"All Those HPV Vaccine Deaths Aren't After All" - Mothering Forums

 107Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 62 Old 08-30-2016, 08:27 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 4,801
Mentioned: 510 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3430 Post(s)
"All Those HPV Vaccine Deaths Aren't After All"

This went through every single VAERS death report for the HPV vaccine from the years 2011-2016 and lists what the report is about. The VAERS ID numbers are provided, so people can look for themselves if they wish. I think this is yet another great example showing the limitations of the VAERS database. Anyone can report anything, even if it's a story they heard about on twitter or facebook.

I'll just post a couple years:

Quote:
VAERS has 19 reports of people dying from HPV vaccines in 2013. Here are the report numbers with short synopses.

482344-1 Someone received something via social media and filed a report.
482352-1 Someone received something via social media and filed a report.
485188-1 Someone received something via social media and filed a report.
485757-1 A patient on anti-seizure medication and suffering from an upper respiratory infection died.
489163-1 Mother was vaccinated during pregnancy. Baby died 59 days after birth.
492468-1 Anecdote – someone knows someone who died.
494024-1 Patient had a cerebral hemorrhage and leukemia.
500225-1 Child passed out. Mother did research on the internet and heard about someone who died. There was no death here.
501081-1 Student found dead in dorm room three days after vaccination. Date and story likely link case to a well-publicized case. (The CDC/ATSDR Policy on Releasing and Sharing Data prohibits linking these data with other data sets or information for the purpose of identifying an individual.) The death was attributed to bulimia complications.
501663-1 Limited details. Nothing in file implying death liked to vaccines.
505344-1 Someone received something via social media and filed a report. File notes same person filing many similar reports.
505350-1 Someone received something via social media and filed a report.
505364-1 Someone received something via social media and filed a report.
510130-1 Patient died from myocarditis.
511528-1 Patient died from acute liver failure.
513554-1 Patient died 111 days after vaccination from influenza complications
513728-1 A mother claimed her daughter was killed by Gardasil five years earlier.
514814-1 Someone saw an anti-HPV video and filed a report.
515434-1 A asthmatic patient on Albuterol died 42 days after vaccination.

11 of 19 (58%) reports were anecdotal. 1 was not a death. 6 deaths were attributed to other causes. 1 death had limited detail in the file. The wording in some of the filings was identical. Some of the Wonder files even noted it was the same person doing many of the anecdotal filings.

There is no evidence in VAERS to support that any deaths can be linked to HPV in 2013.
For 2014 there are 16 reports:

Quote:
518872-1 Patient on Adderall and Celexa died 44 days after receiving third Gardasil injection.
522070-1 Anecdote. Nurse reports of multiple people reporting internet anecdotes.
525311-1 Anecdote of 53 deaths.
526687-1 Patient with cardiomegaly. Myocarditis.
527990-1 Anecdote. Someone read something on Facebook that 15 people had died.
528766-1 Anecdote. Nurse read about something on a website.
532797-1 Patient had seizure 43 days after vaccination.
*538295-1 Patient died 1 day after Gardasil. Mother claims it was the vaccination.
540269-1 Anecdote of case 538295-1.
540899-1 Barely an anecdote.
541912-1 Anecdote of case 538295-1.
541916-1 Anecdote of case 538295-1.
544217-1 Anecdote of case 538295-1. (Physician aware of the anecdote corrected the age!)
546064-1 Anecdote of case 538295-1.
557260-1 Anecdote. Reporter claims deaths tied to Gardasil and product needs to be pulled from market. File states this reporter has done this many times.
559863-1 Anecdote of case 538295-1.

*I have to do a side note here on 538295-1 as I found this specific case on many anti-vaccination websites when I dove deeper. Based on the age of the girl, the date of the incident, and the location, I am certain of who this girl was. (The CDC/ATSDR Policy on Releasing and Sharing Data prohibits linking these data with other data sets or information for the purpose of identifying an individual.) The mother claimed the vaccination was the cause of her daughter’s death. The coroner found no causation from the vaccination and concluded the death was caused by diphenhydramine intoxication (Benadryl overdose). Despite the coroner’s conclusion, many anti-vaccination websites still tout this case. Six of the other filings for 2014 are for this specific case.

