When It Comes To Vaccines and True Belief

Do no harm, unless the narrative requires it.

945-million-yen lawsuit filed over cervical cancer vaccines

Sixty-three young women are seeking a combined 945 million yen ($9 million) in compensation in the first mass lawsuit concerning side effects from cervical cancer vaccines.

The women are suing the central government and pharmaceutical companies GlaxoSmithKline Plc and MSD KK.

The lawsuits were filed July 27 in the district courts at Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya and Fukuoka. The plaintiffs are aged between 15 and 22.

The women argue they have suffered health problems, such as pain in various parts of their bodies, difficulty in walking and also impaired eyesight, as a result of taking the vaccines that were meant to prevent cervical cancer.

They were mostly in junior or senior high school when they took the vaccines between July 2010 and July 2013.

The vaccines under question are GSK's Cervarix, which was approved for domestic use in 2009, and MSD's Gardasil, which was approved in 2011.

The plaintiffs argue that reports had been filed overseas where the two vaccines were in use before Japan about various side effects, including cases of death and serious illness.

The women claim the central government bears responsibility for approving the vaccines and recommending their use without adequately looking into safety concerns despite knowing about the possible dangers.

The lawsuit argues that a legal causal relationship exists because common symptoms appeared among the plaintiffs after taking the vaccines.

According to officials at the health ministry, about 3.4 million women have taken the vaccines. As of the end of April, some 2,900 reports had been submitted by medical facilities and the pharmaceutical companies that indicated possible side effects. Of those cases, 1,600 were considered serious.

"We would like to refrain from commenting," said a health ministry official with regard to the lawsuit. "We believe it is important to provide support while being there for those who are suffering."

For social engineers, humans are merely statistics. The SJWs total up certain stats, valid or not, moral or not, beneficial or not, and then pass laws requiring that their resulting opinions be codified. Or at least engage in massive shaming campaigns blaming skeptics for immorality in their noncompliance with SJW theory. All in the pursuit of anti-liberty run amok, along with anti-free-speech - in fact anti-everything except for full control of the stupid bitter-clingers, fly-overs and red state, red neck, trailer trash that is everyone not bicoastal. In the case of vaccines, risking a few lives here and there is acceptable, just as in the case of importing Muslims, accepting a few explosions, rapes and mass killings can "be absorbed" (as Obama estimated).

CDC, Computer Modeling and Vaccines

"Science" done by Excel Spreadsheets. Here's the takeaway quote:

"Accuracy for the sake of accuracy is merely interesting," he said. "And interesting is not good enough."

Nope. Accuracy is not the point, not the target. So... what is?

CDC's top modeler makes estimates and courts controversy

"ATLANTA (AP) — Last fall, when Martin Meltzer calculated that 1.4 million people might contract Ebola in West Africa, the world paid attention.

This was, he said, a worst-case scenario. But Meltzer is the most famous disease modeler for the nation's pre-eminent public health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. His estimate was promoted at high-level international meetings. It rallied nations to step up their efforts to fight the disease.

But the estimate proved to be off.

Way, way off.

Like, 65 times worse than what ended up happening.

Some were not surprised. Meltzer has a lot of critics who say he and his CDC colleagues have a habit of willfully ignoring the complexities of disease outbreaks, resulting in estimates that over-dramatize how bad an outbreak could get — estimates that may be skewed by politics. They say Meltzer and company also overestimate how much vaccine is needed and how beneficial it has been.

Overblown estimates can result in unnecessary government spending, they say, and may further erode trust in an agency that recently has seen its sterling reputation decline.

"Once we cry wolf, and our dire predictions turn out not to be the case, people lose confidence in public health," said Aaron King, a University of Michigan researcher who in a recent journal article took Meltzer and others to task for making what he called avoidable mistakes.

Meltzer, 56, is unbowed. "I am not sorry," he said.

He dismisses his peers' more complicated calculations as out of touch with political necessities, telling a story about President Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s. Johnson was listening to an economist talk about the uncertainty in his forecast and the reason a range of estimates made more sense than one specific figure. Johnson was unconvinced.

"Ranges are for cattle," Johnson said, according to legend. "Give me a number."

What Meltzer does is not particularly glamorous. He and others use mathematical calculations to try to provide a more precise picture of a certain situation, or to predict how the situation will change. They write equations on chalkboards, have small meetings to debate which data to use, and sit at computers. Meltzer spends a lot of time with Excel spreadsheets.

But modelers have become critical in the world of infectious diseases."

Much more at the LINK.

There is actually no possible hypothesis which can encompass the variables involved - human responses such as panic-spreading, political obtuseness, medical solution generation. So any hypothesis will be falsified in the analysis of the actual events. This then, is not science. This is statistical jerry-rigging purely for first world media and political consumption by those with the means to provide help. It's a political lever to nudge taxpayers from their dollars.

