New study : "No Serious Adverse Reactions to HPV Vaccination" - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 43 Old 10-11-2013, 10:20 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,515
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)

A new massive study including close to a million girls shows no adverse reactions to the HPV vaccine. 

 

"The study included almost a million Swedish and Danish girls born between 1988 and 2000, and compared roughly 300,000 girls who had been HPV vaccinated with 700,000 who had not. All the girls were between 10 and 17 at time of vaccination, and the vaccines had been administered at some time between 2006 and 2010. The researchers then used patient registries in Denmark and Sweden to study the incidence of any serious adverse effects of the vaccine.

 

The researchers examined 53 different diagnoses requiring hospital or specialist care, including blood clots, neurological diseases, and autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes. They found that none of these diseases were more common in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group. " 

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131009100111.htm 

 

 

From SR " 

The researchers examined patient records for 53 different diagnoses requiring hospital or specialist care, including blood clots, neurological diseases, and autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes between immunized and non-immunized groups. The limited the study to 180 days post-immunization (except for thromboembolic events, which they limited to 90 days). Out of the 53 adverse events, 24 were eliminated from the study because <5 events were observed in the vaccinated group (which would become statistically impossible to analyze).

Of the remaining 29 adverse events, the results are shown in the table below." 

 

"Note: this study was supported by a grant from the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research and the Danish Medical Research Council. The funding bodies had no role in the study design; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; the writing of the article; and the decision to submit it for publication. All authors are independent from the funding agencies."

 

 

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/massive-study-supports-safety-hpv-vaccine/

chickabiddy likes this.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#2 of 43 Old 10-11-2013, 10:55 AM
 
chickabiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)

Thank you for posting this!


Carseat-checking (CPST) and WAH mama to a twelve-year-old girl.
chickabiddy is online now  
#3 of 43 Old 10-11-2013, 11:01 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,515
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)

NP :) 

 

Just thought I'd add that there was  a total of 696,420 doses of the vaccine given.  696 *thousand* doses. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#4 of 43 Old 10-11-2013, 11:11 AM
 
chickabiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)

Yeah, those huge numbers were very reassuring.  I've been torn on this vaccine but think I'm probably just being silly.


Carseat-checking (CPST) and WAH mama to a twelve-year-old girl.
chickabiddy is online now  
#5 of 43 Old 10-11-2013, 01:10 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,197
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

Yeah, those huge numbers were very reassuring.  I've been torn on this vaccine but think I'm probably just being silly.

Those huge numbers would be very reassuring--if only we could trust the agencies that provided them!  In case you aren't up-to-date, even the New England Journal of Medicine admitted 3 years ago that it is no longer possible to find an expert who hasn't already been paid off in some way by the pharmaceutical industry.

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1391316/vaccine-research-financial-conflict-of-interest-is-the-norm-not-the-exception

applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#6 of 43 Old 10-11-2013, 01:42 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,515
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

Those huge numbers would be very reassuring--if only we could trust the agencies that provided them!  In case you aren't up-to-date, even the New England Journal of Medicine admitted 3 years ago that it is no longer possible to find an expert who hasn't already been paid off in some way by the pharmaceutical industry.

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1391316/vaccine-research-financial-conflict-of-interest-is-the-norm-not-the-exception

 

Wow, that is an extraordinary claim. And not what they say at all.  That quote was talking about review articles which "comment on published articles but do not present new research." 

 

"Review articles are an attempt to summarize the current state of understanding on a topic.[1] They analyze or discuss research previously published by others, rather than reporting new experimental results.[2][3]  The concept of "review article" is separate from the concept of peer-reviewed literature." 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Review_article


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#7 of 43 Old 10-11-2013, 06:22 PM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,567
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)

No serious adverse reactions. Well doesn't that paint a pretty picture.  How about this picture:

 

"The adverse reaction reports detail 26 new deaths reported between September 1, 2010 and September 15, 2011 as well as incidents of seizures, paralysis, blindness, pancreatitis, speech problems, short term memory loss and Guillain-Barré Syndrome. The documents come from the FDA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) which is used by the FDA to monitor the safety of vaccines. The documents were obtained pursuant to a September 15, 2011 FOIA request for reports made from September 1, 2010 through September 15, 2011."

