Mothering Forums

Mothering Forums (http://www.mothering.com/forum/)
-   Vaccinations (http://www.mothering.com/forum/47-vaccinations/)
-   -   Studies demonstrating HPV vaccine is both safe and effective (http://www.mothering.com/forum/47-vaccinations/1366581-studies-demonstrating-hpv-vaccine-both-safe-effective.html)

prosciencemum 10-26-2012 02:10 AM

Came across two studies relevant to concerns over the safety and effectiveness of HPV vaccines this morning. 

 

The first on is an Australian study of the incidence of HPV viruses in girls 18-24 before (2005-2007) and after (2010-2012) HPV vaccines were wide spread in Australia. 

 

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/10/24/infdis.jis590.full

 

They concludes that certain types of HPV virus they tested for were significantly lower int he postvaccine group (6.6% versus 28.7%) and that this applied both to women who had been vaccinated (drop to 5.0% of them having the virus) and those unvaccinated, presumably benefiting from herd immunity (drop to 15.8% of them having the virus in the postvaccination time period sample). 

 

The safety study was done in the US. They looked at hospital admissions in a sample of girls almost 190,000 girls who had have the HPV vaccination. The compared admission in the time period right after the vaccination, and in a time period not related to when they got vaccinated. They found no significant difference in admissions, except a slightly higher incidence of skin infections following vaccination. 

 

 

http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1363509

 

Isn't it good to see these studies being done. 


emmy526 10-26-2012 03:53 AM

 

http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1363509

Quote:
Setting:  Kaiser Permanente in California.

not a very thorough study...they only studied hospital admission rates and ER visits for two weeks after receiving the vaccine

 

 

Quote:
Design  In a cohort of vaccinated females, we compared the risk of emergency department visits and hospitalizations during the interval soon after vaccination with risk during a comparison interval more remote from vaccination.

 

 

 

Quote:
Conclusions  The quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine was associated with same-day syncope and skin infections in the 2 weeks after vaccination. This study did not detect evidence of new safety concerns among females 9 to 26 years of age secondary to vaccination with HPV4.

because they weren't studying adverse reactions to the vaccine, only hospital admissions and ER visits, and following subjects for only two weeks, and  is not a thorough enough study, imo.   


prosciencemum 11-01-2012 02:20 AM

I agree they need to keep checking. But it's reassuring that there's no difference in major events which require hospitalization following the vaccine. 

 

Reassuring that in the Australian study they demonstrated a drop in detections of HPV, so the vaccine is definitely working. I'll admit quite glad it some years before we have to make the decision for my daughter, but right now I see most of the evidence pointing to this being something worth doing. 


Taximom5 11-01-2012 08:32 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I agree they need to keep checking. But it's reassuring that there's no difference in major events which require hospitalization following the vaccine. 

Oh, but you are jumping to incorrect conclusions.

We don't know that there's no difference in major events which require hospitalization following the vaccine.

Most "studies" set up by pharmaceutical companies are deliberately set up to hide evidence of problems. See the recent whistleblower lawsuit against Merck by Merck's own virologists for a good example. That kind of thing is KNOWN in the industry to be standard procedure.

Severe reactions to vaccines do not always require hospitalizations, and severe reactions might happen within a short time frame--or several weeks later.

This study did not compare vaccinated vs unvaccinated for hospitalizations. It compared vaccinated vs. vaccinated. Basically, it compared the likelihood of hospitalization immediately after vaccination with the likelihood of hospitalization somewhat later after vaccination.

They were very careful not to let us know that the hospitalization rate is significantly higher in those who have received the vaccine.

Yeah, that's really reassuring.

Mirzam 11-01-2012 08:37 AM

2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


Oh, but you are jumping to incorrect conclusions.

We don't know that there's no difference in major events which require hospitalization following the vaccine.

Most "studies" set up by pharmaceutical companies are deliberately set up to hide evidence of problems. See the recent whistleblower lawsuit against Merck by Merck's own virologists for a good example. That kind of thing is KNOWN in the industry to be standard procedure.

Severe reactions to vaccines do not always require hospitalizations, and severe reactions might happen within a short time frame--or several weeks later.

