61 replies to this topic

[Shoe]

Ant-vaccination propagandists are usually evil liars. I don't think this is an exception.

Edited by Shoe, 20 December 2007 - 10:47 AM.

[caston]

I had a look at http://www.newstarget.com/

it does have some interesting looking articles but I didn't dig to deeply as i'm quite tired from work right now.

But really if you take a protein that the virus use's to build it's capsid and introduce it (without the virus DNA) into a patient in the form of a vaccine
how is that going to increase the likelyhood of cancer?

Edited by caston, 20 December 2007 - 02:23 PM.

[missminni]

Mike Adams shares some of the data from the FDA and JAMA on the findings that HPV vaccine does not prevent cervical cancer and in some women, causes cancer.

This guy is great. I never knew about him before. I've always thought most vaccines were hype.
For people and especially animals. What a racket. I think there are a lot of diagnostics that are hype too, and in fact are probably
causing more problems than they solve. Pap smears for sure. Aside from the fact that they are only correct 50% of the time,
(about the same as flipping a coin)
they are so damn irritating to the cervix that I would be willing to bet there is a higher incidence of cervical cancer among
women who have regular pap smears than those who don't. Just as there is in fact a higher incidence of breast cancer among
women who have regular mammagrams. I've heard all sorts of excuses like, that's because the woman who don't have
mammagrams don't know they have cancer - what? and go undetected. huh? Diagnostics and pharmaceuticals are big
business and their bottom line is money. How can they be trusted? IMO They can't. Thank you Mike Adams.

[Shoe]

Well, a quick googling gave this: http://www.thegoodhu...he-hpv-vaccine/

Read the second comment from the top. So far it seems like my initial suspicion was true.

[missminni]

Well, a quick googling gave this: http://www.thegoodhu...he-hpv-vaccine/

Read the second comment from the top. So far it seems like my initial suspicion was true.

I read it and it didn't impress me at all. In fact, IMO it further supported what Adams said by trying to mitigate it.

[marcus_h]

What a tremendously unimpressive 'report'. There are holes in the logic you can drive a truck through.

It's depressing that we still have these anti-vaccine cranks crawling out of the woodwork.

[eternaltraveler]

not this crap again.

*sigh*

[missminni]

marcus h
A forum often welcomes character assasination rather than sharing what you find wrong about a message.

I agree

Edited by missminni, 30 December 2007 - 07:35 PM.

[krillin]

A forum often welcomes character assasination rather than sharing what you find wrong about a message. This forum has been used as a means for forming its governing staff and one can see that it appears that a troll like mentality has taken over the organization, seeking personal attention by specific individuals the prime mission now. I see such a member of the staff has voiced a completely worthless and counter-productive post here. Rather than remove your ad hominem only post, a "Director" adds to the flaming. You can use the above posts or search for others to research this issue further and offer some intellligence rather than flaming.

Why do you waste your time here? 185 posts of nothing but whiny drivel. You're assassinating your own character by revealing yourself as a fever swamp loony. We don't treat Holocaust deniers or creationists politely, so why do you think you deserve special treatment?

[Aegist]

Not this crap again is not an ad hominen flaming, it is an expression of exasperation over a topic previously covered in detail once again rearing itself.

I have to admit that I haven't even bothered watching the video, but I know enough about biology to know that the basic premise is absurd. Do the anti-vaccine people here actually know how vaccines work?

[marcus_h]

Sorry about the harsh comments guys. I really agree with Mike Adams, the "Health Ranger", but I'm in the pay of Big Pharma.

[missminni]

I don't understand why there is resentment about this issue being discussed.
If it's been discussed before, so what. Maybe it's worthy of being re-examined. Why such disgust over it?
Should vaccines be immune from criticism?

[eternaltraveler]

Nothing should be immune from criticism. But if you expect it to be taken seriously there should be scientific data shown to back up the opinion, not propaganda videos.

[missminni]

Nothing should be immune from criticism. But if you expect it to be taken seriously there should be scientific data shown to back up the opinion, not propaganda videos.

There were reports to back it up.

ETA~I remember when vets thought I was irresponsible for thinking my dogs were being
over-vaccinated when in fact it is one of the
factors along with the carcinogenic dog foods vets recommend, that increased arthritis and cancer in pets.
After many years of disputing this claim, vets now are admitting it's not necessary to give vaccines on a yearly basis.
Titre's tests show that the immunity for the annual vacccines they were givng dogs actually last for 7 years.
That's 6 years of unnecessary vaccines at considerable cost to pet owners and considerable harm to their pets.
I would rather err on the side of caution when it comes to getting any kind of vaccine. It appears that
the medical profession would prefer to err on the side of profit. IMHO

Edited by missminni, 31 December 2007 - 06:21 PM.

[krillin]

There were reports to back it up.

Your side has yet to provide ONE peer reviewed reference, and the arguments are quite pathetic.