More Leftist Racism

CDC Should Admit Coverup of Vaccine-Autism Link: Top Doctor

"Last summer, Dr. William Thompson, a senior epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control, admitted that he had helped the CDC hide data from a study which linked the MMR vaccine to autism. Holistic doctor David Brownstein tells Newsmax Health the CDC is still not owning up to Dr. Thompson's charges that they found data that links the vaccine to a spike in autism. "The CDC is still not coming clean," Dr. Brownstein says. "They want to keep it quiet, but it's time the cover-up ended."
Some experts believe that the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR) caused an increase in autism, but the idea has been roundly discredited by government officials.

Officially, the 2004 CDC study Dr. Thompson helped conduct found no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. In addition, the study, which was published in the journal Pediatrics, stated that no particular racial group was more at risk than others.

But Dr. Thompson said the actual data painted quite a different picture. He confessed that he and other CDC scientists intentionally omitted African-American children from the study, and changed data in order to show no link between vaccines and autism.

In fact, the original data found that giving a child the vaccine before the age of 36 months increased the risk of autism by 69 percent, and giving it to an African-American child increased the risk of autism by 240 percent!

Since Dr. Thompson's admission, nothing has been done, says Dr. Brownstein, author of the newsletter Natural Way to Health. "It's been almost a year and nothing has happened. Zip. Zero. No testimony. No hearing. No nothing."

Earlier this year, the Obama administration gave Thompson whistleblower status, granting him immunity. Hearings have been promised, but none have taken place. Dr. Brownstein urges Congressman Jason Chaffetz to move forward with plans to hold hearings on the CDC cover-up, and to issue a subpoena to Dr. Thompson. "The CDC will not let him speak out without a subpoena," he says.

As for Thompson, although he believes in the importance of vaccines, he regrets going along with omitting crucial information that showed a link between the vaccine and autism. "I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics," he said in a statement. "The omitted data suggested that African-American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed."
[emphasis added]

The Left likes to say, "government is just the things we choose to do together". Riiight. This is specific discrimination against black children, specifically caused and maintained by the Leftist US government. These children are sacrificial pawns in the narrative that ALL children must be vaccinated and ALL vaccines are safe; hysteria-mongering is the weapon: measles will KILL CHILDREN (at least a few, and only 'maybe', and of course, only those who made it through the abortion killing juggernaut and thus are not already dead.)

Vox Day produced this data from CDC (yeah I know; is it corrupted, too? But it's interesting anyway):

Since there is so much ridiculous ignorance being blathered about, particularly on the pro-vaccine side, I thought it would make sense to remind everyone of the actual facts of the matter. First of all, vaccines have had even less impact with regards to measles than I'd shown yesterday, because 1912-1916 was not the peak of the pre-vaccination era. From the CDC:

1900-1909: 8377 deaths per year (average) associated with measles.
1920-1929: 6659 deaths per year (average) associated with measles.
1953-1962: 444 deaths per year (average) associated with measles.
1959-1962: 404 deaths per year (average) associated with measles.

To be more precise, lets look at the actual annual deaths recorded in the years leading up to the introduction of the vaccine. Remember that the measles vaccine was introduced in 1963.

1950: 468
1951: 683
1952: 618
1953: 462
1954: 518
1955: 345
1956: 530
1957: 389
1958: 552
1959: 385
1960: 380
1961: 434
1962: 408

Obviously, the reduction of deaths from 8,377 to 408 is even better than the decline from 5,300 to 450 cited in the Oxford Journals study yesterday. That means that 95.1 percent of the decline in measles mortality had NOTHING to do with vaccination. It could not have. The vaccine had not yet been introduced.

There's more at the LINK: go there if you're interested. In another post, Vox says this:

383,542: Automobile deaths in last 10 years
6,770: Bicycle deaths in last 10 years
0: Measles deaths in last 10 years

As it happens, since 2003, 108 more Americans have died from reactions to the measles vaccine than have died from measles. Vaccine apologists like to claim that anti-vaxxers "have blood on their hands" due to hypothetical deaths that could theoretically occur as a result of imagined transmissions of communicable diseases that haven't actually taken place, but the fact is that they have real blood from actual deaths on their own.

Here's another pro-vaxxer claim: what if one of those children were your own? Yeah. What if?

All this is confirmable at the CDC, as of the date of the articles. Now, maybe not so much...

Sharyl Atkisson On Vaccines

My opinion: Atkisson is the USA's only reporter. Period. She is the only one who adheres to the pursuit of facts without ideological corruption.

Now to vaccines:

Fact Check: Anne Schuchat’s Claim That Vaccines Can’t Cause Brain Damage

"At the hearing, Dr. Schuchat debunked Dr. Paul’s premise without qualifiers.

“Is there any scientific evidence that vaccines cause profound mental disorders?” Sen. Warren asked.

“No,” replied Dr. Schuchat."

This is the point where the Leftist media machine would halt; the narrative has been stated, authority asserted, full stop.

Not Atkisson:

"But is that accurate?

'Vaccines are extraordinarily safe,' says a medical doctor who has served as a government vaccine safety advisor on Institute of Medicine panels. But he says the risk of vaccine-induced brain disease is “not completely zero.” He asked not to be identified because vaccine safety is such an incendiary topic.

“It’s extremely rare but, yes, it happens,” said the safety expert. “We think it happens.”