This study did not compare vaccinated vs unvaccinated for hospitalizations. It compared vaccinated vs. vaccinated. Basically, it compared the likelihood of hospitalization immediately after vaccination with the likelihood of hospitalization somewhat later after vaccination.

They were very careful not to let us know that the hospitalization rate is significantly higher in those who have received the vaccine.

Yeah, that's really reassuring.

 

Yet another piece of junk science designed to mislead and hide the dangers of vaccination. Thankfully more people are waking up to this hoax and are just saying NO.


prosciencemum 11-06-2012 05:50 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


Oh, but you are jumping to incorrect conclusions.
 

 

OK - I mean hospital admissions *immediately* following vaccination versus those not connected temporally to the vaccination. 

 

If side effects happens months or years after a vaccination how would you suggest proving they are connected to the vaccination? 


Taximom5 11-06-2012 01:32 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

OK - I mean hospital admissions *immediately* following vaccination versus those not connected temporally to the vaccination. 

If side effects happens months or years after a vaccination how would you suggest proving they are connected to the vaccination? 

Well, gee let's see--maybe if a significantly higher percentage of vaccinated, previously healthy, active young women developed neurological disorders within a few months of HPV vaccination compared to those who remained unvaccinated, well, gosh golly gee, that just might be a clue, EVEN IF THEY WERE NEVER HOSPITALIZED.

It's amazing the lengths some industries will go to in order to refuse to see the facts. "Let's look at everything but the obvious problem, folks--whatever you do, DON'T study the reactions being reported! In fact, let's not even admit those reactions exist. Those reactions are all co-inky-dinks! Or the girls are faking the symptoms. Or the symptoms are all in their heads! I know--let's call it "Conversion Disorder!"

prosciencemum 11-06-2012 02:17 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


Well, gee let's see--maybe if a significantly higher percentage of vaccinated, previously healthy, active young women developed neurological disorders within a few months of HPV vaccination compared to those who remained unvaccinated

 

Well this was done as part of the safety testing with no significant difference. I find that convincing that this vaccine is safe. :) 


Taximom5 11-06-2012 02:46 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Well this was done as part of the safety testing with no significant difference. So that's good that you're now convinced this vaccine is safe. smile.gif 

Since it was NOT done as part of the safety testing, I am NOT convinced this vaccine is safe. Please either edit your snark or take it elsewhere.

Rrrrrachel 11-06-2012 06:14 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

OK - I mean hospital admissions *immediately* following vaccination versus those not connected temporally to the vaccination.

If side effects happens months or years after a vaccination how would you suggest proving they are connected to the vaccination?

Well, gee let's see--maybe if a significantly higher percentage of vaccinated, previously healthy, active young women developed neurological disorders within a few months of HPV vaccination compared to those who remained unvaccinated, well, gosh golly gee, that just might be a clue, EVEN IF THEY WERE NEVER HOSPITALIZED.

It's amazing the lengths some industries will go to in order to refuse to see the facts. "Let's look at everything but the obvious problem, folks--whatever you do, DON'T study the reactions being reported! In fact, let's not even admit those reactions exist. Those reactions are all co-inky-dinks! Or the girls are faking the symptoms. Or the symptoms are all in their heads! I know--let's call it "Conversion Disorder!"

This is exactly the kind if thing vaccine safety datalink monitors for. It works as long as those young women get some kind of health care connected with their hypothetical health problems, hospital, pcp, whatever.

prosciencemum 11-07-2012 01:28 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


Since it was NOT done as part of the safety testing, 

 

Yes it was. In fact it's required to be before the vaccination is licensed.

 

 Here are just two studies based on double blind placebo tests which were done with HPV and looked into both safety and efficacy (courtesy Wildkingdom on this thread: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1364533/found-you-in-quest-of-an-answer-to-the-vaccination-question/40#post_17142435). 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22433961

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21860731


prosciencemum 11-07-2012 01:30 AM

Oh and more safety tests (links courtesy Wilidkingdom  on this thread http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1365890/study-not-enough-evidence-that-hpv-vaccine-is-safe-and-effective/20)

 

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

 

I probably could continue, but I have work to get on with.


Taximom5 11-07-2012 09:46 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Yes it was. In fact it's required to be before the vaccination is licensed.

