is very toxic in large amounts and can make you go blind or even kill you.  Water can also be harmful in very large amounts.  But in very small aounts, such as found in aspartame or apple juice or some fruits, your body can handle it just fine.  

post #51 of 218

Defending aspartame? What a shame.

 

 

"The idea that “the dose makes the poison” relies on the assumption that the higher the dose of any particular chemical, the greater its toxic effect on living organisms. However, this assumption is not always correct." 

http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/trautmann.html

post #52 of 218
This is the vax forum. Discussions of aspartame belong in Nutrition or Health&Healing, depending on the aspect you want to investigate. Get back on track, and as Cynthia already mentioned, play nicely.
post #53 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post



What's with the "so-called" qualifier before "building blocks of protein?"

Methanol is very toxic in large amounts and can make you go blind or even kill you.  Water can also be harmful in very large amounts.  But in very small aounts, such as found in aspartame or apple juice or some fruits, your body can handle it just fine.  

Water is necessary for life. Methanol is not. Your post is simple misdirection.

Vaccinations are not necessary for life, *in the same way as water*. In other words, if you could guarantee that you never come in contact with a virus, you would survive without a single vaccination. That is a fact.

The question of this thread is where are the studies, actual studies showing the numbers, supporting the claim that HPV vaccinations are safe.
post #54 of 218
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

Water is necessary for life. Methanol is not.

But that wasn't the point of pers post. S/he was pointing out that in large quantities even something as safe as water is dangerous. While in small quantities things which sound nasty can be tolerated.

For example there is a trace amount of methanol in the air you're breathing right now. Me too.
post #55 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post


 in large quantities even something as safe as water is dangerous. While in small quantities things which sound nasty can be tolerated.
 

 

This is not always true. My previous post:

"The idea that “the dose makes the poison” relies on the assumption that the higher the dose of any particular chemical, the greater its toxic effect on living organisms. However, this assumption is not always correct." 

http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/trautmann.html

post #56 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

But that wasn't the point of pers post. S/he was pointing out that in large quantities even something as safe as water is dangerous. While in small quantities things which sound nasty can be tolerated.
For example there is a trace amount of methanol in the air you're breathing right now. Me too.

You are missing *my* point.

Before I try again to make my point, water is only harmful if a very large quantity is drunk in a short period of time.

Methanol is *not* necessary for life, no matter if we can avoid it or not. And likening toxins to water is misdirection. Care to focus on vaccination safety now?
post #57 of 218

Here's a document with some great info about HPV vaccine, including a thoroughly cited rundown of various adverse events and the rates at which they occur.

 

http://www.rho.org/files/CCA_HPV_vaccine_safety.pdf

 

Among other things, the rate of less-serious adverse events like fainting are not more common with HPV than other vaccines given to adolescents, and are likely a result of the injection process rather than the vaccine.  Women with no other risk factors do not show an increased risk of GB, VTE, or serious allergic reactions.  This is a secondary source, but it conveniently puts a lot of information in one place and is extensively cited.

post #58 of 218
Thread Starter 
Pek64 - I disagree that it's not relevant to vaccine safety. I think it's fundamental to understand that things which in large quantities are dangerous in smaller quantities can be safe.

Beckybird - thanks for that link. I finally found time to read it properly. It's really interesting, and an important point that different people and age groups will have different levels of sensitivity to toxic substances.

But the fundamental point which the article does not disagree with is that eventually the dose will be small enough to be safe.

And the point is that doses of toxic substances in vaccines, which no one will disagree are there, are small enough that in almost all people they are completely harmless.
post #59 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

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.


The adjuvant used in Gardasil is a new one that has not really been tested but just assumed to be safe. Check out AAHS.

post #60 of 218
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minerva23 View Post


The adjuvant used in Gardasil is a new one that has not really been tested but just assumed to be safe. Check out AAHS.

 

I'm not sure that's true. Where did you read that? AAHS stands for "Amorphous Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate" - this is a type of aluminium salt. This website (http://www.rxlist.com/gardasil-drug.htm) says that a 0.5mL dose of HPV contains 225 mcg of aluminium from this source. I didn't yet find any information to suggest this is a new type of aluminium salt which is being used. 

 

 I also found this interesting article from the European Medicines Agency about the process for safety testing new adjuvants for vaccines which seemed relevent to the thread (summary - it sounds hard to get a new adjuvant in a vaccine meant for healthy people) http://www.emea.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003809.pdf

 

 This website (http://www.patentlens.net/daisy/adjuvants/Background/Adjuvant_types.html) talks about how aluminium salts have been used as adjuvants since the 1930s. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Studies demonstrating HPV vaccine is both safe and effective