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-uncovers-fda-gardasil-records-detailing-26-new-reported-deaths/

 

Pretty sad when you have to use FOI to obtain information that should be right out in public view.  Guess people are too busy caring about what's going on in Hollywood to care about their own health and well being.

japonica likes this.
sassyfirechick is offline  
#8 of 43 Old 10-11-2013, 06:27 PM
 
chickabiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Quote:
 Additional information was received from a newspaper article concerning a 18 year old female…who on 10-MAY-2007 was vaccinated with GARDASIL…in the right arm…The patient who was a college freshman travelled on 05-OCT-2007 to visit her family for the weekend. The patient reportedly felt “slightly ill” upon her arrival and subsequently took an aspirin and went to bed awakening at 1:30 PM the following afternoon “appearing refreshed”. The patient became feverish again that night and woke at 1:00 AM the morning of 07-OCT-2007 with chills and a severe headache complaining that “my headache is about to explode”. The patient was taken to a local hospital, where a brain computed axial tomography (CAT) scan was performed and the brain revealed meningococcal disease in her brain and brain stem. The patient was immediately transferred to another hospital and died the evening of 07-OCT-2007 due to complications of meningitis.

 

The incubation period of meningitis is 2-10 days.  How could a vaccine administered in May cause meningitis in October?

 

Plus, the link does not work.

teacozy likes this.

Carseat-checking (CPST) and WAH mama to a twelve-year-old girl.
chickabiddy is online now  
#9 of 43 Old 10-12-2013, 10:16 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,515
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

 

The incubation period of meningitis is 2-10 days.  How could a vaccine administered in May cause meningitis in October?

 

 

I'd love to read a response for that.  With medical sources to back up the answer.  


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#10 of 43 Old 10-12-2013, 02:04 PM
 
chickabiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)

And this one:

 

Quote:
It was reported that the patient died due to ovarian cyst. The reporter felt that the patient’s symptoms were related to vaccination with GARDASIL. 

 

The reporter (the patient's mother) "felt" that the symptoms were related to Gardasil.  That's not exactly scientific evidence. 


Carseat-checking (CPST) and WAH mama to a twelve-year-old girl.
chickabiddy is online now  
#11 of 43 Old 10-12-2013, 03:02 PM
 
minerva23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: down by the riverside
Posts: 483
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20189933

 

Going blind would be a severe reaction to me.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22858647

 

complex regional pain syndrom

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18805844

 

or MS does not sound so hot either.

 

And what about anaphylactic reactions

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18762618

 

and not being able to have children anymore due to receiving a certain vaccine

 

http://casereports.bmj.com/content/2012/bcr-2012-006879.abstract

 

Just to name a few


“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”
―Socrates

minerva23 is offline  
#12 of 43 Old 10-12-2013, 03:59 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,197
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

And this one:

 

 

The reporter (the patient's mother) "felt" that the symptoms were related to Gardasil.  That's not exactly scientific evidence. 

Don't you think that there is a lot that is missing from this particular report?  LIke, whether or not there were symptoms between May and October, or whether or not there were any more vaccines administered between May and October? Was the May vaccination with Gardasil the last of the series of 3 or the first?  Did the young woman receive the other 2 doses, and if so, when?  Was she also given a meningitis vaccine at any point? 

 

WHY did the patient's mother feel that the symptoms were related to Gardasil?  I mean, how many mothers would even REMEMBER that their child received a vaccine 5 months after the fact?  

 

As for the incubation period for meningitis, why assume that the meningitis would only be linked to the Gardasil vaccine from the date of injection?  If vaccines and other medications can trigger meningitis, wouldn't it be possible that the initial vaccine "set the stage," so to speak, for a later reaction to one of the other triggers?  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10738845 says, "The major categories of causative agents are nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antimicrobials, intravenous immunoglobulin, intrathecal agents, vaccines and a number of other less frequently reported agents."

