Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match!

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is dedicated to those who are facing the challenge of raising children without the support of a spouse. This is a place to share ideas and lend mutual support.

Saint Rita is known to be a patroness for abused wives and mourning women.
Learn More: Saint Rita

Feb 5th 2013 new

(Quote) Andrew-899116 said: The reason for giving a vaccine for "female cancers" to a male is that almost universally wom...
(Quote) Andrew-899116 said: The reason for giving a vaccine for "female cancers" to a male is that almost universally women contract HPV from asymptomatic male carriers. If you can decrease the asymptomatic carriage rate among males you thereby decrease the epidemiologic transmission to women overall. Not to mention that HPV causes genital warts and an increased incidence of penile cancer in males.
--hide--


thank you, andrew! wave welcome to cm and enjoy! shhh

Feb 5th 2013 new

(Quote) Jerry-74383 said: Have you read the report?
(Quote) Jerry-74383 said:

Have you read the report?

--hide--

Have you read the report in question yourself, or only the abstract posted by Chelsea?

Feb 5th 2013 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: Oddly enough, a study was done by a group at the University of British Colombia in Cana...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:



Oddly enough, a study was done by a group at the University of British Colombia in Canada showing that the efficacy and safety of the vaccine is not necessarily what is being told parents and young people by physicians wishing to give the vaccine.

The abstract of the study states:

"We carried out a systematic review of HPV vaccine pre- and post-licensure trials to assess the evidence of their effectiveness and safety. We find that HPV vaccine clinical trials design, and data interpretation of both efficacy and safety outcomes, were largely inadequate. Additionally, we note evidence of selective reporting of results from clinical trials (i.e., exclusion of vaccine efficacy figures related to study subgroups in which efficacy might be lower or even negative from peer-reviewed publications). Given this, the widespread optimism regarding HPV vaccines long-term benefits appears to rest on a number of unproven assumptions (or such which are at odd with factual evidence) and significant misinterpretation of available data. For example, the claim that HPV vaccination will result in approximately 70% reduction of cervical cancers is made despite the fact that the clinical trials data have not demonstrated to date that the vaccines have actually prevented a single case of cervical cancer (let alone cervical cancer death), nor that the current overly optimistic surrogate marker-based extrapolations are justified. Likewise, the notion that HPV vaccines have an impressive safety profile is only supported by highly flawed design of safety trials and is contrary to accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases and case reports which continue to link HPV vaccination to serious adverse outcomes (including death and permanent disabilities). We thus conclude that further reduction of cervical cancers might be best achieved by optimizing cervical screening (which carries no such risks) and targeting other factors of the disease rather than by the reliance on vaccines with questionable efficacy and safety profiles."

here is the source:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Anyway, the only thing that I could imagine would be the reason to vaccinate someone with such a dangerous substance is for money. But, it could be seen by parents who allow it and the young people who get it as a license to have pre-marital relations.

--hide--

1. The article you refer to is written by people who belong to the department of Ophtalmology (the branch in medicine which focus on the anatomy, physiology and pathology of the eye). I find it a bit qurious as how they find such an interest in HPV-vaccine and cervical cancer. Don't they have enough research projects in their own field. I guess not. But what do I know? How about presenting an article from a department of gynecology?

2. The vaccine is approved by the FDA. Do you really think you have better knowledge in this area than the medical board of FDA? Do you know anything about the procedure of getting a medicine approved?

3. Instead of only providing one article which supports your stand it would be more scientifically correct to also provide an article which supports a different view and see what the hard data has to say.

4. With any drug, no matter if it is a vaccine against the flu, a painkiller or antidepressant, we have to weigh the side effects, which is a part of the profile of any and all drugs, against the positive effects. The FDA does that in a very controlled manner and according to a specific protocol. But it is ultimately our own desicion what we put in our body to heal us.