Indeed, the DTP (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis) vaccine was phased out of use and replaced by today’s version, believed to be safer, after the Institute of Medicine concluded it rarely caused neurological damage and death.

So has all risk of brain injury from vaccines evaporated?

The government’s own archives show the idea of vaccines inducing brain inflammation—sometimes called acute encephalopathy or encephalitis–and permanent brain damage have long been accepted in the mainstream medical community. A small sampling of the evidence follows:

1. The CDC lists brain injuries such as “permanent brain damage” as possible vaccine side effects.

The CDC states that reports of brain injury after vaccination are so rare “experts cannot tell whether they are caused by the vaccine or not.” But it clearly acknowledges that a link is possible.

Specifically, CDC vaccine literature states that “long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness” and “permanent brain damage” are very rarely possible from DTaP, MMR and MMRV vaccines. Additionally, CDC literature states that “severe brain reactions” are very rarely possible from Varicella (chickenpox) vaccine.

2. The government compensates for some neurological complications of vaccination, including permanent brain injuries.

The concept of vaccine-induced brain damage is accepted in a special government program that compensates vaccine injury victims. In fact, there is such consensus that if a child’s post-vaccine brain injury meets certain conditions, financial compensation is automatically awarded without dispute.

According to the federal agency that administers compensation, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the presumed vaccine-brain injury link applies to an array of widely-used childhood vaccines containing tetanus toxoid (e.g., DTaP, DTP, DT, Td, or TT); whole cell pertussis bacteria, extracted or partial cell pertussis bacteria, or specific pertussis antigen(s) (e.g., DTP, DTaP, P, DTP-Hib); and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine or any of its components (e.g., MMR, MR, M, R).

From Oct. 1, 1988 to March 4, 2008, the government compensated 1,322 cases of encephalitis, encephalopathy and seizures after vaccination—all brain-related injuries.

3. The CDC acknowledges vaccine links to brain injury in its “who should not vaccinate” recommendations.

For example, CDC recommends “any child who suffered a brain or nervous system disease within 7 days after a dose of DTaP should not get another dose.”

For tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, CDC states those who had “a coma, or long or multiple seizures within seven days after a childhood dose of DTP or DTaP…should not get Tdap, unless a cause other than the vaccine was found [emphasis added].”

4. The Institute of Medicine lists an additional rare, causal link between vaccines and brain injury.

The Institute of Medicine states there is convincing scientific evidence strongly supporting a causal relationship between MMR vaccine and a brain illness called Measles Inclusion Body Encephalitis (MIBE). MIBE can, in very rare cases, affect people whose immune system is compromised.

'Seizures and altered level of consciousness are the most common initial manifestations,' say medical experts, 'typically followed by rapid clinical deterioration marked by worsening seizures, development of epilepsia partialis continua, deepening coma, and death in the majority of cases.'"

Finally, the overtly politicization of vaccination:

"Government and medical officials often express the desire to strictly control the flow of factual information regarding vaccines because they fear if the public hears information that makes them become wary of vaccines, vaccination rates would decline and preventable diseases would re-emerge in epidemic proportions.

A crisis of that sort threatened the nation’s vaccine program in the 1980′s when vaccine manufacturers began to pull out of the DPT vaccine market due to a spike in lawsuits over DPT vaccine brain damage. As a result, Congress created a special program that protects vaccine companies from civil product liability for injuries caused by federally recommended vaccines. Vaccine injury claims are required to go through a special vaccine court created in 1988, and damages to victims are funded by a fee charged to patients on each dose of vaccine."

In other words, it is worth the health and brains of a few children in order to keep measles "under control", and actual damage due to vaccine has a special blocking from normal recourse procedures.

I had measles. I'd rather have measles than brain damage. And I'd rather make that decision for my child, myself, based on the truth about the probabilities. It is a property of Leftist consequentialist totalitarian mentality that they should make the decision for everyone (and demean those who do make their own decisions). Not to mention placing legal blocks on normal recourse rights.

Please give Atkisson a hit at the link.

In a separate article, Atkisson writes this:

"Vaccines have saved untold millions of lives, and the vast majority of people who get them suffer no major problems.

But there’s a trade-off: occasionally, vaccines cause injury or death. Very rarely, patients are left with what’s known as “encephalopathy”, the medical term for brain damage.

In fact, CBS News has found nearly 1,300 cases in which vaccine-related brain damage has been compensated in court over the past 20 years.

The debate over any links between vaccines and autism – a behavior problem triggered by brain damage – couldn’t be more contentious. The great majority of medical opinion holds that vaccines don’t cause autism. However, many of the same experts don’t dispute that vaccines can, in rare instances, cause brain damage."

Merck, MMR Vaccine, and Science Fraud

Vaccine bullies also are accountable for their Scientistic arrogant claims against those who don't want this stuff in their kids. Note that it is black boys who are at most risk... corporate racists.

Merck Has Some Explaining To Do Over Its MMR Vaccine Claims

"Merck, the pharmaceutical giant, is facing a slew of controversies over its Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine following numerous allegations of wrongdoing from different parties in the medical field, including two former Merck scientists-turned-whistleblowers. A third whistleblower, this one a scientist at the Centers for Disease Control, also promises to bring Merck grief following his confession of misconduct involving the same MMR vaccine.