 

Well, that incomplete report states that she took an aspirin.  FIrst of all, very few 18-year-olds take aspirin. Was it really an aspirin she took, or was it an NSAID or even Tylenol?  What meds did they give her in the ER? When I went to the ER with a severe headache (which was later diagnosed as an atypical migraine), I was given a truckload of meds--3 different painkillers, including one specifically for migraines. I refused 2 of them, and asked for a half-dose of the third.)  I was later told that this is standard protocol in that ER for severe head pain.  What was the protocol in 2007, at the ER this young woman went to ?

 

Let's not turn up our noses at --or accept--anecdotes until we know the facts.

Mirzam and applejuice like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#13 of 43 Old 10-14-2013, 04:36 PM
 
chknlovr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

Don't you think that there is a lot that is missing from this particular report?  LIke, whether or not there were symptoms between May and October, or whether or not there were any more vaccines administered between May and October? Was the May vaccination with Gardasil the last of the series of 3 or the first?  Did the young woman receive the other 2 doses, and if so, when?  Was she also given a meningitis vaccine at any point? 

 

WHY did the patient's mother feel that the symptoms were related to Gardasil?  I mean, how many mothers would even REMEMBER that their child received a vaccine 5 months after the fact?  

 

As for the incubation period for meningitis, why assume that the meningitis would only be linked to the Gardasil vaccine from the date of injection?  If vaccines and other medications can trigger meningitis, wouldn't it be possible that the initial vaccine "set the stage," so to speak, for a later reaction to one of the other triggers?  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10738845 says, "The major categories of causative agents are nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antimicrobials, intravenous immunoglobulin, intrathecal agents, vaccines and a number of other less frequently reported agents."

 

Well, that incomplete report states that she took an aspirin.  FIrst of all, very few 18-year-olds take aspirin. Was it really an aspirin she took, or was it an NSAID or even Tylenol?  What meds did they give her in the ER? When I went to the ER with a severe headache (which was later diagnosed as an atypical migraine), I was given a truckload of meds--3 different painkillers, including one specifically for migraines. I refused 2 of them, and asked for a half-dose of the third.)  I was later told that this is standard protocol in that ER for severe head pain.  What was the protocol in 2007, at the ER this young woman went to ?

 

Let's not turn up our noses at --or accept--anecdotes until we know the facts.

 

Occam's Razor.  What's more likely- a college freshman (a known risk group for meningococcal meningitis) is exposed to the bacteria and gets sick and dies.  Unfortunately, it happens.  40% of cases of meningococcal meningitis are fatal.  

-OR-

 

A high school senior gets a Gardasil vaccination in May.  She is fine and leaves for college in August.  BUT- she has some weird latent form of meningitis, never before described, that somehow incubates for 5 months, only to become a full-blown fulminent meningitis when she takes an aspirin.

 

I'll take choice A.

teacozy likes this.
chknlovr is offline  
#14 of 43 Old 10-14-2013, 04:50 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Isn't the point not that nothing bad ever happened to the vaccinated group, but that it happened at the same rate as in the unvaccinated group? I guarantee you that somewhere out there is a meningitis story very similar to the above described except that the victim had not received Gardasil. 

chickabiddy, Katie8681 and teacozy like this.
erigeron is offline  
#15 of 43 Old 10-15-2013, 06:38 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,121
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

Isn't the point not that nothing bad ever happened to the vaccinated group, but that it happened at the same rate as in the unvaccinated group? I guarantee you that somewhere out there is a meningitis story very similar to the above described except that the victim had not received Gardasil. 

Agreed.

 

I took a look at the study - and - meh. 

 

This study does not look at effectiveness or long term issues - really, it just looks at  specific short term reactions to the vaccine (diagnosis within 180 days of vaccination).  The study admits that 180 days may not capture all the issues:

 

"To accommodate the time delay between first symptom and diagnosis we used a 180 day risk period for autoimmune and neurological outcomes, which is longer than in some studies (for example, studies of Guillain-Barré syndrome after vaccination typically have a risk window of 42 days), but consistent with other studies of autoimmune disease after HPV vaccination.15 However, it may have been too short to capture diseases with a more insidious onset. "

 

For the most part, it does not find any strong correlation, with 3 exceptions:

 

"The rate ratios for 20 of the 23 analysed autoimmune outcomes were not significantly increased. Exposure to qHPV vaccine was significantly associated with Behcet’s syndrome (rate ratio 3.37, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to10.80), Raynaud’s disease (1.67, 1.14 to 2.44), and type 1 diabetes (1.29, 1.03 to 1.62)."