HPV vaccine found to have no results for pre-existing infection

That's why you get it when you're young.

Gardasils’ effectiveness only lasts for 5 years

That's not what the evidence says.

Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Nov;107(2 Suppl):S27-30.
Long-term efficacy of human papillomavirus vaccination.
Ault KA.
Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Emory University School of Medicine, 69 Jesse Hill Drive, Atlanta, GA 30064, USA. kevin.ault@emory.edu

Achieving long-term protection following vaccination is crucial to ensuring that high levels of immunity are maintained within a population while eliminating the need to introduce booster vaccinations. Based on an analysis of the hepatitis B virus vaccine, several factors have been shown to contribute to long-term protection, namely: specific lymphoproliferation, the in vivo humoral response, and immune memory. To ensure protection against persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and the subsequent development of cervical lesions, an effective HPV vaccine must be able to induce strong humoral immune responses. Mathematical modeling analyses based on a three-dose regimen of HPV type 16 prophylactic vaccine indicated that 99% of 16- to 23-year-old women would have almost life-long detectable anti-HPV-16 levels. Available data on the quadrivalent HPV vaccine demonstrated that long-term immune memory was induced, with anti-HPV geometric mean titers after 5 years remaining at or above those observed with natural infection. Vaccination also resulted in a substantial reduction in the combined incidence of HPV-6/11/16/18 related persistent infection or disease, and there were no cases of precancerous cervical dysplasia compared with six cases in women receiving placebo. Similarly the bivalent HPV vaccine has been shown to induce long-term immunity with >98% seropositivity maintained after 4.5 years of follow-up and geometric mean titres at this time point remaining substantially higher than those noted with naturally acquired infection. Countrywide registration regarding population and health events in a stable population of approximately 25 million makes the Nordic countries an ideal setting for the evaluation of long-term cervical cancer control. Population-based long-term efficacy trials conducted in these countries aim to investigate the long-term efficacy of HPV vaccination with regard to invasive cervical cancer, and the results of these trials are awaited with interest.

PMID: 17938016

[infundibulum]

In Australia Gardasil was strongly endorsed by the government of the time, the Liberal Party, and given considerable marketing and funding support. A nationwide program of 100% government funded vaccinations then commenced throughout all schools. Some reports of adverse reactions made it in the news but nothing of significance and given there are always some individuals that may have an adverse reaction to any type of vaccine this was not surprising.

What was interesting was the ease with which Gardasil obtained TGA approval (the Australian equivalent of the FDA) and the strong political support it garnered without commensurate backing from the Australian scientific and medical community. I noticed this in passing. An article of note is this latest JAMA report:

http://louisville.ed.....7 Article.pdf

Whose conclusion states: "In women positive for HPV DNA, HPV-16/18 vaccination does not accelerate clearance of the virus and should not be used to treat prevalent infections."

The conclusion does not impact Gardasil's efficacy in reducing risk in non-infected women but it is an important distinction that may not have received sufficient media support, i.e. that Gardasil has no effect on women who already have contracted the virus.

[eternaltraveler]

In general I would not expect a vaccine to be particularly useful for those who have already been infected (with exceptions). Vaccines are preventative treatments.

I do agree that gardasil is expensive, and I'm libertarian, so i'm in favor of parents having a right to choose.

That said the parents of every young girl should get it for their daughters, and the primary push against gardasil in the US has been by the religious right because they like STDs as they are a natural consequence for what they view as "immoral" behavior.

[eternaltraveler]

If the girls are very young it wouldn't hurt to wait a few years as there are other hpv vaccines in the pipeline, and the competition is sure to drive prices down. However it is important that these vaccines be administered before they start having sex.

[missminni]

If the girls are very young it wouldn't hurt to wait a few years as there are other hpv vaccines in the pipeline, and the competition is sure to drive prices down. However it is important that these vaccines be administered before they start having sex.

Are you suggesting that such vaccinations be mandatory?

[Shepard]

Are you suggesting that such vaccinations be mandatory?

I'm libertarian, so i'm in favor of parents having a right to choose.

[krillin]

Krillin, you started off on the wrong foot and you are still limping. That study is apparently taking the results for a known vaccine for Hepatitus B and applying it to the HPV vaccine.

You have severe reading comprehension problems.

Available data on the quadrivalent HPV vaccine demonstrated that long-term immune memory was induced, with anti-HPV geometric mean titers after 5 years remaining at or above those observed with natural infection.

[eternaltraveler]

If the girls are very young it wouldn't hurt to wait a few years as there are other hpv vaccines in the pipeline, and the competition is sure to drive prices down. However it is important that these vaccines be administered before they start having sex.

Are you suggesting that such vaccinations be mandatory?

I do agree that gardasil is expensive, and I'm libertarian, so i'm in favor of parents having a right to choose.

The real question is "should parents be allowed to endanger their children and other children as they themselves become vectors of disease?"

