http://www.mdnews.com/news/2013_07/national_julyaug13-hpv-a-complicated-vaccine.aspx
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19690307
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm#tab7
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6229a4.htm?s_cid=mm6229a4_e
However, the reader might want to read the comments below the article and in subsequent articles on this subject for entertainment value. Especially interesting are the mass murderer charges against me for challenging the idea of bullying parents into vaccinating children, even when based on available statistics from governmental sources and on professional expert opinion of those familiar with the vaccine.
I am not against the vaccination; I am against the pretense that death almost certainly awaits those who are not vaccinated and the hysteria used to push this invasion of female bodies as early as 9 years old: the probability of death from cervical cancer due to the HPV STD is 0.00002. (two thousandths of a percent). I support the libertarian view that Parent's Choice prevails in this matter, and that bullying is anti-liberty and a sorry spectacle for the Left which indulges in it. There definitely are deaths due to cervical cancer; it requires having the HPV STD, and that STD is widely distributed in the population. Yet the probability of death is low due to the HPV STD slowly disappearing in the vast majority of HPV infections, and the fact that roughly 90% of the strains of HPVf are not even cancer related. The deaths due to cervical cancer are a concern to be considered, yet the probability of that is less than death by meteorite, as is shown in the comments (and ignored by the vaccine hysterics).
Some of the counterclaims of the vaccine pushers are valid; some are not, and charges are hysterically voiced, or in some cases, existing data and issues are silently ignored, such as vaccine recall hazards, actual probability of death, the unknowability of actual adverse affect rates as delineated in the professional paper cited, etc].
Original Article:
********
Called all sorts of names from science deniers to mass murderers by those who push vaccines on preadolescent girls, the parents who choose not to vaccinate their children are now somewhat vindicated in the skepticism of the medical establishment and their pit bulls on the Left. The research and development leader of the team that developed the Gardasil and cervarix vaccines, Dr Diane Harper, has had a conscience attack, and has come clean and at a national convention, no less: "4th International Public Conference on Vaccination, which took place in Reston, Virginia on Oct. 2nd through 4th, 2009".
"Dr. Harper explained in her presentation that the cervical cancer risk in the U.S. is already extremely low, and that vaccinations are unlikely to have any effect upon the rate of cervical cancer in the United States. In fact, 70% of all H.P.V. infections resolve themselves without treatment in a year, and the number rises to well over 90% in two years. Harper also mentioned the safety angle.
"All trials of the vaccines were done on children aged 15 and above, despite them currently being marketed for 9-year-olds. So far, 15,037 girls have reported adverse side effects from Gardasil alone to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (V.A.E.R.S.), and this number only reflects parents who underwent the hurdles required for reporting adverse reactions.
"At the time of writing, 44 girls are officially known to have died from these vaccines. The reported side effects include Guillian Barré Syndrome (paralysis lasting for years, or permanently — sometimes eventually causing suffocation), lupus, seizures, blood clots, and brain inflammation. Parents are usually not made aware of these risks.
"Dr. Harper, the vaccine developer, claimed that she was speaking out, so that she might finally be able to sleep at night.
“About eight in every ten women who have been sexually active will have H.P.V. at some stage of their life. Normally there are no symptoms, and in 98 per cent of cases it clears itself. But in those cases where it doesn’t, and isn’t treated, it can lead to pre-cancerous cells which may develop into cervical cancer.” – Dr. Diane Harper"One must understand how the establishment’s word games are played to truly understand the meaning of the above quote, and one needs to understand its unique version of “science”.
"When they report that untreated cases “can” lead to something that “may” lead to cervical cancer, it really means that the relationship is merely a hypothetical conjecture that is profitable if people actually believe it. In other words, there is no demonstrated relationship between the condition being vaccinated for and the rare cancers that the vaccine might prevent, but it is marketed to do that nonetheless.
There are two insidious elements at play in the vaccination business. First, of course, is corporate profit and the need to self-perpetuate the researchers' employment. And second is the scientism of the Left: science is the Final Answer; if you are a science denier, you are denying the very basis for Leftism: Scientism. Such denialism is an attack on the Source of All Truth for the AtheoLeft, and it is a moral affront. Such a moral indignity cannot be allowed, and the ridicule and personal attacks become vicious proportionally to the desperation to preserve the sanctity of Science.