 Here are just two studies based on double blind placebo tests which were done with HPV and looked into both safety and efficacy (courtesy Wildkingdom on this thread: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1364533/found-you-in-quest-of-an-answer-to-the-vaccination-question/40#post_17142435). 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22433961

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21860731

We've been over this before. (Sigh.). The studies grouped a small number of true placebos with a "placebo" that contained the same ingredients as Gardasil minus the antigen--which means that it contained the very ingredients that likely caused the severe reactions reported in both groups.

Then they said, "oh, look, no more reactions from Gardasil than from the placebo! Must be perfectly safe!"

And, according to whistleblowers, Merck puts a lot of $ and effort into covering up adverse reactions.

cynthia mosher 11-08-2012 10:08 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

Well this was done as part of the safety testing with no significant difference. So that's good that you're now convinced this vaccine is safe. :) 

prosciencemum please stop trying to find ways to make personal stab comments. Leave the person out of it and talk about the subject. 


prosciencemum 11-08-2012 12:42 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

We've been over this before. (Sigh.). The studies grouped a small number of true placebos with a "placebo" that contained the same ingredients as Gardasil minus the antigen--which means that it contained the very ingredients that likely caused the severe reactions reported in both groups.
.

The things which are in the vaccine which you think cause problems have been used in millions of vaccinations and safety tested over and over again. There is no generally accepted scientific evidence that they are dangerous. They appear to be safe. This is why researchers doing safety tests use them as a placebo.

Do do a double blind placebo test of a vaccination the control group must get a placebo vaccination, otherwise it would not be blind.

WildKingdom 11-08-2012 04:00 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

We've been over this before. (Sigh.). The studies grouped a small number of true placebos with a "placebo" that contained the same ingredients as Gardasil minus the antigen--which means that it contained the very ingredients that likely caused the severe reactions reported in both groups.

 

Yeah, we've been over this before (sigh).  Just because the Taximom definition of placebo differs from the scientific definition of placebo does not invalidate the extensive research done on this product.  

 

There was an interesting study just done regarding chelation for treatment of heart disease.  They used your definition of "placebo."  They compared one group that got infusions of D5 Normal Saline ("placebo") with another group that got the chelation solution (consisting of DMSA- the chelator, along with numerous other things, including heparin and numerous vitamins).  The chelation group showed a very small, barely significant improvement over the placebo group.  However, the results have been completely invalidated because of all the other crap in the chelation solution that was not in the placebo.  Now no one knows- was it the chelator that caused the improvement, or the heparin, or the vitamins?  

 

Millions of dollars (of federal money, this was a NCCAM study) down the toilet for a worthless study, all for using your definition of placebo.


Taximom5 11-08-2012 06:05 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

The things which are in the vaccine which you think cause problems have been used in millions of vaccinations and safety tested over and over again. There is no generally accepted scientific evidence that they are dangerous. They appear to be safe. This is why researchers doing safety tests use them as a placebo.

Simply not true. There has been scientific evidence for over a decade that some routinely used vaccine ingredients can be dangerous, that some people are predisposed to severe reaction, and there is increasing evidence (and that evidence is increasingly generally accepted) that those ingredients have been causing permanent damage in more and more people.

There is also increasing evidence that the vaccine manufacturers have been covering this up, just like they have been covering up severe adverse effects from many of their medications, like Vioxx, Lipitor, anti-depressants, etc.

You can keep pretending the evidence doesn't exist if it makes you feel better, but for heaven's sake, stop trying to get the rest of us to swallow such garbage.

Then again, maybe instead of being annoyed, I should just welcome the opportunity to post the proof yet again. That way, more people can read it for themselves and see his how ridiculous and pathetic the defense of the pharmaceutical industry really is.

"Vaccines are safe! They've been given to millions! " (Never mind all those you sands of people whose vaccine-induced brain damage, death, or permanent autoimmune disorders have been admitted and compensated by the government...)

"Vaccines have been safety-tested!" (Yeah, just like cigarettes were safety-tested by the tobacco companies, who swore they were not only safe, but GOOD for us! Never mind that the studies were rigged, because they were funded by, directed by, and interpreted by the vaccine manufacturers. Never mind that there was conflict of interest among the government officials and the advisory committees.)