The study then goes on to spend a lot of time explaining why they don't think it is significant (they have 3 criteria the data must meet in order for them to find a clear relationship) and not surprisingly, the associations do not make the cut.  To me it sounds like justification, and at a minimum if I were considering this vaccine, I would look into further studies on these issues to see what they have to say.

Lastly, this is what is written about competing interests:

"Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; LAD and PS are and have been involved in other studies with unconditional grants from GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur MSD, and Merck; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work."

 

http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5906

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
kittywitty likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#16 of 43 Old 10-15-2013, 07:12 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
First: SkepticalRaptor is not a source & I am getting a little weary of posting that. Let's only link to primary studies or @ least academic sites, not partisan blogs by birds of prey.

Secondly, someone needs to call up the US Gov FAST & tell them to get their 6 million back, we all know they could use it! http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/stress-and-health-dr-lind/2013/apr/10/us-court-pays-6-million-gardasil-victims/
Mirzam and BeckyBird like this.
dinahx is offline  
#17 of 43 Old 10-15-2013, 07:16 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Paul Offit quoted a Vax researcher in one of his recent lectures as saying 'I never rest until the first 3 million doses are out there'. IDK if he would actually think these numbers are adequate to pick up adverse reactions that are more rare . . .
dinahx is offline  
#18 of 43 Old 10-15-2013, 07:27 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,515
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)

 

For the most part, it does not find any strong correlation, with 3 exceptions:

 

"The rate ratios for 20 of the 23 analysed autoimmune outcomes were not significantly increased. Exposure to qHPV vaccine was significantly associated with Behcet’s syndrome (rate ratio 3.37, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to10.80), Raynaud’s disease (1.67, 1.14 to 2.44), and type 1 diabetes (1.29, 1.03 to 1.62)."

The study then goes on to spend a lot of time explaining why they don't think it is significant (they have 3 criteria the data must meet in order for them to find a clear relationship) and not surprisingly, the associations do not make the cut.  To me it sounds like justification, and at a minimum if I were considering this vaccine, I would look into further studies on these issues to see what they have to say.

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

Yes, they do explain why it is not significant. One of the reasons being that the incidence rate for the three conditions mirrored what is found in the general population of girls that age.  That hardly sounds like they are just trying to "justify" why they don't consider it to be a reaction from the vaccine.  That's a pretty important piece of data to consider.


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#19 of 43 Old 10-15-2013, 07:37 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,515
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

First: SkepticalRaptor is not a source & I am getting a little weary of posting that. Let's only link to primary studies or @ least academic sites, not partisan blogs by birds of prey.

Secondly, someone needs to call up the US Gov FAST & tell them to get their 6 million back, we all know they could use it! http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/stress-and-health-dr-lind/2013/apr/10/us-court-pays-6-million-gardasil-victims/

 

This is what I posted from SR. "

The researchers examined patient records for 53 different diagnoses requiring hospital or specialist care, including blood clots, neurological diseases, and autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes between immunized and non-immunized groups. The limited the study to 180 days post-immunization (except for thromboembolic events, which they limited to 90 days). Out of the 53 adverse events, 24 were eliminated from the study because <5 events were observed in the vaccinated group (which would become statistically impossible to analyze).

Of the remaining 29 adverse events, the results are shown in the table below." 

I would really like to know what part of that you have an issue with. It is factual data from the study. Not opinions.  I really am curious. 

Couldn't look at your second link, it's not an academic site ;)  Kidding. Although I didn't click on the link because it doesn't matter.  As we have discussed before, court rulings are not evidence nor are they scientific. 

 

 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#20 of 43 Old 10-15-2013, 10:03 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Right: I can read a primary study, don't need it filtered through a 'skeptic' blog. I am sure SR linked to his source right? Why not link that directly & quote from the actual study, sans spin?

I will click on MSM links all day, academic sites (even CDC or CHOP), or primary studies. Unless you are willing to see lengthy quotes from the latest missive from Barbara Loe or AoA, I would leave SR alone, or save it for the Vax on Schedule forum, where partisan bloggings are more appropriate.