The controversies will find Merck defending itself and its vaccine in at least two federal court cases after a U.S. District judge earlier this month threw out Merck's attempts at dismissal. Merck now faces federal charges of fraud from the whistleblowers, a vaccine competitor and doctors in New Jersey and New York. Merck could also need to defend itself in Congress: The staff of representative Bill Posey (R-Fla) -- a longstanding critic of the CDC interested in an alleged link between vaccines and autism -- is now reviewing some 1,000 documents that the CDC whistleblower turned over to them.

The first court case, United States v. Merck & Co., stems from claims by two former Merck scientists that Merck "fraudulently misled the government and omitted, concealed, and adulterated material information regarding the efficacy of its mumps vaccine in violation of the FCA [False Claims Act]."

According to the whistleblowers' court documents, Merck's misconduct was far-ranging: It "failed to disclose that its mumps vaccine was not as effective as Merck represented, (ii) used improper testing techniques, (iii) manipulated testing methodology, (iv) abandoned undesirable test results, (v) falsified test data, (vi) failed to adequately investigate and report the diminished efficacy of its mumps vaccine, (vii) falsely verified that each manufacturing lot of mumps vaccine would be as effective as identified in the labeling, (viii) falsely certified the accuracy of applications filed with the FDA, (ix) falsely certified compliance with the terms of the CDC purchase contract, (x) engaged in the fraud and concealment describe herein for the purpose of illegally monopolizing the U.S. market for mumps vaccine, (xi) mislabeled, misbranded, and falsely certified its mumps vaccine, and (xii) engaged in the other acts described herein to conceal the diminished efficacy of the vaccine the government was purchasing."

These fraudulent activities, say the whistleblowers, were designed to produce test results that would meet the FDA's requirement that the mumps vaccine was 95 per cent effective. To the whistleblowers' delight, the judge dismissed Merck's objections to the case proceeding, finding the whistleblowers had plausible grounds on all of the claims lodged against Merck.

If the whistleblowers win, it would represent more than a moral victory (they repeatedly tried to stop Merck while still in its employ). Under the False Claims Act, the whistleblowers would receive a share -- likely 25 per cent to 30 per cent -- of the amount the government recovers. Previous settlements involving extensive fraud by pharmaceutical companies under the False Claims Act have run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, and in some cases such as against GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer, into the billions.

The second court case, Chatom Primary Care v. Merck & Co. relies on the same whistleblower evidence. This class action suit claims damages because Merck had fraudulently monopolized the mumps market. Doctors and medical practices in the suit would be able to obtain compensation for having been sold an overpriced monopolized product, and a defective one to boot, in that the mumps vaccine wasn't effective (indeed, the suit alleged that Merck expected outbreaks to occur and, as predicted, they did -- mumps epidemics occurred in 2006 in a highly vaccinated population and again in 2009-2010).

"Plaintiffs have argued sufficient facts to sustain a claim for proximate causation, detailing the significant barriers that other companies would face to enter the mumps vaccine market," the court ruled.

The third whistleblower -- a senior CDC scientist named William Thompson -- only indirectly blew the whistle on Merck. He more blew it on himself and colleagues at the CDC who participated in a 2004 study involving the MMR vaccine. Here, the allegations involve a cover-up of data pointing to high rates of autism in African-American boys after they were vaccinated with MMR. In what could be high-profile House hearings before Congressman Posey's Science Committee -- hearings made all the more explosive given the introduction of race into the mix -- Merck could find itself under unprecedented scrutiny. The CDC still stands by its study although Frank DeStefano, the CDC's Director of Immunization Safety and a co-author in the CDC study, also stated that he plans to review his notes with an eye to reanalyzing the data.

Some say all publicity is good. In Merck's case, regardless of the ultimate merits, the publicity will be all bad."

More on Vaccine and Official Fraud

Measles vaccines kill more than measles

WASHINGTON – While those opposing mandatory vaccination for measles are widely portrayed as ignorant and even dangerous by some officials, pundits and even news media accounts, Centers for Disease Control records reveal a startling truth – while no one has died of measles in the U.S. in the last 12 years, 108 have died as a result of the adverse effects of the vaccine in that same time period.

The death statistics are recorded by Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, which captures only a small percentage of the actual number of deaths and other adverse reactions to the vaccine. In addition, 96 of the 108 deaths in that 12-year time period were a result of the MMR vaccine, now the preferred shot for measles immunization.

In addition, CDC statistic show measles deaths were rare in the U.S. before the vaccine became widely used.

Here's the latest CDC scandal:

Obama Admin Grants Immunity To CDC Scientist That Fudged Vaccine Report…Whistleblower Plans To Testify Before Congress

"The Obama administration has granted whistleblower immunity to a federal government scientist that claimed he intentionally omitted information in a study that could have shown a race-based link between vaccines and childhood diseases including autism.