As a libertarian it's a tough question for me. I mean, should I be allowed to fire my gun randomly into the night? The chance of hitting someone might be rather low, and so am I therefore only held accountable when I actually do hit someone? The cost of the vaccine in this case would be the cost of sending a cop to stop me from doing that, fine me and give me some petty jail time. Others therefore might not do the same thing knowing there are consequence even if they don't actually hit someone. Thats the analogy. Not sure if I buy it myself.

What's funny is the tremendous success of vaccines is the reason anti-vaccine kooks are gaining so much headway in recent years. We no longer have diseases like smallpox, which killed 300-500 hundred million people in the 20th century. Other diseases are kept at a very low level due to ever present vaccination (see measles, mumps, rubella). Through vaccines we hold these terrible scourges of mankind at bay. The monster is in the closet. Because they are held at bay, they are out of sight and mind and unscrupulous unscientific reports gain headway. And people buy into them, and some of their kids die from unheard of diseases like whooping cough. But most don't because they are protected by all the vaccinated children around them. If the anti-vaccine propagandists gain enough headway the balance will shift, and a lot more people will get sick.

Anyway, in conclusion I'm not sure if such hpv vaccines should be mandatory, though leaning toward "no". Though I do stand by my opinion that parents that opt not to get these vaccines for their children are not being good parents.

I've just thought of another reason for the flynn effect.

[missminni]

If the girls are very young it wouldn't hurt to wait a few years as there are other hpv vaccines in the pipeline, and the competition is sure to drive prices down. However it is important that these vaccines be administered before they start having sex.

Are you suggesting that such vaccinations be mandatory?

I do agree that gardasil is expensive, and I'm libertarian, so i'm in favor of parents having a right to choose.

The real question is "should parents be allowed to endanger their children and other children as they themselves become vectors of disease?"

As a libertarian it's a tough question for me. I mean, should I be allowed to fire my gun randomly into the night? The chance of hitting someone might be rather low, and so am I therefore only held accountable when I actually do hit someone? The cost of the vaccine in this case would be the cost of sending a cop to stop me from doing that, fine me and give me some petty jail time. Others therefore might not do the same thing knowing there are consequence even if they don't actually hit someone. Thats the analogy. Not sure if I buy it myself.

What's funny is the tremendous success of vaccines is the reason anti-vaccine kooks are gaining so much headway in recent years. We no longer have diseases like smallpox, which killed 300-500 hundred million people in the 20th century. Other diseases are kept at a very low level due to ever present vaccination (see measles, mumps, rubella). Through vaccines we hold these terrible scourges of mankind at bay. The monster is in the closet. Because they are held at bay, they are out of sight and mind and unscrupulous unscientific reports gain headway. And people buy into them, and some of their kids die from unheard of diseases like whooping cough. But most don't because they are protected by all the vaccinated children around them. If the anti-vaccine propagandists gain enough headway the balance will shift, and a lot more people will get sick.

Anyway, in conclusion I'm not sure if such hpv vaccines should be mandatory, though leaning toward "no". Though I do stand by my opinion that parents that opt not to get these vaccines for their children are not being good parents.

I've just thought of another reason for the flynn effect.

Your use of the word kook is offensive to me and I am sure others who disagree with your pov.
Vaccines have a place, just not the throne you place them on.

Edited by missminni, 01 January 2008 - 05:10 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

I by no means was attempting to personally insult you. If you identify yourself with the group I described I urge you to reexamine the data.

Vaccines have saved more than a billion lives. Nothing has come close to that kind of success since Pasteur.

[eternaltraveler]

It is important to keep in mind that vaccine preventable (and some now eradicated) diseases claimed more lives per year than the holocaust.

So do please forgive me if I have little tolerance for those who would revisit such a beast on humanity.

[missminni]

I by no means was attempting to personally insult you. If you identify yourself with the group I described I urge you to reexamine the data.

Vaccines have saved more than a billion lives. Nothing has come close to that kind of success since Pasteur.

I don't identify with any group. I am not discrediting the good that vaccines have done.
I just think too much of a good thing can be bad, and with vaccinations that
has often been the case.
As far as insisting that one give their female child a vaccination that's supposed to prevent cervicalcancer, without really knowing what long term side effects it may have....
I wouldn't put that in the category of a polio or smallpox vaccine.
It's not like cervical cancer is contagious.
People should have options on how to deal with their health without the health nazis calling them "kooks" or telling them
they are irresponsible parents for not wanting to vaccinate. I'm tired of having the health industry's idea of healthcare forced on me through legislation
limiting what's available to me or telling me what I must do to be considered responsible or intelligent.
I fear the result of this new generation of over medicated children that have been the victims
of a greedy pharmaceutical lobby that has become very much
a religion of healthcare in this country IMHO.

Edited by missminni, 01 January 2008 - 06:46 PM.