And the 6 million was not awarded by a *jury*. Special Masters don't give money if there is absolutely no case. That is the whole point of them.
BeckyBird and kathymuggle like this.
dinahx is offline  
#21 of 43 Old 10-15-2013, 10:16 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,515
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

Right: I can read a primary study, don't need it filtered through a 'skeptic' blog. I am sure SR linked to his source right? Why not link that directly & quote from the actual study, sans spin?

I will click on MSM links all day, academic sites (even CDC or CHOP), or primary studies. Unless you are willing to see lengthy quotes from the latest missive from Barbara Loe or AoA, I would leave SR alone, or save it for the Vax on Schedule forum, where partisan bloggings are more appropriate.

And the 6 million was not awarded by a *jury*. Special Masters don't give money if there is absolutely no case. That is the whole point of them.

 

"Why not link that directly & quote from the actual study, sans spin?" 

 

I didn't see the study linked originally.  Where was the spin? That was my question.  It was factual information about the study. I thought it was a decent summary and I wanted to use the table graph that was on the site.  If you don't like SR then don't click on it.... 

 

Doesn't matter about the jury. Court rulings are not evidence! They don't replace studies.  Anyway, its very possible they had a bad reaction to the vaccine, in which case they should be compensated. No one says that vaccines are 100% risk free.  I have no idea what the court ruled or what her reaction was so I can't comment on that. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#22 of 43 Old 10-15-2013, 10:28 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The title said there are NO serious Adverse Reactions.

I don't think SR can interpret a study w/o bias . . . Or else he would not label himself 'the Skeptical Raptor' & he would be writing somewhere other than a blog . . . Running a study through a second party pretty much always confers bias . . .
dinahx is offline  
#23 of 43 Old 10-15-2013, 11:09 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,121
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Yes, they do explain why it is not significant. One of the reasons being that the incidence rate for the three conditions mirrored what is found in the general population of girls that age.  That hardly sounds like they are just trying to "justify" why they don't consider it to be a reaction from the vaccine.  That's a pretty important piece of data to consider.

That is incorrect.  You need to read the study.

 

They were found to be insignificant because they did not meet all 3 of the criteria for significance as designed by the study:  an odds ratio of more than 3, having 20 or more case, or being consistent in both countries:

 

 "We regarded three criteria as signal strengthening: analysis based on 20 or more vaccine exposed cases (reliability of analysis); a rate ratio of 3.0 or more (strength of association); and significantly increased rate ratios in both countries when analysed separately (consistency)."

 

I am interested in odds ratios of 2, or even less than 2, so the "3" is high, to me.

 

The number 20 makes sense in some ways - but will fail to capture rare(ish) reactions.  The authors acknowledge rare reactions might be missed.  If you keep in mind 300 000 were given the vaccine, 19 could have had a reaction above and beyond the expected rate in the population, and it would not be considered significant.  I am going to round for ease of math, but 20/300 000  means 1/15 000.  They could dismiss something with an adverse  rate  of 1/15 000.  Depending on the type of reaction or issue we are talking about, that could be pretty significant.  

 

I do understand why they would want consistency between the countries - although if there is not consistency, they need to look at why.  

kittywitty likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#24 of 43 Old 10-15-2013, 03:16 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,515
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

That is incorrect.  You need to read the study.

 

They were found to be insignificant because they did not meet all 3 of the criteria for significance as designed by the study:  an odds ratio of more than 3, having 20 or more case, or being consistent in both countries:

 

 "We regarded three criteria as signal strengthening: analysis based on 20 or more vaccine exposed cases (reliability of analysis); a rate ratio of 3.0 or more (strength of association); and significantly increased rate ratios in both countries when analysed separately (consistency)."

 

I am interested in odds ratios of 2, or even less than 2, so the "3" is high, to me.

 

The number 20 makes sense in some ways - but will fail to capture rare(ish) reactions.  The authors acknowledge rare reactions might be missed.  If you keep in mind 300 000 were given the vaccine, 19 could have had a reaction above and beyond the expected rate in the population, and it would not be considered significant.  I am going to round for ease of math, but 20/300 000  means 1/15 000.  They could dismiss something with an adverse  rate  of 1/15 000.  Depending on the type of reaction or issue we are talking about, that could be pretty significant.  