That scientist, still employed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is working closely with a congressman’s office to tell his story to lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

No official study has ever linked childhood vaccinations to serious mental defects or to autism or related disorders. Currently, controversy engulfs presidential contenders Chris Christie, Rand Paul and also Hillary Clinton after their past statements suggesting a possible vaccine-to-illness link were publicized this week in the midst of a measles outbreak.

In 2004, Dr. William S. Thompson worked on a report for the CDC’s National Immunization Program. That report, which ran in the “Pediatrics” medical journal, came to the conclusion that there’s no link between vaccines and autism and that no racial group is more likely to be damaged by vaccines.

But Thompson said that he and other CDC scientists intentionally fudged the results, manipulating the pool of children they analyzed and limiting the proper number of African-American children from participating. The authors limited black children from showing up in the results by excluding babies without a state of Georgia birth certificate.

“It was a mutual decision among the five co-authors,” Dr. Brian Hooker told The Daily Caller. An associate professor at California’s Simpson University, Hooker found out about the deception by secretly taping conversations that he had with Thompson last year. After beginning to talk to Thompson in 2013, he ended up getting Thompson’s information on audio record and disseminated the information in the vaccine-skeptic online community."

There is additional information regarding the efficacy of measles vaccinations here.

It's Not A Conspiracy If They're Actually Corrupt: Fraud and the CDC

This is big news. An author of a CDC paper admits, in writing, that portions of data damaging to the use of MMR vaccines was purposefully excised from his 2004 report. This amounts to fraud, visited on at least a portion of the American public. How much else has been fraudulently withheld is anybody's guess.

My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.

I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.

I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits.

My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular sub­ group for a particular vaccine. There have always been recognized risks for vaccination and I believe it is the responsibility of the CDC to properly convey the risks associated with receipt of those vaccines.

I have had many discussions with Dr. Brian Hooker over the last 10 months regarding studies the CDC has carried out regarding vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes including autism spectrum disorders. I share his beliefthat CDC decision-making and analyses should be transparent. I was not, however, aware that he was recording any of our conversations, nor was I given any choice regarding whether my name would be made public or my voice would be put on the Internet.

I am grateful for the many supportive e-mails that I have received over the last several days.

I will not be answering further questions at this time. I am providing information to Congressman William Posey, and of course will continue to cooperate with Congress. I have also offered to assist with reanalysis of the study data or development of further studies. For the time being, however, I am focused on my job and my family.

Reasonable scientists can and do differ in their interpretation of information. I will do everything I can to assist any unbiased and objective scientists inside or outside the CDC to analyze data collected by the CDC or other public organizations for the purpose of understanding whether vaccines are associated with an increased risk of autism. There are still more questions than answers, and I appreciate that so many families are looking for answers from the scientific community.

My colleagues and supervisors at the CDC have been entirely professional since this matter became public. In fact, I received a performance-based award after this story came out. I have experienced no pressure or retaliation and certainly was not escorted from the building, as some have stated.


Dr. Thompson is represented by Frederick M. Morgan,Jr., Morgan Verkamp, LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, www.morganverkamp.com.

Another Settled Science bites the dust. The CDC continues to generate scandals. But they still give out awards, regardless.

If someone gives you trouble regarding either vaccine safety or settled science, hit them squarely in the face with a copy of this article, printed on the medium of your choice.

A Last Exchange With The Vaccine Troll

My response to the vaccine troll is too long for the comment blocks, and so I publish it here as a post. The conversation has been degenerate from the get-go, with charges against me of being a murderous, immoral, and heinous person who enjoys body counts, all with foul language dripping with moral outrage and self-righteousness, of course. This will be the final post on the subject from my end, although I’m fairly certain that the Vaccine Troll will respond with furious yet moralistic invectives as is his character.

I will start with a direct quote from the Troll:

"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."

The troll denies having said this:

” This is beyond idiotic. I said 8/10 women get HPV. You say that is a risk they chose to take for non-monogamous life style. Ie 8/10 women: fuck them right?

My very first sentence in this thread is a quote of how many actual deaths are due to cervical cancer.”

”So you are once again lying.

By quoting you directly, I am lying? "Death sentence for promiscuity?" OK, I see your mental process: deny that you said what you said. However, your words are recorded and stand.

Since you are (all) just one single foul-mouthed, non-scientist troll using many names, I will address you one last time as a single individual.

First. I admitted that the article in question had at least two errors, possibly more. However, the idea that Dr Harper has no concerns about the vaccine issue is FALSE, as will be shown below, using your very own references which you only prejudicially, selectively quoted, just as you did your own comment above.

Second. I admitted that monogamy is a dead issue in this Brave New Leftist pagan culture - IF the culture is embraced by those youth who are assaulted by it. Yet monogamy (and abstinence) still are quoted by the CDC as the only – ONLY – way to avoid the HPV STD. Your dismissive position that such avoidance of STDs is impossible is addressed below.

Third. Your statement:

"Regardless of your pipe dream of cultural monogamy, the evidence points out that comprehensive sex ed is better at reducing teen pregnancy and STDs than abstinence-only ed."

Show your evidence that abstinence does not exist, and that STDs and pregnancy are not avoided by abstinence. Clue, your own references refute that, as shown below.

