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

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

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: Well stated. It is for this reason that our highest standard of evidence is that drawn from meta...
(Quote) Andrew-899116 said:

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.

--hide--

The UBC paper being discussed is not reporting a clinical study; it is a review of the analysis of the clinical and safety trial results, calling into question their conclusions.

Unfortunately, I don't have access to the full paper nor the background to validate the authors' claims. However, the claims made in the abstract are such that they deserve objective review by those who have the ability to do so. It is rather disconcerting to see someone with a doctorate level medical degree blindly dismissing the paper because it challenges the status quo.

Feb 5th 2013 new

(Quote) Jerry-74383 said: The UBC paper being discussed is not reporting a clinical study; it is a review of the an...
(Quote) Jerry-74383 said:

The UBC paper being discussed is not reporting a clinical study; it is a review of the analysis of the clinical and safety trial results, calling into question their conclusions.

Unfortunately, I don't have access to the full paper nor the background to validate the authors' claims. However, the claims made in the abstract are such that they deserve objective review by those who have the ability to do so. It is rather disconcerting to see someone with a doctorate level medical degree blindly dismissing the paper because it challenges the status quo.

--hide--

Who was blidly dismissing the article in question?

Feb 5th 2013 new

(Quote) Jerry-74383 said: >>> 1. The article you refer to is written by people who belong to the departmen...
(Quote) Jerry-74383 said:

>>> 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.

--hide--

In higher academics one tend to keep within ones own field of expertise when writing papers. Crossing over is naturally anyones prerogative in a free world, but one has to realise that it comes with a price in terms of knowledge. Keep this in mind when reading a scientific paper. Is the author an expert in the field or have he/she only basic knowledge? Is it published in a well reputed journal which only publish top quality papers or is it a journal which belongs in the muddier part of the pool?

Just for general knowledge: some journals publish pretty much any crap sent to them as long as the spelling is correct. I don't mean this paper is published in such a journal, just that you should be aware that they do exist and just the fact the author has a doctors hat doesn't make them immune from producing bad science.

Regarding this article in question: I don't have the time or interest right now to read all I need about the authors and their work, nor the paper itself. I merely had to reply to Chelsea backing up her statement about how the dangerous nature of this vaccine makes simple monetary gain the only valid reason for someone to recommend it, with this abstract only.

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

Is it a bad sign to you that FDA pulls drugs off the market? As long as we don't have God's wisdom we will not be able to make perfect desicions. This goes for FDA too. When evidence which tips the scale to the negative side becomes clear then of course they have to retract a drug. Until a large enough number of people have been exposed for a drug one can never have a clear picture of the profile of the drug in quiestion. Given a large enough group of people exposed you can see pretty much every single side effect known to man expressed.

>>>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.

I have no opinion is this matter as I lack the neccessary knowledge to take a definitive stand.

If the total number of scientific articles published supports one side in a scientific debate one I'd say this is indicative of the strength of that side.

Feb 5th 2013 new

(Quote) Peter-933860 said: 1. The article you refer to is written by people who belong to the department of Ophtalm...
(Quote) Peter-933860 said:

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--


Hi, Peter,

1. I am well aware of who wrote the study and to which department of UBC they belong.

2. The FDA is made up of a group of fallible individuals, and your question regarding whether or not I have better knowledge than they is invalid. I am familiar with the procedure of getting a medicine approved, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, as it is vaccination of which we are discussing.

3. I wonder if your third point is a bit lacking in major logic (criteriology). What good reason do you have to doubt the study whose abstract I quoted?

4. On your fourth point, a vaccine and a drug are dissimilar medical avenues in regard to disease or pathology. A vaccine, by definition treats no disease, but rather changes the reaction of the sentient body to exposure to a specific (and sometimes correlative) pathogen. A drug, as used in the classical sense, is a medicine or chemical application used as therapy upon a sentient body experiencing disease.

The HPV vaccine doesn't heal anything. Even the CDC Pinkbook online will tell you that.

www.cdc.gov

The point that I am trying to get at is that one "authority" says one thing and another "authority" says something contrary or contradictory to the first. How is it then that simple folk are to come to a certain conclusion that the HPV vaccine is a safe one?

Also, I have a problem with the quadrivalent (Gardasil) and bivalent (Cervarix) HPV vaccines on another level. If these vaccines are designed to create immunogenic response in the body only to those types of HPV (6, 11, 16 and 18) which are sexually transmitted, and thought to be the cause of anogenital cancers, out of all the 100-120 types of HPV, then why is there any push to mass-vaccinate 11 and 12-year-old males and females? The problem is not a pathological one at all, but rather a moral one...so how is a medical response to fix the moral problem?

Feb 5th 2013 new

(Quote) Peter-933860 said:Regarding this article in question: I don't have the time or interest right now to read all I need ab...
(Quote) Peter-933860 said:Regarding this article in question: I don't have the time or interest right now to read all I need about the authors and their work, nor the paper itself. I merely had to reply to Chelsea backing up her statement about how the dangerous nature of this vaccine makes simple monetary gain the only valid reason for someone to recommend it, with this abstract only.
--hide--

Peter, again, I did not claim that monetary gain was the only valid reason to recommend or market Gardasil or Cervarix.

Here is what I wrote:

"Anyway, the only thing that I could imagine would be the reason to vaccinate someone with such a dangerous substance is for money."

There is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence, and even 772 cases that I came across in the VAERS database of serious adverse events in conjunction with the application of the HPV vaccines evincing, that these vaccines can be dangerous.