 

I do understand why they would want consistency between the countries - although if there is not consistency, they need to look at why.  

 

The rate of diabetes is 1/5,000. 

 

Odds ratios shouldn’t be taken out of context of their statistical power. With so few cases, the error is huge. Type 1 diabetes, for example, was barely above unity for odds ratio, which means there is no risk. At 1/15,000 you’re at the level of background noise.The argument that just because they observe something it must be causal, requires a lot more information than that. Again, the background levels of diabetes is about 1/5000, so you’re asking an epidemiological study to find something that is so rare that it would be incapable of showing causality.
 
The authors eliminated the three effects for numerous reasons, one of which was the background rate (NOT the rate compared to the non-vaccinated group). But they mentioned others like random spread of time after vaccination to disease onset. Diabetes may have actually started well before the vaccination, or the day before, or naturally a week later. Random spread implies non-causality.
 
Odds ratios of 2 or 3 are not that significant because of the low numbers. It’s a logical fallacy to believe that because we didn’t see an adverse effect, it might exist. No, that’s not how science works. Until there’s evidence, there is no claim. Especially if you’re starting to look for things that are causal, because the numbers are so small that you’re trying to invent a causation when there’s barely a correlation. 
 
It’s ironic, but for a bunch of adverse effects, they showed LOWERED rates of said effects in the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated group. Notice that neither I nor the authors made a big deal of that, because the numbers were so small. So, if you are going to ignore logic and statistics for results that you cherry pick to prove you point, then by logic, you need to accept the data that says the adverse effects were actually lowered by vaccination. It’s only fair. :D

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#25 of 43 Old 10-15-2013, 05:22 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,121
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

 

Odds ratios shouldn’t be taken out of context of their statistical power. With so few cases, the error is huge. Type 1 diabetes, for example, was barely above unity for odds ratio, which means there is no risk. At 1/15,000 you’re at the level of background noise. The argument that just because they observe something it must be causal, requires a lot more information than that. Again, the background levels of diabetes is about 1/5000, so you’re asking an epidemiological study to find something that is so rare that it would be incapable of showing causality.
 
I disagree 1/15 000 is background noise.  If it is, may I suggest you apply that to VADs as well?  If chicken pox triggered a 1/15 000 serious issue rate  (for example), I am sure you would not consider that background noise.
 
It’s ironic, but for a bunch of adverse effects, they showed LOWERED rates of said effects in the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated group. Notice that neither I nor the authors made a big deal of that, because the numbers were so small. So, if you are going to ignore logic and statistics for results that you cherry pick to prove you point, then by logic, you need to accept the data that says the adverse effects were actually lowered by vaccination. It’s only fair. :D
 
I think they should look closely at both the noted positive effects and negative effects.  I did not try and say there was a causal effect - causal is a very hard criteria to meet and can take years to determine.  Personally, I think things deserve further exploration before causal.  As I said earlier, if I were considering HPV (which I am not) I would look at what other studies had to say and if they also noticed issues in the same area. 
 
 

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#26 of 43 Old 10-15-2013, 06:59 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,515
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

Your argument about diabetes is illogical The mathematics are simple. If a typical population of individuals has a risk of 1/5000 for diabetes, and the vaccinated groups has 1/15,000, you’ve actually reduced the risk of diabetes by 300% by vaccinating (but it’s a claim I’d never make). 

 

As far as chickenpox is concerned, it's about balance of risk. 1 out every 100,000ish (can't remember the exact number) die from chickenpox. The vaccine has been out since the 90s and out of the millions and millions and millions of doses given there has not been a single death reported. So the risk of my child dying or having a bad reaction to chicken pox is higher than the risk of him dying or having a bad reaction to the vaccine.  A woman in the US has a 1 in 152 lifetime risk of developing cervical cancer and a 1 in 435 lifetime risk of dying from cervical cancer.  (http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer)  So EVEN IF it caused diabetes in 1 in 15,000 cases the balance is still in favor for the vaccine.  