Abstinence is either a value of the family and the local culture, or it is not. In a culture of rampant sexual adventurism pimped constantly on all media (and apparently approved by yourself as evidenced by your contempt at the suggestion of cultural responsibility), considerable sexual adventurism will be the result. But not total. The pagan Left has won that war on traditional values of personal responsibility, at least in the streaming culture. The country will not return to personal responsibility as a national cultural character value for a very long time, if ever. However, personal responsibility does still exist as a hated sub-culture… hated as has been demonstrated here, with heated contemptuous invective against the mere suggestion of such heresy.

You are partially correct, however. The concept of personal responsibility has been destroyed as an overall cultural value by the amoral Left, so abstinence “training” will have no effect on those particular youth who do not recognize any responsibility for their risky behaviors. This is especially egregious in the millennial generation, many of which can hardly be induced to work for a living, and most of which enters college too ignorant to begin freshman work. The three-generational maleducation is complete, yet it has not influenced those from certain backgrounds.

Fourth, your reference to the same Wiki page which I referenced points to a flaw in that page: At one point Dr Harper is quoted (with references) taking one position; at another point she is quoted (with a single reference) as taking a different position. So which is it? You choose to believe the one which agrees with your worldview, meaning that you eschew any skepticism for the contradiction. I choose just enough skepticism to wonder what the truth actually is.

Fifth, your comment,

” That is false. It is false for serial monogamists."

Except you just conceded that HPV cannot be avoided via monogamy. And the CDC has multiple quotes backing me here. Listed above.”

This ignores the CDC statement which I quoted saying that abstinence and monogamy are the only way to avoid this STD. You are prejudicing the issue with your position that no one can avoid multiple sexual contacts, and contact from outside monogamy, which is just not true. Your presumption of the inevitability of total sexual promiscuity is both false, as will be shown, and its presumption indicates either defeatism or approval. It’s not possible to tell which with precision, but your attitude seems to favor the latter.

This in turn voids your next comment:

” I'm not for forcing anyone to take anything. I am for accurate information. So you can just exit that entire angle of attack.”

You apparently wish to prejudice the information in favor of your worldview, which seems to be that sexual adventurism is fine, needs not be discouraged in young people, ostensibly because… well just because that’s your opinion. That is not a pursuit of “accurate information”, which would necessarily include the CDC position on total safety through abstinence and monogamy, which you heatedly reject with ideological rationalization; your overall concept is to salvage the irresponsible from the consequences and overtly not to address their irresponsibility, which in itself is irresponsible although it is cloaked in the faux morality of messiahism.

In terms of “accurate information”: You have failed to address the issue of recalled vaccines and the acceptance of risk in taking any vaccine. That is definitely not the pursuit of “accurate information”, it is neglect while making a pompous claim.

Here is a direct quote from your referenced article:

” Because the vaccines prevent rather than treat HPV, they should be administered prior to contraction to be fully effective. This means vaccination must ideally occur before people engage in sexual activity. A 2011 survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that nearly half of all American high school students reported having engaged in sexual intercourse. Yet, Dr. Darden’s study shows that parents cite sexual inactivity as one of the major reasons for declining the vaccine for their children.”

So more than half of American high school students are abstinent? That is in the data. Yet the article seems to chide parents for declining the vaccine on the basis of sexual inactivity. And it certainly refutes your position that abstinence is impossible.

And here is Dr Harper:

”This dichotomy leads Diane Harper, MD, MPH, MS, Professor of Medicine at the University of Missouri School of Medicine, who participated in early trials of the vaccines at the behest of their makers, GlaxoSmithKline and Merck & Co., to suggest that vaccination be based upon individual risk factors because studies have not shown how long the vaccines protect against HPV.

Dr. Harper sees merit in waiting until patients themselves determine the appropriateness of vaccination.”

That is exactly my position. EXACTLY.

In addition, she claims that protection duration is NOT KNOWN. This of course means that the claim of 100% effective is a false claim, if she is right.

Dr Harper again:

” “I provide a balanced picture to my patients and their families and am not at all upset if they refuse the vaccine, especially at younger ages,” Dr. Harper says. “I think it may be more appropriate for some people to decide they want to be vaccinated at age 16, 18 or 20 — whichever age makes the most sense for them to have protection from infection.”

This does not preclude the decision NOT to be vaccinated, based on two of the abstinent individuals becoming monogamous, regardless of your incorrect but vehement attacks on monogamy and personal responsibility.

Those are the issues; so go ahead and accuse Dr Harper of enjoying the body count; of being murderous; of all the heinous charges you have made here in your hysterical – shouting – domineering – intolerant rants. Her position is the same is mine, so your foul language must apply to her as well.

Now for Dr Darden:

” On the other hand, Dr. Darden notes that sexual activity doesn’t always happen as planned, and because of prevalent teenage sexual activity, Dr. Darden encourages vaccination before children enter high school.