Further, anything which can be used to promote promiscuity seems to be something to promote (in the name of making it SAFE, of course); the messiahs can save the promiscuous from being the Victims of their own potential culpability. It's the same thing as being an abstinence-denier: condoms absolutely must be provided so that promiscuity is SAFE and therefore not a moral issue - and therefore sex is just a fun thing which kids do. Here are some condoms: have at it, kids.
In the past few years, science has taken a severe hit to its credibility. Surveys have shown that many published papers actually are neither accurate or valid. These are peer-reviewed papers, and are published without serious vetting, possibly because the journals need fodder for publication, possibly because scientists are valued on the weight in lbs of their publications, not on the validity or accuracy.
"In fact, there is no actual evidence that the vaccine can prevent any cancer. From the manufacturers own admissions, the vaccine only works on 4 strains out of 40 for a specific venereal disease that dies on its own in a relatively short period, so the chance of it actually helping an individual is about about the same as the chance of him being struck by a meteorite.
"Why do nine-year-old girls need vaccinations for extremely rare and symptom-less venereal diseases that the immune system usually kills anyway?"
Let's repeat that: "...the chance of it actually helping an individual is about about the same as the chance of him being struck by a meteorite".
5 comments:
Do you actually have a quote from Dr. Harper that backs your claim? You have ONE quote from her and all it says is that HPV can develop into cancer.
There have been 26 MILLION doses administered, and ~15000 adverse reactions. That's an adverse reaction rate of 0.05%.
As of 1 September 2009, there have been 44 U.S. reports of death among females who have received the vaccine.
There is no proven causal link between the vaccine and serious adverse effects; all reports are related by time only. That is, they are only related because the effect happened some time after the vaccination. None of the 27 confirmed deaths of women and girls who had taken the vaccine were linked to the vaccine.
Overall about 70% of cervical cancers will be prevented by this vaccine.
Your article quote mines, presents only selective statistics and then smears the scientific process and moralizes to promote this ignorance.
Vaccines save lives. Ignorant propaganda like this costs lives. That's why you are called names like science denier and murderer. Your biased, ignorant propaganda KILLS PEOPLE.
As for your moralizing;
"The presence of seat belts in cars doesn't cause people to drive less safely. The presence of a vaccine in a person's body doesn't cause them to engage in risk-taking behavior they would not otherwise engage in." ~ Dr. Christine Peterson
Science isn't an answer .. it's a method. God you are ignorant.
Dr Harper's wikipedia page clearly addresses her change of mind, and refers to another study, that of Barbara Slade. It goes on:
"Although, in 2008, she stated that Gardasil "is a good vaccine and...is generally safe,"[5] in recent years[when?] Harper has questioned the safety of Gardasil, and has appeared at conferences held by the National Vaccine Information Center, and has also appeared in The Greater Good.[6] As evidence that the vaccine may be unsafe, she points to research by Barbara Slade,[7] stating,
Gardasil has been associated with at least as many serious adverse events as there are deaths from cervical cancer developing each year. Indeed, the risks of vaccination are underreported in Slade's article, as they are based on a denominator of doses distributed from Merck's warehouse. Up to a third of those doses may be in refrigerators waiting to be dispensed as the autumn onslaught of vaccine messages is sent home to parents the first day of school. Should the denominator in Dr. Slade's work be adjusted to account for this, and then divided by three for the number of women who would receive all three doses, the incidence rate of serious adverse events increases up to five fold.[8]
In an interview[when?] with the Huffington Post, Harper stated that pap smears alone prevent more cancer than vaccines alone.[3] She has also argued that HPV vaccination may be unnecessary because "Ninety-five percent of women who are infected with HPV never, ever get cervical cancer."[9] Harper has stated that she advocates personal choice and an individualized approach to HPV vaccination, saying that she provides "a balanced picture to my patients and their families and am not at all upset if they refuse the vaccine, especially at younger ages."[10] Harper has also stated that "more than 70 healthy young girls have died from a neurological reaction that occurred soon after getting Gardasil."[11]"
Wikipedia is obviously not the final source on any matter, but it does contain copious sources which anyone can pursue if interested.
The Slade paper concluded that at least two of the maleffects of Gardasil fall outside of the guidelines for safe vaccinations. She also concluded that the ability to track and verify vaccine related serious side effects is highly compromised for a variety of reasons which she listed.
Further, a foray into the CDC website on Gardasil reveals that no data has been added since 2008, coincidentally the same year that Dr Harper apparently changed her mind.
Finally, to answer the charge made by the commenter just above: Yes, science is NOT an answer, it is a method which never produces actual truth, it produces only temporary and contingent factoids. Dr Harper has considered the current evidence, and made her conclusion.