12 of 16 (75%) cases were anecdotes. 6 of the anecdotes were the same story!

There is no evidence in VAERS to support that any deaths can be linked to HPV in 2014.
I'm hoping members and lurkers alike can see now why saying "There are X number of deaths reported to VAERS for X vaccine" cannot tell us much of anything. Many of these were anecdotes people heard about on the internet. Many were the same person writing multiple reports or different people all making a report on the same anecdote or were deaths caused by other issues (if you read other years, there are several suicides, and other things), etc.

http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2016/...ths-arent.html
Jessica765 likes this.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ~ Christopher Hitchens

I'm a mom to two great kids and a wife to an amazing husband
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'm also proudly #teamvax
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
teacozy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 62 Old 08-30-2016, 11:10 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,029
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1387 Post(s)
This is a straw man.

Has anyone HERE stated that "x many deaths reported to VAERS is concrete evidence the vaccine kills people"?

What I would like to know is why scientists (and I believe that is what the two people who run the just the vax blog are) are not outraged by how unscientific the reporting system is for vaccine adverse events? And second, why haven't they come up with a better system?

I think most people interested in the vaccine discussion are aware of the shortcomings due to pro-vaxxers reporting BS events to VAERS in attempts to mock vaccine injured people. But VAERS is a government product run by the government. Why blame the victims?
samaxtics is offline  
#3 of 62 Old 08-30-2016, 12:35 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,174
Mentioned: 324 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2739 Post(s)
I'm going to second Samaxtics. I've never claimed that VAERS has demonstrated deaths caused by Gardasil or Cervarix.

On the other hand, I've pointed repeatedly to the serotype replacement problems with Gardasil and gotten no response at all, except the first time it came up, when everyone supporting vaccines said, gleefully, look, the system works. And yet girls continue to be vaccinated and no one is addressing the science showing that one set of dangerous viruses was being replaced by another set of dangerous viruses and this is being called "protection" and "herd immunity."

I've also pointed to the girls, well over 1,000 in Denmark, who are seriously ill and whose problems may be connected to Gardasil. There have been a few responses on that:

1) the big study did pick up on these girls and figured out that their problems weren't connected to Gardasil. Evidence provided? Opinion.

2) All of the health problems can be explained by the background rates of various conditions. Background rates based on phone surveys of what may or may not be the same conditions.

And so on.

I call gigantic straw man.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
 
#4 of 62 Old 08-30-2016, 01:05 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 4,801
Mentioned: 510 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3430 Post(s)
Believe it or not, parents read websites other than Mothering.com.

This sort of thing comes up a lot when googling vaccines, like the 108 deaths from the MMR in the last 10 years statistic that comes from looking at VAERS reports. So much so, we've even had threads about that very number. Members here have also linked studies where the authors (usually well known anti-vaccine ones) used VAERS statistics, etc.

I think it's important that parents looking into this understand how unreliable those numbers and studies using that data are.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ~ Christopher Hitchens

I'm a mom to two great kids and a wife to an amazing husband
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'm also proudly #teamvax
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by teacozy; 08-30-2016 at 01:19 PM.
teacozy is offline  
#5 of 62 Old 08-30-2016, 01:07 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 4,801
Mentioned: 510 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3430 Post(s)
Also, evidence for the claim that those reports were submitted by pro-vaccine people, thanks.

I know of one or two the (the vaccine turned me into the Incredible Hulk, and another) that were very obviously fake and made as a point to show how lax the criteria is for making a report is, which it did successfully.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ~ Christopher Hitchens

I'm a mom to two great kids and a wife to an amazing husband
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'm also proudly #teamvax
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
teacozy is offline  
#6 of 62 Old 08-30-2016, 01:19 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,029
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1387 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Also, evidence for the claim that those reports were submitted by pro-vaccine people, thanks.