“If you vaccinate after the patient is infected, the vaccine won’t help at all,” Dr. Darden notes. “The vaccine may not provide the protection we hope for, but it’s better than nothing — it’s the same reason why we give tetanus shots. I understand concerns that the vaccine doesn’t provide lifelong protection, but I don’t understand using that as an excuse not to vaccinate.”

The vaccine is ineffective for much of the population, which is already HPV positive. The risk, as Darden points out, is attributable directly to sexual adventurism amongst teens.

Deny that. Please show that Dr Darden is lying.

And Dr Harper again:

” Dr. Harper questions the appropriateness of routine early vaccination and pushes for an individualized approach to vaccine administration.

‘The argument that someone should get the vaccine at age 11 because by the time they’re 18, they’ll have a 50 percent chance of having had sex and the vaccine won’t work, is true at face value,” Dr. Harper says. “But it may very well be that the age at which a person decides to get vaccinated is very personally determined. It’s much more appropriate to decide what the risk is as a family or as a person.’”
[Emphasis Added]

She essentially denies your right to assess the risk for her patients. And she denies the appropriateness of bullying the vaccine into people as a routine demand.

Here is the conclusion, featuring both Dr. Darden and Dr. Harper:

” In the Pediatrics study, which was published in March 2013, Dr. Darden shows that between 2008 and 2010, a little more than half of surveyed physicians recommended HPV vaccination to their teenage female patients. Dr. Darden explains that physicians have a duty to provide clearly stated recommendations to their patients.

“Sometimes, as physicians, we feel we’ve stated our recommendations, but to the other party, they remain unstated,” Dr. Darden says. “This can increase their uncertainty. Parents or patients can still refuse the vaccination, but the reason they’re coming to you is for your expert opinion, and I don’t think it’s fair to them not to give it.”

Dr. Harper agrees that, while physicians should clearly state their recommendations, they should not conform to messages sent by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
“The message physicians have received ... is that you have to push the vaccine,” Dr. Harper says. “That’s absolutely the wrong way to present these vaccinations. What physicians need to be saying is that the vaccine is available, and it’s useful.”
[emphasis added].

Darden thinks there is only one possible opinion, his personal expert opinion, and that it should be the only one given to patients. Harper clearly thinks otherwise, and says so very clearly, with reasons.

Your hysterical desperation in pimping this vaccine is unwarranted, if you believe Dr Harper; your hysterical desperation in pimping this vaccine is warranted if you believe Dr Darden.

I choose the principle of Choice; Women’s Right to Choose; Freedom From Coercion and Bullying. Despite your claims to the contrary, your breathless condemnation of any deviant opinion as ‘enjoying body counts”, “murder” etc indicates that such forcing is warranted, just because you say so. In other words, the bullying of this vaccine into the bodies of children is what you are engaged in.

Don’t care for that analysis? Then explain your comment below, which I print again for entertainment and edification:

You said:

"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."

This is bullying and it is bullying with blatant lying. You have denied that. The denial is just another lie.

So that pretty much wraps this up, right?

HPVs, Vaccines, and Errroneous Claims

You make this claim:

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 vaccines target only two out of more than a dozen [see the list below] cancer causing HPV types; types 16 and 18. There are 14 HPV high risk types which are not covered, so cancers caused by those forms of HPV will still exist. PAP testing must be done anyway, and it is PAPs that will save lives, and have saved lives. So while your quote is true, it is not pertinent to the issue.

The issue here is two-fold. First, is reaction to the virus serious (and are they all known)? Second, is there really an epidemic of cervical cancer resulting in death due to not using this vaccine? Let's address the vaccine and its impact first.

From cdc.gov:

“…the proportion of female HPV reports classified as “serious ” (reports are classified as “serious” if they contain information that the event resulted in hospitalization, prolongation of an existing hospitalization, permanent disability, life-threatening illness, or death) peaked in 2009 at 12.8% and decreased after that to 7.4% in 2013 (for more information, see Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR): “Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Coverage Among Adolescent Girls, 2007-2012 and Postlicensure Vaccine Safety Monitoring, 2006-2013 — United States”

And this from Slade, et. al., quoted in nih.gov, referenced by cdc.gov:

Postlicensure safety surveillance for quadrivalent human papillomavirus recombinant vaccine.

”Abstract Conclusion: Most of the AEFI rates were not greater than the background rates compared with other vaccines, but there was disproportional reporting of syncope and venous thromboembolic events. The significance of these findings must be tempered with the limitations (possible underreporting) of a passive reporting system.”
[emphasis added]

Two conclusions here: First, that the safety limits for both syncope (passing out due to lack of blood flow to the brain) and venous thromboembolic events (blood clots in the veins) are outside the designated safety limits (and both of those are potentially deadly). Second, the reporting system is suspect, being a non-rigorous system which is highly dependent upon the manufacturer’s retransmission of reports of events, and the voluntary reporting of events out in the healthcare system.