Feb 5th 2013 new

(Quote) Peter-933860 said: (author's comments preceded by >>>)
(Quote) Peter-933860 said:

(author's comments preceded by >>>)

--hide--

>>> 1. The article you refer to is written by people who belong to the department of Ophtalmology (the branch in medicine which focus on the anatomy, physiology and pathology of the eye).

The issues raised involve study design and the (mis)interpretation of statistical data, none of which would require specialized knowledge of gynecology or immunology to review.

>>> I find it a bit qurious as how they find such an interest in HPV-vaccine and cervical cancer. Don't they have enough research projects in their own field. I guess not. But what do I know? How about presenting an article from a department of gynecology?

Apparently not curious enough for you to check the author profiles on PubMed (the site Chelsea linked to) before slinging a little mud. Had you done so, you would have found that the lead author (Tomljenovic) has written a number of articles related to vaccines in general and the HPV vaccine specifically with the secondary author (Shaw). The third author (Spinosa) has been a co-author on papers in a variety of areas, leading me to suspect his or her specialty may be statistics or epidemiology.

How about critiquing the content of the article rather than attempting to discredit the authors without any evidence?

>>> 2. The vaccine is approved by the FDA. Do you really think you have better knowledge in this area than the medical board of FDA? Do you know anything about the procedure of getting a medicine approved?

How many drugs has the FDA pulled from the market after approval due to serious adverse effects, including significant mortality?

>>> 3. Instead of only providing one article which supports your stand it would be more scientifically correct to also provide an article which supports a different view and see what the hard data has to say.

While I can't speak for Chelsea, I will speak for myself since I have referred to this study in several responses to this topic.

The purpose of referring to this article is awareness vs. proof: to make the forum participants aware that there is some credible concern about both the vaccine itself and other studies that have been used to support use of the vaccine (credible meaning originating from a research institution vs. the common Internet anti-vaccine screed). Given the article was published only 5 months ago (Sept. 2012), it's highly unlikely there is going to be a significant amount of additional evidence available at this point. Since we're discussing a vaccine, not a treatment for an acute medical condition, in many cases waiting for additional evidence is not an unreasonable approach, especially for the parents of young children who are not even near becoming sexually active. In three words: due caution and prudence.

I will note that the one article we produced is exactly one more than you have produced to support your objections. Not that the number of articles supporting one's position is indicative of the strength of that position.

>>> 4. With any drug, no matter if it is a vaccine against the flu, a painkiller or antidepressant, we have to weigh the side effects, which is a part of the profile of any and all drugs, against the positive effects. The FDA does that in a very controlled manner and according to a specific protocol. But it is ultimately our own desicion what we put in our body to heal us.

The point of the cited article is that much of the information available on this particular vaccine may be based on flawed studies or erroneous interpretation of data; if the position taken by the author's of this paper is correct, the data required to make a reasonable assessment of the risks may not yet be known. As I noted above, the FDA's record over the past 10-20 years (or perhaps even longer) is far from impeccable.

Feb 5th 2013 new

(Quote) Lisa-54615 said: My son had his checkup today, and this is the second time the doctor has talked to me about an HPV ...
(Quote) Lisa-54615 said:

My son had his checkup today, and this is the second time the doctor has talked to me about an HPV vaccine for him. Most of you probably know that HPV is a sexually transmitted disease that increases the risk of cervical cancer in women. My son is only 12, and they are already recommending this type of thing! But my question is not really related to age. Do you think it's wise to vaccinate your teenager, be it at 12 or 17, against HPV? To me it seems like doing so is giving them an approval for pre-marital sex. It says, don't have sex, but let's get you vaccinated just in case you do. Thoughts?

--hide--


NO! Not a license for sex. Just get the shot. Don't worry about it. You don't need the doctor reporting you to those malicious morons at DCFS.