I know of one or two the (the vaccine turned me into the Incredible Hulk, and another) that were very obviously fake and made as a point to show how lax the criteria is for making a report is, which it did successfully.
LBRB (KL) reported that his daughter turned into wonder woman. And Jim Laidler was behind the Incredible Hulk. Both pro-vax. Both BS reports.

Provaxxers cannot claim that the government takes adverse events seriously and at the same time dump all over VAERS, the only mechanism for reporting adverse events.
applejuice, Deborah and japonica like this.
samaxtics is offline  
#7 of 62 Old 08-30-2016, 01:24 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,174
Mentioned: 324 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2739 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Believe it or not, parents read websites other than Mothering.com.

This sort of thing comes up a lot when googling vaccines, like the 108 deaths from the MMR in the last 10 years statistic that comes from looking at VAERS reports. So much so, we've even had threads about that very number. Members here have also linked studies where the authors (usually well known anti-vaccine ones) used VAERS statistics, etc.

I think it's important that parents looking into this understand how unreliable those numbers and studies using that data are.
So our own government provides a system for monitoring vaccine injuries that is totally useless? Impressive.

Once again, trying to use HPV vaccine death reports from VAERS, on this forum, while ignoring endless posts and threads trying to discuss the REAL HPV issues is a strawman.

The other point that no vaccine supporter wants to discuss here or anywhere else is girls and boys who reacted to TWO or even THREE doses of HPV vaccines. One problem following a vaccine MIGHT be a coincidence, although just assuming coincidence is a very unscientific approach, but claiming that two or three coincidences could occur in the same person given doses of the same vaccine is really difficult, so all such cases are simply ignored.

We notice.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#8 of 62 Old 08-30-2016, 02:16 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 4,801
Mentioned: 510 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3430 Post(s)
How on earth is it a straw man when this is my own thread! That's ridiculous. This thread is not about serotype replacement.

For those interested, however, several large studies have not found evidence of this happening at the population level. It is something scientists are going to keep their eye on, but so far is not a concern. Some smaller studies showed a possibility, but many larger ones have not.

This was a cohort looking at three studies that concluded "Vaccine-targeted HPV types do not appear to compete with other types, suggesting that HPV type replacement is unlikely to occur."

http://m.jid.oxfordjournals.org/cont.../infdis.jiw215

Another:

"There were no statistically significant changes in other HPV type categories that indicate cross-protection." http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...No+local+token

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...abstract?cc=y=

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20139221

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ~ Christopher Hitchens

I'm a mom to two great kids and a wife to an amazing husband
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'm also proudly #teamvax
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by teacozy; 08-30-2016 at 02:42 PM.
teacozy is offline  
#9 of 62 Old 08-30-2016, 02:20 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 4,801
Mentioned: 510 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3430 Post(s)
And:

"Our findings are compatible with the working hypothesis that HPV transmission dynamics from 1 type are largely independent of other types, supporting the view that, at present, there is no reason to suspect detrimental consequences of vaccination against a limited set of HPV types." http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/179/10/1236.full

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ~ Christopher Hitchens

I'm a mom to two great kids and a wife to an amazing husband
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'm also proudly #teamvax
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
teacozy is offline  
#10 of 62 Old 08-30-2016, 02:56 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,029
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1387 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
How on earth is it a straw man when this is my own thread!
It's a straw man because no member participating in this forum (that I recall) has ever said that the VAERS database is the definitive source of info for vaccine deaths or adverse events.

Quote:
I'm hoping members and lurkers alike can see now why saying "There are X number of deaths reported to VAERS for X vaccine" cannot tell us much of anything.
applejuice likes this.
samaxtics is offline  
#11 of 62 Old 08-30-2016, 03:22 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 4,801
Mentioned: 510 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3430 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
It's a straw man because no member participating in this forum (that I recall) has ever said that the VAERS database is the definitive source of info for vaccine deaths or adverse events.
I never said they did. This is a *general* vaccine discussion forum. There is not a requirement that we only start threads about things individual members here have said. In any case, members here *have* posted studies that looked at VAERS data and this is a great example of why those studies are flawed.
Jessica765 likes this.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ~ Christopher Hitchens