This vaccine will not save a life of any person without the STD involved; being an STD, promiscuity is fully anticipated in the transmission scenarios, and the scenarios are quite high estimates:
<
"In the United States, it is estimated that 10% of the population has an active HPV infection, 4% has an infection that has caused cytological abnormalities, and an additional 1% has an infection causing genital warts.[148]
Estimates of HPV prevalence vary from 14% to more than 90%.[149] One reason for the difference is that some studies report women who currently have a detectable infection, while other studies report women who have ever had a detectable infection.[150][151] Another cause of discrepancy is the difference in strains that were tested for."
Keep in mind that there are "over 100 types" of HPVs. Only about a dozen are involved with cancer, and even then in a small percentage.
Also,
"More than 30 to 40 types of HPV are typically transmitted through sexual contact and infect the anogenital region. Some sexually transmitted HPV types may cause genital warts. Persistent infection with "high-risk" HPV types—different from the ones that cause skin warts—may progress to precancerous lesions and invasive cancer.[4] HPV infection is a cause of nearly all cases of cervical cancer.[5] However, most infections with these types do not cause disease."
[emphasis added].
While it is absolutely valid to say that abstinence and monogamy, if actually practiced as part of personal responsibility in sexual activity, would eliminate the cervical cancers caused by the HPV STD, that approach to these cancers is never broached as a possible solution - even though the side effects of the vaccinations would be eliminated along with the STD-carried cancer itself.
To suggest such personal restraint is anathema in today's culture; it interferes with feminism, for one thing, and it smacks of "traditional values" for another. So even though it is a win-win for those who adopt the practice, the culture in general opposes it.
It is apparently too difficult for modern humans to keep their genitalia to themselves until they mate permanently. And mating permanently is not in the cards when single mothers can get extra governmental subsidy benefits, which are lost if the live-in male-of-the-moment becomes an actual husband. (this is occuring in more than one place in my own family tree, and yes, it is fraud, and yes, it is culturally and governmentally driven from the amoral Left).
Your own emphasis states that HPV is the cause of nearly all cervical cancers.
The National Cancer Institute says, "Studies have shown that both Gardasil and Cervarix prevent nearly 100 percent of the precancerous cervical cell changes caused by the types of HPV targeted by the vaccine for up to 4 years after vaccination among women who were not infected at the time of vaccination."[31]
The FDA and the CDC said that with millions of vaccinations "by chance alone some serious adverse effects and deaths" will occur in the time period following vaccination, but have nothing to do with the vaccine.[43] More than 20 women who received the Gardasil vaccine have died, but these deaths have not been causally connected to the shot.[43] Where information has been available, the cause of death was explained by other factors.[44][45] Likewise, a small number of cases of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) have been reported following vaccination with Gardasil, though there is no evidence linking GBS to the vaccine.[11][39][46] It is unknown why a person contracts GBS, or what initiates the disease.[47]
Your " Harper has also stated that "more than 70 healthy young girls have died from a neurological reaction that occurred soon after getting Gardasil."" quote is based from a womans magazine. (http://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/hpv-vaccine-facts)
I'll go with the FDA/CDC quotes thanks. I agree it is good to look at the actual Wiki sources.
I did not promote either monogamy nor abstinence, but that the presence of the vaccine would not promote more promiscuous behavior.
What you are effectively advocating is a death sentence for promiscuous behavior. ("About eight in every ten women who have been sexually active will have H.P.V. at some stage of their life. ") This seems reasonable, from your perch of absolute morality? 8/10 women? Fuck them right. Sluts. No pun intended.
Oh, another shot at science. "produces only temporary and contingent factoids. " Yes such factoids as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_scientific_discoveries.
Such as helping us understand reality, flying people to the moon, helping produce food to feed ourselves, and yes, helping to eradicate disease. You are old Stan (at least 50+) remember when polio was around. See anyone with polio today? How about mumps? Rubella? Smallpox? And maybe in ten+ years we could add cervical cancer to that list.
It seems a bit ridiculous to consider such gains "temporary factoids.". A pathetic and insulting Poisoning the Well.
Sorry you have a bunch of sluts in your family. I'm sure its all the Lefts fault though. But hey, at least if you get your way there is a MUCH higher chance they'll die if their HPV develops into cervical cancer. Right? That IS what you are fighting for here.
Factisistismism,
I have replied in an article posted tonight.
Post a Comment