"They are used because they appear to be safe!" (No, they are used because it's a great way to hide the damage that those ingredients can cause. A comparable study would be to safety-test 2 brands of cigarettes, varying the kind of paper used, but NOT the nicotine, and then declaring that cigarettes don't cause cancer, because the initial tests of nicotine by the tobacco companies concluded that nicotine is safe. And good for you. Like broccoli.)

prosciencemum 11-09-2012 02:56 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

There has been scientific evidence for over a decade that some routinely used vaccine ingredients can be dangerous, that some people are predisposed to severe reaction, and there is increasing evidence (and that evidence is increasingly generally accepted) that those ingredients have been causing permanent damage in more and more people.

 

Not in the dosages in vaccines, and often not in the same form. As an example - I accept the evidence that metallic mercury in large doses is dangerous. Ditto for aluminium in large doses. Doesn't mean the tiny trace amounts of mercury salts or aluminiums salts have been shown to be dangerous. 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
There is also increasing evidence that the vaccine manufacturers have been covering this up, just like they have been covering up severe adverse effects from many of their medications, like Vioxx, Lipitor, anti-depressants, etc.

 

I disagree with this assessment of the evidence which is out there. I do not believe a cover-up of vaccine safety on the scale this suggests is possible. The number of people who would need to be involved or duped over the decades which vaccines have been used is just too large. 

 

 

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
"Vaccines are safe! They've been given to millions! " (Never mind all those you sands of people whose vaccine-induced brain damage, death, or permanent autoimmune disorders have been admitted and compensated by the government...)
"Vaccines have been safety-tested!" (Yeah, just like cigarettes were safety-tested by the tobacco companies, who swore they were not only safe, but GOOD for us! Never mind that the studies were rigged, because they were funded by, directed by, and interpreted by the vaccine manufacturers. Never mind that there was conflict of interest among the government officials and the advisory committees.)
"They are used because they appear to be safe!" (No, they are used because it's a great way to hide the damage that those ingredients can cause. A comparable study would be to safety-test 2 brands of cigarettes, varying the kind of paper used, but NOT the nicotine, and then declaring that cigarettes don't cause cancer, because the initial tests of nicotine by the tobacco companies concluded that nicotine is safe. And good for you. Like broccoli.)

 

 Comparing vaccine safety records to the safety records of cigarettes is a bit of a stretch. Vaccines have saved literally thousands of lives. Cigarettes are a recreational drug. I agree the tobacco companies used dubious practices, and I agree that the pharmaceutical companies are very large and have some similarities. But this does mean a direct comparison is evidence of any wrong doing. Vaccine safety is not an area I believe they could get away with hiding. Because these are preventative drugs given to healthy people, the safety standards they are held to are much higher than drugs used to help sick people. 

 

 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. 


pek64 11-09-2012 07:09 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthia Mosher View Post

prosciencemum please stop trying to find ways to make personal stab comments. Leave the person out of it and talk about the subject. 

It's about time!!

pek64 11-09-2012 07:11 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

Yeah, we've been over this before (sigh).  Just because the Taximom definition of placebo differs from the scientific definition of placebo does not invalidate the extensive research done on this product.  

There was an interesting study just done regarding chelation for treatment of heart disease.  They used your definition of "placebo."  They compared one group that got infusions of D5 Normal Saline ("placebo") with another group that got the chelation solution (consisting of DMSA- the chelator, along with numerous other things, including heparin and numerous vitamins).  The chelation group showed a very small, barely significant improvement over the placebo group.  However, the results have been completely invalidated because of all the other crap in the chelation solution that was not in the placebo.  Now no one knows- was it the chelator that caused the improvement, or the heparin, or the vitamins?  

Millions of dollars (of federal money, this was a NCCAM study) down the toilet for a worthless study, all for using your definition of placebo.

Of course the other way to look at this is the problem was adding the other crap to the chelation solution.

Rrrrrachel 11-09-2012 09:30 AM

Sure, but either way the results are confounded.

pek64 11-10-2012 07:46 AM

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 11-10-2012 07:55 AM

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 11-10-2012 07:59 AM

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 11-10-2012 09:29 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

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 11-10-2012 09:33 AM

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 11-10-2012 03:00 PM

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.

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

Rrrrrachel 11-10-2012 03:40 PM

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 11-10-2012 04:04 PM

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 11-10-2012 04:19 PM

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 5.88%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.