I'm a mom to two great kids and a wife to an amazing husband
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'm also proudly #teamvax
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by teacozy; 08-30-2016 at 03:28 PM.
teacozy is offline  
#12 of 62 Old 08-30-2016, 05:51 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,174
Mentioned: 324 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2739 Post(s)
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...5.2015.1066948

Quote:
Vaccinated women had a lower prevalence of vaccine types than unvaccinated women (7.4% vs 17.1%, prevalence ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.21–0.88). The prevalence of high-risk nonvaccine types was higher among vaccinated women than unvaccinated women (52.1% vs 40.4%, prevalence ratio 1.29, 95% CI 1.06–1.57), but this difference was attenuated after adjusting for sexual behavior variables (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.19, 95% CI 0.99–1.43). HPV vaccination was effective against all 4 vaccine types in young women vaccinated after age 12. However, vaccinated women had a higher prevalence of high-risk nonvaccine types, suggesting that they may benefit from newer vaccines covering additional types.
In other words, the vaccine will protect you as long as you don't have more than one carefully chosen lover. And there is no evidence that women who already have infections with types included in Gardasil 9 will benefit from receiving a Gardasil 9 vaccination, which seems to be what is suggested.

Studies that don't find problems don't necessarily eliminate a study that does find a problem. Studies that don't spot the problem might be looking in the wrong place, in the wrong way or at the wrong time.

Plus, of course, this is one of the newest studies. Most of the list @teacozy offered up are at least two or three years old.
applejuice and Xerxella like this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#13 of 62 Old 08-30-2016, 05:55 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,174
Mentioned: 324 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2739 Post(s)
Quote:
Once again, trying to use HPV vaccine death reports from VAERS, on this forum, while ignoring endless posts and threads trying to discuss the REAL HPV issues is a strawman.

The other point that no vaccine supporter wants to discuss here or anywhere else is girls and boys who reacted to TWO or even THREE doses of HPV vaccines. One problem following a vaccine MIGHT be a coincidence, although just assuming coincidence is a very unscientific approach, but claiming that two or three coincidences could occur in the same person given doses of the same vaccine is really difficult, so all such cases are simply ignored.

We notice.
In the bolded above I make it clear why I think this thread is a strawman. If teacozy had been responding to the valid issues raised over the last couple of years about HPV vaccines, then she would be on solid ground to point out that some vaccine critics are careless with VAERS data. But given that the main tactic used by teacozy and the other HPV vaccine defenders is avoiding all the real issues raised, bringing up what is very much a side issue is a strawman. IMO of course.

Especially the issues of double or triple coincidences.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#14 of 62 Old 08-31-2016, 07:15 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 4,801
Mentioned: 510 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3430 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...5.2015.1066948



In other words, the vaccine will protect you as long as you don't have more than one carefully chosen lover. And there is no evidence that women who already have infections with types included in Gardasil 9 will benefit from receiving a Gardasil 9 vaccination, which seems to be what is suggested.

Studies that don't find problems don't necessarily eliminate a study that does find a problem. Studies that don't spot the problem might be looking in the wrong place, in the wrong way or at the wrong time.

Plus, of course, this is one of the newest studies. Most of the list @teacozy offered up are at least two or three years old.
As I said, many larger studies with many thousands of people have not found an issue. That study had 800 something and actually recommends getting the newer HPV vaccine. It is something scientistis are going to continue to monitor, but right now there doesn't seem to be a concern.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ~ Christopher Hitchens

I'm a mom to two great kids and a wife to an amazing husband
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'm also proudly #teamvax
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
teacozy is offline  
#15 of 62 Old 08-31-2016, 09:57 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,174
Mentioned: 324 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2739 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
As I said, many larger studies with many thousands of people have not found an issue. That study had 800 something and actually recommends getting the newer HPV vaccine. It is something scientistis are going to continue to monitor, but right now there doesn't seem to be a concern.
Actually, what I see is something quite different.

Someone found a real problem. It is being smoothed over and denied. Even in the published version of the article language has been added to make it look okay.

How many of the thousands of "pro-vaccine" articles actually point to real problems, but wording has been added to make it look less of a concern?