On a philosophical level, the HPV vaccines are very dangerous, since one cannot know to a certitude the safety of the vaccine due to lacking of credible reporting from biased sources.

If you did not know for certain whether your son or daughter would be the one to have a serious adverse event upon receiving the vaccine, would you still line him or her up to receive it? Even if it is only 100 children out of every 1,000,000 (1 in 10,000) vaccinated, is it fair to gamble with a child in such a fashion?

Feb 5th 2013 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: Peter, again, I did not claim that monetary gain was the only valid reason to recommen...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:

Peter, again, I did not claim that monetary gain was the only valid reason to recommend or market Gardasil or Cervarix.

Here is what I wrote:

"Anyway, the only thing that I could imagine would be the reason to vaccinate someone with such a dangerous substance is for money."

There is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence, and even 772 cases that I came across in the VAERS database of serious adverse events in conjunction with the application of the HPV vaccines evincing, that these vaccines can be dangerous.

On a philosophical level, the HPV vaccines are very dangerous, since one cannot know to a certitude the safety of the vaccine due to lacking of credible reporting from biased sources.

If you did not know for certain whether your son or daughter would be the one to have a serious adverse event upon receiving the vaccine, would you still line him or her up to receive it? Even if it is only 100 children out of every 1,000,000 (1 in 10,000) vaccinated, is it fair to gamble with a child in such a fashion?

--hide--


"lacking of credible reporting from biased sources" is supposed to be "lacking of credible reporting from UNbiased sources."

Feb 5th 2013 new

My doctor suggested that my daughter get the vaccine. He didn't mention anything about sexually transmitted diseases. He simply said it was to prevent cervical cancer but that the girl had to be around 12 to 15 get it. At the time, about 7 or 8 years ago, they were giving it to girls only. I told him that was fine so she went through the series of vaccines. She had no after-effects at all.

My daughter is now married and had a perfectly healthy baby boy, Jacob Matthew, on Christmas Day. I love him so much.

Feb 6th 2013 new

i'd be interested in your impressions of the claims in the UBC paper (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ). All I have seen is the abstract, which raises some serious questions. Whether they back them up, I don't know...

The article you refer to is a an example of a meta analysis. It means they went back and examined/analyzed other peoples data to look to see if the studies were done correctly and whether there was sufficient statistical power to make a given conclusion. The publication is in a minor journal. Very minor. Its major flaw is that it overlooks many other high impact manuscripts. For instance: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

There is no doubt in my mind that the vaccine is effective in preventing Herpes transmission/infection. What is remarkable is this is the first human therapeutic that can actually prevent cancer. Pretty amazing.

There are approximately 30,000 women in the USA at this very moment that will get cervical cancer in their lifetime as a consequence of their Herpes Infection. Moral implications aside, if a vaccine had been available to them, this cancer would have been prevented.

Certain viruses function by integrating viral DNA into our DNA (genomes). This integration always carries a risk of mutation and therfore cancer. Many many more types of cancers originate from viral infections. Not all of them are sexually transmitted. Many of these viruses have still not been well studied, or even identified. Future vaccines will likely reduce the incidence of other cancer types.

Feb 6th 2013 new

(Quote) Cathy-564420 said: www.youtube.com thought this was educational. I don't thi...
(Quote) Cathy-564420 said:

www.youtube.com

I thought this was educational. I don't think HPV vaccine is a free ticket to have sex, but to prevent silent cervical cancers in the future as the numbers are hugh by the time people are 50. My daughters had them as it was recommended by their pediatrician whom they have gone to since they were born. Heck, if there is something there to prevent cancers, why not? It is just a safe and smart choice but everyone has to make up their own minds obviously.

--hide--

Its not uncommon for the young to get cervical warts caused by the Hepaloma viruis, which also causes herpes as well, and causes cancers if not treated. So you are are brave and sensible to vaccinate against future possibilities.

Feb 6th 2013 new

(Quote) Katherine-868943 said: I'm "copping out" on this one. My son's getting vaccines for everything, bu...
(Quote) Katherine-868943 said:

I'm "copping out" on this one. My son's getting vaccines for everything, but I don't tell him what they're for other than "to help your body know which microbes and viruses to fight off." I plan to have them administer Gardasil when he's older along with the rest of the "usual" vaccines for that age group. He likely won't even notice since they do many things as combined injections now.

I actually consider this protecting his future wife, because he's in the hospital a lot due to other things and sex isn't necessarily the only way things like viruses spread. I have had an MRSA infection (methycillin resistant staphyloccocus aureus) even though I don't work in healthcare, either from gym or from working at an elementary. The fact my son hasn't had to suffer through chicken pox is amazing to me, my brother and sister and I all had that when we were about his age because there was no vaccine.

Ultimately, this is up to you. There is a degree of responsibility you take as a parent which may not always involve your child. For instance, I didn't know until I was telling my mother about beginning prepayments for my funeral plan that she'd taken out a life insurance policy on me when I was small because we had the possibility of traveling in some dangerous areas; great for me now, because she kept it active all these years and I thought I had no insurance, but she never felt the need to tell me about it because I was a child and it just would have been confusing. She had almost forgotten about it too, as it had become a monthly bill like car insurance that she just paid and went on with.

--hide--

Some people have a naturally strong immune system, the majority of ue have to have our immune systems trained by either the disease or vaccination. And a small percentage of us have very weak immune systems, like me. My doctor change a medication that didnt need to be changed he just liked it better. Unfortunately it gave my neutropaenia and destroyed my immune system. At least he appologised after I was in Isolation for a month.

And we always say in the Medical profession a vaccination a day keeps death away.

Posts 51 - 60 of 166