 

Plus, there have been other huge studies that proves the safety of the Gardasil vaccine. Here is one with almost 200,000 girls recently published (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23027469)   From the study discussed in the OP "These findings corroborate those from a cohort study of 189 629 women in two managed care organisations in California, which found no safety signal when investigating the risk of 16 autoimmune events.15 That study did find an inverse association between exposure to qHPV vaccine and type 1 diabetes (rate ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.47 to 0.73), lending further support to the conclusion that the initial signal for type 1 diabetes observed in our study might be a false positive."  Bolding mine.  

 
Your second argument is what is called the Argument from Ignorance. You're essentially stating that if WE can’t prove it safe, then it must be unsafe, or potentially unsafe. That’s a logical fallacy for those who lack evidence :)  

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#27 of 43 Old 10-15-2013, 07:17 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,197
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

 
Your second argument is what is called the Argument from Ignorance. You're essentially stating that if WE can’t prove it safe, then it must be unsafe, or potentially unsafe. That’s a logical fallacy for those who lack evidence :)  

Actually, accusing someone of "The Argument from Ignorance" is a logical fallacy for those who lack evidence.  You're essentially stating, "we CAN'T prove it safe, so we're going to label your request for proof of safety as a logical fallacy in order to weasel out of needing to prove it safe."

Mirzam, Marnica, BeckyBird and 2 others like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#28 of 43 Old 10-16-2013, 06:54 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,121
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

Your argument about diabetes is illogical The mathematics are simple. If a typical population of individuals has a risk of 1/5000 for diabetes, and the vaccinated groups has 1/15,000, you’ve actually reduced the risk of diabetes by 300% by vaccinating (but it’s a claim I’d never make). 

 

The rate ratio was higher for diabetes, albeit only slightly.  This means more people in the vaxxed group were diagnosed with diabetes in the 180 days post vaccination than the unvaxxed group.   This is all in the study, and I suggest anyone interested look it up.  The rate ratio for behcets syndrome is more significant (3:1) however, it is a rare condition so it could be co-incidence.  Or not.  More studies needed.  You are the one who keeps bringing up diabetes.  Saying I said something I didn't and then claiming it is illogical is a reading fail :dizzy (and I am being kind).

 

 

 
Your second argument is what is called the Argument from Ignorance. You're essentially stating that if WE can’t prove it safe, then it must be unsafe, or potentially unsafe. That’s a logical fallacy for those who lack evidence :)  Nonsense. Please say where I said this in this thread.    We can't prove it is safe=we can't prove it is safe.  You are jumping to  conclusions on my beliefs.  I would argue that jumping to it is "safe" without lack of proof something is safe is an equal logic fail.  

In any event, I am done. I have said all I have to say.   You can have the last word, which I am sure you will not resist :wink   I don't think the study is awful, I have seen far worse. I think it has some limitations and adds a small amount of knowledge on short term side effects to very complex issue, a small amount that really needs to be compared with what other studies tell us.

Marnica and BeckyBird like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#29 of 43 Old 10-16-2013, 07:57 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,515
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

In any event, I am done. I have said all I have to say.   You can have the last word, which I am sure you will not resist :wink   I don't think the study is awful, I have seen far worse. I think it has some limitations and adds a small amount of knowledge on short term side effects to very complex issue, a small amount that really needs to be compared with what other studies tell us.

 

Yeah I don't know what else I can tell you. I have tried to explain the math and statistics and explained the numerous reasons the authors gave as to why they didn't consider it significant but it's your prerogative to ignore that I suppose.  Noting again that the study showed many conditions to be lower in the vaccinated group.  Funny I don't see NVers bringing that up... 

 

"I think it has some limitations and adds a small amount of knowledge on short term side effects to very complex issue, a small amount that really needs to be compared with what other studies tell us."  

 

I did link another study. A recent one with close to 200,000 girls. It showed an inverse association between the HPV vaccine and diabetes and also no severe adverse effects. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#30 of 43 Old 10-16-2013, 12:34 PM
 
minerva23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: down by the riverside
Posts: 483
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)

http://www.impfschaden.info/images/stories/HPV-Vaccines-May-Induce-Seizures.pdf

 

These Japanese findings are quite interesting and shed a light on why the recommendation of the HPV vaccine was stopped.

kittywitty likes this.

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”
―Socrates

minerva23 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off