Comfy for vaccine enthusiasts.
applejuice likes this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#16 of 62 Old 09-01-2016, 07:32 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,572
Mentioned: 142 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1684 Post(s)
To repeat, VAERS is a passive surveillance system. There are no enforcement teeth for reporting requirements, and the government openly and repeatedly admits that under-reporting is a big issue.

I am sooooo sick of this canard from the OP.

Quote:
Unfortunately VAERS is open to abuse by pseudo-scientists, laypeople, scientists with anti-vaccine agendas and even lawyers. Those of us involved with the vaccine issue affectionately refer to this as VAERS dumpster-diving and unfortunately there is no shortage of dodgy investigators who engage in this deceitful activity.
And yet according to HHS. . . .

Quote:
Anyone can file a VAERS report, including health care providers, manufacturers, and vaccine recipients. The majority of VAERS reports are sent in by vaccine manufacturers (37%) and health care providers (36%). The remaining reports are obtained from state immunization programs (10%), vaccine recipients (or their parent/guardians, 7%) and other sources (10%). Vaccine recipients or their parents or guardians are encouraged to seek the help of their health care professional in filling out the VAERS form.
I'm curious which faction of these 17% are conspiring to file "bogus" reports. That's quite an accusation to make against somebody, especially when it comes with no evidence.

On the bright side, VAERS has updated the site for any would-be Incredible Hulk pranksters. The bolding is theirs.

Quote:
Knowingly filing a false VAERS report with the intent to mislead the Department of Health and Human Services is a violation of Federal law (18 U.S. Code § 1001) punishable by fine and imprisonment.
applejuice and Deborah like this.

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.” - Marcia Angell, M.D., former NEJM Editor
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Proud member of #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Turquesa is offline  
#17 of 62 Old 09-01-2016, 08:52 AM
 
SchoolmarmDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 877
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 424 Post(s)
So the purpose of this thread is to tell lurkers that the VAERS system may be abused.

And the evidence for that is a list of anecdotes.

Okay, then.
applejuice and Deborah like this.
SchoolmarmDE is offline  
#18 of 62 Old 09-01-2016, 03:40 PM
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
LBRB (KL) reported that his daughter turned into wonder woman. And Jim Laidler was behind the Incredible Hulk. Both pro-vax. Both BS reports.

Provaxxers cannot claim that the government takes adverse events seriously and at the same time dump all over VAERS, the only mechanism for reporting adverse events.
I do database analysis and modeling for a living. My daughters are 10 and 12. The impetus for creating the model that pulled these data were several emails I received about the dangers and deaths caused by the HPV vaccines and why I should not get them for my daughters. One has now had all three doses and the other daughter starts soon.

While the emails correctly claimed that over 100 deaths were reported to VAERS, they were incorrect when they claimed the deaths were caused by the HPV vaccines. I included the Wonder file numbers to make it easier for anyone to check the details. I found no deaths linked to the vaccines. Permanent disability data from VAERS are similar in nature.

Yes, VAERS can be abused as the actual data show. I have found clear cases of filing abuse as there have been many "bursts" of similar filings that are statistically significant. VAERS should be a "canary in a coalmine," but abuse makes wading through the data more difficult. I don't know any vaccine research scientist that claims vaccines are 100% safe. The true risks are extremely small and are overwhelmingly outweighed by the benefits. The abusive filings make discovering any real issues much more difficult.

VAERS is not the only reporting system. The Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) also collects reports, but the filing method is different and the data are not accessible to the general public.

I hope this adds some clarity.
ScienceMonkey is offline  
#19 of 62 Old 09-01-2016, 06:06 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,174
Mentioned: 324 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2739 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScienceMonkey View Post
I do database analysis and modeling for a living. My daughters are 10 and 12. The impetus for creating the model that pulled these data were several emails I received about the dangers and deaths caused by the HPV vaccines and why I should not get them for my daughters. One has now had all three doses and the other daughter starts soon.