Feb 5th 2013 new

(Quote) Cathy-564420 said: I guess Jerry the benefits outweigh the risks here IMO. It is a safety factor for young men and w...
(Quote) Cathy-564420 said:

I guess Jerry the benefits outweigh the risks here IMO. It is a safety factor for young men and woman and if it helps prevent cervical cancer, that would be a hugh benefit. All vaccines come with benefits and risks! Heck, any medicine you take has possible side effects and can cause even death, even Tylenol. It all depends on how ones body reacts, other illnesses or diseases, frailty, immune system, etc. I guess it is up to everyone to decide.

--hide--

The point is that if the author's of the UBC study are correct, we don't know what the risks are nor the actual efficacy of the vaccine.

If this were a medication were the only option to treat an acute life-threatening illness it might be worth the risk of using it despite the uncertainty to save a life. Pediatricians are pushing the HPV vaccine for young children nowhere near being sexually active. There is absolutely nothing lost in these cases waiting for the research process to play out and produce additional data.

Feb 5th 2013 new

(Quote) Peter-933860 said: (Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: Oddly enough, a study was done by a g...
(Quote) Peter-933860 said:

Quote:
Chelsea-743484 said:



Oddly enough, a study was done by a group at the University of British Colombia in Canada showing that the efficacy and safety of the vaccine is not necessarily what is being told parents and young people by physicians wishing to give the vaccine.

The abstract of the study states:

"We carried out a systematic review of HPV vaccine pre- and post-licensure trials to assess the evidence of their effectiveness and safety. We find that HPV vaccine clinical trials design, and data interpretation of both efficacy and safety outcomes, were largely inadequate. Additionally, we note evidence of selective reporting of results from clinical trials (i.e., exclusion of vaccine efficacy figures related to study subgroups in which efficacy might be lower or even negative from peer-reviewed publications). Given this, the widespread optimism regarding HPV vaccines long-term benefits appears to rest on a number of unproven assumptions (or such which are at odd with factual evidence) and significant misinterpretation of available data. For example, the claim that HPV vaccination will result in approximately 70% reduction of cervical cancers is made despite the fact that the clinical trials data have not demonstrated to date that the vaccines have actually prevented a single case of cervical cancer (let alone cervical cancer death), nor that the current overly optimistic surrogate marker-based extrapolations are justified. Likewise, the notion that HPV vaccines have an impressive safety profile is only supported by highly flawed design of safety trials and is contrary to accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases and case reports which continue to link HPV vaccination to serious adverse outcomes (including death and permanent disabilities). We thus conclude that further reduction of cervical cancers might be best achieved by optimizing cervical screening (which carries no such risks) and targeting other factors of the disease rather than by the reliance on vaccines with questionable efficacy and safety profiles."

here is the source:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Anyway, the only thing that I could imagine would be the reason to vaccinate someone with such a dangerous substance is for money. But, it could be seen by parents who allow it and the young people who get it as a license to have pre-marital relations.


1. The article you refer to is written by people who belong to the department of Ophtalmology (the branch in medicine which focus on the anatomy, physiology and pathology of the eye). I find it a bit qurious as how they find such an interest in HPV-vaccine and cervical cancer. Don't they have enough research projects in their own field. I guess not. But what do I know? How about presenting an article from a department of gynecology?

2. The vaccine is approved by the FDA. Do you really think you have better knowledge in this area than the medical board of FDA? Do you know anything about the procedure of getting a medicine approved?

3. Instead of only providing one article which supports your stand it would be more scientifically correct to also provide an article which supports a different view and see what the hard data has to say.

4. With any drug, no matter if it is a vaccine against the flu, a painkiller or antidepressant, we have to weigh the side effects, which is a part of the profile of any and all drugs, against the positive effects. The FDA does that in a very controlled manner and according to a specific protocol. But it is ultimately our own desicion what we put in our body to heal us.

--hide--


Well stated. It is for this reason that our highest standard of evidence is that drawn from meta-analyses that pool and compare the findings of multiple randomized, controlled, clinical trials. It's easy enough to find one study to support and argument but if trends across independent studies point in the same direction (as they do in pointing toward the safety of the HPV vaccination) this is considered level 1A support, i.e. as good as it gets given our current knowledge.

