(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.