While the emails correctly claimed that over 100 deaths were reported to VAERS, they were incorrect when they claimed the deaths were caused by the HPV vaccines. I included the Wonder file numbers to make it easier for anyone to check the details. I found no deaths linked to the vaccines. Permanent disability data from VAERS are similar in nature.

Yes, VAERS can be abused as the actual data show. I have found clear cases of filing abuse as there have been many "bursts" of similar filings that are statistically significant. VAERS should be a "canary in a coalmine," but abuse makes wading through the data more difficult. I don't know any vaccine research scientist that claims vaccines are 100% safe. The true risks are extremely small and are overwhelmingly outweighed by the benefits. The abusive filings make discovering any real issues much more difficult.

VAERS is not the only reporting system. The Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) also collects reports, but the filing method is different and the data are not accessible to the general public.

I hope this adds some clarity.
Loads of clarity. It means that you have chosen to ignore the reports from MEDICAL professionals in Japan and Denmark of serious adverse events.

Good luck with your vaccines.
Mirzam and applejuice like this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#20 of 62 Old 09-01-2016, 06:59 PM
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Japan didn’t ban the HPV vaccines and they are still available. They pulled them from the recommended schedule because of reasons similar to what I posted above – reported adverse events. Adverse events were noted in just 0.002% of vaccinations which is below the rate of events in the general population. The numbers imply adverse events were reduced by the vaccinations, but not all adverse events are reported which likely accounts for the difference.

Denmark simply asked the EMA for a review of an increased risk of POTS and CRPS based on a single, uncontrolled study with a population of 35. The EMA found no causal link.

I'm not sure what either of those have to do with the detailed, documented fact that reports of deaths from HPV vaccines in the VAERS system can't be validated by the details in the VAERS system itself.
ScienceMonkey is offline  
#21 of 62 Old 09-01-2016, 07:15 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,174
Mentioned: 324 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2739 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScienceMonkey View Post
Japan didn’t ban the HPV vaccines and they are still available. They pulled them from the recommended schedule because of reasons similar to what I posted above – reported adverse events. Adverse events were noted in just 0.002% of vaccinations which is below the rate of events in the general population. The numbers imply adverse events were reduced by the vaccinations, but not all adverse events are reported which likely accounts for the difference.

Denmark simply asked the EMA for a review of an increased risk of POTS and CRPS based on a single, uncontrolled study with a population of 35. The EMA found no causal link.

I'm not sure what either of those have to do with the detailed, documented fact that reports of deaths from HPV vaccines in the VAERS system can't be validated by the details in the VAERS system itself.
Yes, you've got the party line down pat.

The 1100 plus ill girls in Denmark will be glad to know that they simply do not exist.

Japan has taken more than one look at the Gardasil situation and has refused to reinstate the vaccine recommendation.

And, as I, and others have pointed out, in the extensive discussions of problems with HPV vaccines on this board, the VAERS data on deaths is mentioned so rarely as to be irrelevant.

This whole thread is a side issue and a second-hand side issue to boot.
Mirzam, applejuice and oaksie68 like this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#22 of 62 Old 09-02-2016, 01:07 AM
 
sciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United Kingdom (have lived previously in the USA).
Posts: 2,708
Mentioned: 65 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 905 Post(s)
Hi @sciencemonkey - thanks for doing this analysis. I don't agree it's a side issue - I think it's quite central to the discussion we have here on HPV safety.
Jessica765 likes this.
sciencemum is offline  
#23 of 62 Old 09-02-2016, 05:31 AM
 
SchoolmarmDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 877
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 424 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciencemum View Post
Hi @sciencemonkey - thanks for doing this analysis. I don't agree it's a side issue - I think it's quite central to the discussion we have here on HPV safety.
I'm looking forward to their scientific analysis of issues on our other boards. For example, what are the risks of co-sleeping? What are the scientific supports for extended breastfeeding? Why is infant circumcision a matter of public health?

You see, I feel that the pro-vaccination posters here are unfairly limited in the amount of fun they have with ping backs drawing in the wealth of knowledge that Internet blogs have in "science." There should be a concerted effort to educate people on ALL the issues where attachment parenting differs from the mainstream.