Feb 5th 2013 new
(Quote) David-364112 said: (Quote) Lisa-54615 said: My son had his checkup today, and this is the second ti...
(Quote) David-364112 said:

Quote:
Lisa-54615 said:



My son had his checkup today, and this is the second time the doctor has talked to me about an HPV vaccine for him. Most of you probably know that HPV is a sexually transmitted disease that increases the risk of cervical cancer in women. My son is only 12, and they are already recommending this type of thing! But my question is not really related to age. Do you think it's wise to vaccinate your teenager, be it at 12 or 17, against HPV? To me it seems like doing so is giving them an approval for pre-marital sex. It says, don't have sex, but let's get you vaccinated just in case you do. Thoughts?







NO! Not a license for sex. Just get the shot. Don't worry about it. You don't need the doctor reporting you to those malicious morons at DCFS.

--hide--




Teenage Girl Becomes Infertile after Gardasil Vaccination


Gardasil has been controversial from the beginning. While other vaccines protect against diseases spread by casual contact, Gardasil was developed to protect against a sexually transmitted disease called Human Papilloma Virus or HPV. Merck & Co., the manufacturer, has been very effective at lobbying governments around the world to make the vaccine mandatory for school attendance. Despite the frequent objections of doctors and parents, it has been administered to tens of millions of 11- and 12-year-old young girls around the world.

Now comes the case of a 16-year-old Australian girl who suffered "premature ovarian failure" after receiving Gardasil. Her ovaries have shut down, her eggs have been destroyed, and she will never be able to have children.

Dr. Deirdre Little, the Australian physician who treated the girl, has published a complete account in the British Medical Journal. (BMJ Case Reports 2012; doi:10.1136/bcr-2012-006879) Her report explains that the girl's menstrual cycles were regular until she received the Gardasil vaccination in the Fall of 2008. By January 2009, her cycle had become irregular. Over the course of the next two years, her menses became increasingly scant and irregular, until by 2011, she had ceased menstruating altogether.

Early menopause is highly unusual....To read the rest of the well written article: pop.org
Feb 5th 2013 new

(Quote) Helen-450889 said: Teenage Girl Becomes Infertile after Gardasil Vaccination Gardasil ha...
(Quote) Helen-450889 said:

Teenage Girl Becomes Infertile after Gardasil Vaccination

Gardasil has been controversial from the beginning. While other vaccines protect against diseases spread by casual contact, Gardasil was developed to protect against a sexually transmitted disease called Human Papilloma Virus or HPV. Merck & Co., the manufacturer, has been very effective at lobbying governments around the world to make the vaccine mandatory for school attendance. Despite the frequent objections of doctors and parents, it has been administered to tens of millions of 11- and 12-year-old young girls around the world.

Now comes the case of a 16-year-old Australian girl who suffered "premature ovarian failure" after receiving Gardasil. Her ovaries have shut down, her eggs have been destroyed, and she will never be able to have children.

Dr. Deirdre Little, the Australian physician who treated the girl, has published a complete account in the British Medical Journal. (BMJ Case Reports 2012; doi:10.1136/bcr-2012-006879) Her report explains that the girl's menstrual cycles were regular until she received the Gardasil vaccination in the Fall of 2008. By January 2009, her cycle had become irregular. Over the course of the next two years, her menses became increasingly scant and irregular, until by 2011, she had ceased menstruating altogether.

Early menopause is highly unusual....To read the rest of the well written article: pop.org
--hide--

The only thing I will add to this is that the opening of the second paragraph is misleading. "Now comes the case" might lead some to beleive this is a novel report. It is not; there are many reports of similar (or worse) reactions on record.

Feb 5th 2013 new
I haven't had any of my 6 kids vaccinated for this -- once they are old enough to decide, they can. But it seems too many deaths and complications are associated with it for me to be in favor of it yet.
Posts 41 - 50 of 166