Sciencemum, for example, clearly has almost no risk associated with whether someone in Iowa vaccinates her children, or not. Yet, her concern is unceasing.

So, do our visiting posters have opinions, or better yet, "research" to share on these other topics? Even some level of anecdote is appropriate, I would think.

Anyone here married to someone circumcised? Are the sons cut? How's that going?
Mirzam, applejuice and Deborah like this.
SchoolmarmDE is offline  
#24 of 62 Old 09-02-2016, 07:42 AM
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 553
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 475 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchoolmarmDE View Post
I'm looking forward to their scientific analysis of issues on our other boards. For example, what are the risks of co-sleeping? What are the scientific supports for extended breastfeeding? Why is infant circumcision a matter of public health?

You see, I feel that the pro-vaccination posters here are unfairly limited in the amount of fun they have with ping backs drawing in the wealth of knowledge that Internet blogs have in "science." There should be a concerted effort to educate people on ALL the issues where attachment parenting differs from the mainstream.

Sciencemum, for example, clearly has almost no risk associated with whether someone in Iowa vaccinates her children, or not. Yet, her concern is unceasing.

So, do our visiting posters have opinions, or better yet, "research" to share on these other topics? Even some level of anecdote is appropriate, I would think.

Anyone here married to someone circumcised? Are the sons cut? How's that going?
I don't understand this post. Are you criticizing posters on the vaccination board for posting about vaccination rather than other topics?

Anyway, I for one appreciated the OP. I don't know much about VAERS, and it's always nice to learn something about it. And I think it's fine (good, even) to talk about issues and arguments that haven't been specifically brought up by posters on this forum.

Last edited by Jessica765; 09-02-2016 at 07:46 AM.
Jessica765 is offline  
#25 of 62 Old 09-02-2016, 08:28 AM
 
SchoolmarmDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 877
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 424 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica765 View Post
I don't understand this post. Are you criticizing posters on the vaccination board for posting about vaccination rather than other topics?

Anyway, I for one appreciated the OP. I don't know much about VAERS, and it's always nice to learn something about it. And I think it's fine (good, even) to talk about issues and arguments that haven't been specifically brought up by posters on this forum.
Sciencemum has entered into evidence her opinion as a "natural mom", and attests that credential is relevant to discussions of science.

But I think, site wide, other topics don't get the benefits the vaccination board does, due to some members who frequently post blog links that bring the bloggers here, to post in our little backwater.

I'm curious why some people post exclusively on this section of the forums, and never share their ability to bring rigorous, blog-based science, to topics that are also of interest to natural moms. Look how often a ping back to a pro-vaccination site expands the population of this board! It seems a shame that other topics don't get the same reasoned and sympathetic boosts.
applejuice and Deborah like this.
SchoolmarmDE is offline  
#26 of 62 Old 09-02-2016, 08:32 AM
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 852
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 843 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchoolmarmDE View Post
Sciencemum has entered into evidence her opinion as a "natural mom", and attests that credential is relevant to discussions of science.

But I think, site wide, other topics don't get the benefits the vaccination board does, due to some members who frequently post blog links that bring the bloggers here, to post in our little backwater.

I'm curious why some people post exclusively on this section of the forums, and never share their ability to bring rigorous, blog-based science, to topics that are also of interest to natural moms. Look how often a ping back to a pro-vaccination site expands the population of this board! It seems a shame that other topics don't get the same reasoned and sympathetic boosts.
Some people get more intellectual stimulation by discussing topics where there is enough disagreement to actually result in a discussion, vs. making comments that are only going to result in murmurs of agreement.
Jessica765 likes this.
Dear_Rosemary is offline  
#27 of 62 Old 09-02-2016, 08:42 AM
 
SchoolmarmDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 877
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 424 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear_Rosemary View Post
Some people get more intellectual stimulation by discussing topics where there is enough disagreement to actually result in a discussion, vs. making comments that are only going to result in murmurs of agreement.
But if the agreement is based on an incorrect assessment of risk, as might be suggested in the cosleeping discussion, for example, don't posters who know better have a responsibility to share that knowledge?

You'd think, if one was motivated by the kind of ethical concerns that would require people to vaccinate children, whether those children were put medically at risk or violated religious beliefs, in order to achieve herd immunity, that person would feel a similar zeal to protect other families from the potential outcomes of other mistaken choices.

It's a sad failing of community concern, that's what it is. People keeping all the correct answers to themselves should be ashamed of themselves.
applejuice and Deborah like this.
SchoolmarmDE is offline  
#28 of 62 Old 09-02-2016, 09:00 AM
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 852
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 843 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchoolmarmDE View Post
But if the agreement is based on an incorrect assessment of risk, as might be suggested in the cosleeping discussion, for example, don't posters who know better have a responsibility to share that knowledge?

You'd think, if one was motivated by the kind of ethical concerns that would require people to vaccinate children, whether those children were put medically at risk or violated religious beliefs, in order to achieve herd immunity, that person would feel a similar zeal to protect other families from the potential outcomes of other mistaken choices.

It's a sad failing of community concern, that's what it is. People keeping all the correct answers to themselves should be ashamed of themselves.
That makes a big assumption that any one poster knows all the "correct answers."
Dear_Rosemary is offline  
#29 of 62 Old 09-02-2016, 09:14 AM
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 553
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 475 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchoolmarmDE View Post
Sciencemum has entered into evidence her opinion as a "natural mom", and attests that credential is relevant to discussions of science.

But I think, site wide, other topics don't get the benefits the vaccination board does, due to some members who frequently post blog links that bring the bloggers here, to post in our little backwater.

I'm curious why some people post exclusively on this section of the forums, and never share their ability to bring rigorous, blog-based science, to topics that are also of interest to natural moms. Look how often a ping back to a pro-vaccination site expands the population of this board! It seems a shame that other topics don't get the same reasoned and sympathetic boosts.
I will take you at face value and presume that you are actually interested in why people might post in one forum and not in others. It is likely a combination of many things:

-What topics people happen to be personally interested in or know a decent amount about. That's based on many factors, including educational background and personal experience.

-What forums have a critical mass of posters with different views, such that interesting discussion is taking place.

-What age the poster's children are. When my kids were infants, I posted on forums all the time about breastfeeding science and politics. (I wasn't really on MDC much at the time, so it was at other forums). Now that my kids are past breastfeeding age, I've largely lost interest. But my kids are still getting vaccines and are still at risk of vaccine-targeted diseases, which might be what helps me maintain my interest.
Deborah, Xerxella and kathymuggle like this.
Jessica765 is offline  
#30 of 62 Old 09-02-2016, 09:16 AM
 
SchoolmarmDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 877
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 424 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear_Rosemary View Post
That makes a big assumption that any one poster knows all the "correct answers."
Not at all. It responds to a quite commonly expressed feeling, particularly among frequently posting pro-vaxers, that their ability to identify scientific sources, particularly from blogs, enables them to guide the correct decisions for other parents.

This thread is an excellent example of that. It cites a so-called "analysis" of VAERS data, from a blog, as a reason other people (including that perennially favorite target, the "lurkers") should dismiss claims that the HPV vaccine is hazardous.

One can only assume such a post is designed as a form of public service announcement, since this is merely one of many discussion (not debate) boards on the site.

So I cannot help but wonder, why isn't all this googlefu expertise being applied to OTHER topics? It seems, at the very least, an ethical lapse, and by people who occupy the ethical high ground. It's a shame.
applejuice, Deborah and mama24-7 like this.
SchoolmarmDE is offline  
Reply


User Tag List

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



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not 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

Online Users: 17,747

31 members and 17,716 guests
babydoulajo , Beth D , Bow , Dakotacakes , Deborah , Dovenoir , emmy526 , girlspn , hillymum , JoyfamMama , kathymuggle , Kelleybug , klutzz , lisak1234 , LLtheTinkerbell , Lydia08 , mama24-7 , Michele123 , Mirzam , moominmamma , NCIS4Ever2001 , rubelin , Saladd , Shmootzi , Skippy918 , sren , TheChainedAngel , worthy , zebra15
Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.