From cdc.gov:

”High-risk types, including types 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 68, 69, 73, and 82, can cause low-grade cervical cell abnormalities, high-grade cervical cell abnormalities that are precursors to cancer, and anogenital cancers (5). High-risk HPV types are detected in 99% of cervical cancers (6); approximately 70% of cervical cancers worldwide are caused by types 16 and 18 (7). Although infection with high-risk types is considered necessary for the development of cervical cancer, it is not sufficient because the majority of women with high-risk HPV infection do not develop cancer (3,4).
[emphasis added]

And,

”HPV Infection
Condom use might reduce the risk for HPV and HPV-associated diseases (e.g., genital warts and cervical cancer). A limited number of prospective studies have demonstrated a protective effect of condoms on acquisition of genital HPV. A study among newly sexually active college women demonstrated a 70% reduction in HPV infection when their partners used condoms consistently and correctly (98). Abstaining from sexual activity (i.e., refraining from any genital contact with another persons) is the surest way to prevent genital HPV infection. For those who choose to be sexually active, a monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner is the strategy most likely to prevent future genital HPV infections.”
[emphasis added]

And,

The maximum cervical cancer death rate, identified at that maximum in four states only, is 40 ppm (0.00004 or 0.004%). Average is probably 20 ppm (0.00002 or 0.002%).

Given that only 70% of cancers will be addressed by this vaccine, then the average is 14 ppm (0.000014 or 0.0014%) who will be positively affected by having been vaccinated prior to infection. Of these, 93% can be caught and treated successfully by early PAP testing. The death rate, contrary to assertions made, is quite small, definitely not the 80% implied erroneously.

The actual death rate from the vaccine itself is not really known, if the passive reporting system is truly questionable, per Slade, et. al.; again, however, according to their study the potentially fatal syncope and venous thromboembolic events are outside acceptable limits:

“Conclusion: Most of the AEFI rates were not greater than the background rates compared with other vaccines, but there was disproportional reporting of syncope and venous thromboembolic events. The significance of these findings must be tempered with the limitations (possible underreporting) of a passive reporting system.”
[emphasis added]

Now let’s address behavioral issues:

“Editorial Note
Although HPV vaccination coverage has lagged behind that of other vaccines recommended for adolescents (3), coverage among adolescent girls increased each year during 2007–2011; 2012 is the first year with no observed increase. In 2012, only 53.8% of girls had received ≥1 dose of HPV vaccine, and only 33.4% had received all 3 doses of the series. Despite the availability of safe and effective HPV vaccines, approximately one quarter of surveyed parents did not intend to vaccinate their daughters in the next 12 months. Missed vaccination opportunities remain high. Every health-care visit, whether for back-to-school evaluations or acute problems, should be used to assess teenagers' immunization status and provide recommended vaccines if indicated.”
[some emphasis added]

Encouraging and accommodating unsafe behavior results in more than just sexual adventurism; it results in personal negligence as an embedded behavior pattern. If reasonable sexual behavior cannot be a cultural staple, neither will be salvation by injection. The failure to accept the CDC’s own position that abstinence/monogamy is the only sure prevention of cervical cancer is the real problem; it is purely a political amorality issue.

The accusation that promoting responsible sexual behavior is this:

” 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.”

This statement is both intentionally morally directed from a position of smug self-righteous indignation that responsible sexual behavior should even be suggested (as it is in the CDC literature), much less promoted; Further, it is totally false, an egregious misrepresentation of the seriousness of the epidemiology of the HPV STD disease : most cases – the huge majority – never develop symptoms, and disappear on their own. As I have shown using the CDC figures, 0.0014% will die of their sexually transmitted disease, even though that disease is the most common STD at this time. Further it is apparent that proper testing could prevent many of those deaths. The use of 8 out of 10 as a criterion for condemnation is many orders of magnitude in error; it is false by 100,000 :1.

So the accusation is both factually and morally wrong, and represents merely a cheap insult at a juvenile level.

From the American Cancer Society:

”Cervical cancer can often be found early, and sometimes even prevented entirely, by having regular Pap tests. If detected early, cervical cancer is one of the most successfully treatable cancers.”
[emphasis added]

Caught early, there is a 93% recovery rate (5 year) per the ACS.

Caught late in the progress of the cancer, the rates decrease accordingly, with stage IVB being merely 15%.

Could the death rate as it stands at 0.0014% be reduced to 0.00001% by encouraging more PAP testing by women? Probably. But again that reflects behavioral changes in a society which is not so inclined toward responsible behavior. Not even to avoid STDs, nor to get vaccinated. Accommodating irresponsibility merely leads to more irresponsibility. Even so, the HPV STD epidemic is not a lifethreatening epidemic of outrageous proportions.

The comparison of this vaccine to other vaccines for non-behavior acquired diseases is absurd.

”I did not promote either monogamy nor abstinence…”

Of course you didn’t promote those behaviors, they are responsible sexual behaviors which are now lost to several generations.

”but that the presence of the vaccine would not promote more promiscuous behavior.”

It is impossible to promote more promiscuity than is already promoted daily in this culture; it is the necessity for accommodation of that culture of irresponsibility and amorality which is your advocacy. And the accommodation of a set of behaviors is indicative of benign acceptance (passive approval), and if that does not promote the behaviors, it at a minimum does nothing to discourage them, thereby sharing culpability for their existence.

Next. Your presumption that I am anti-vaccine is completely erroneous and a Jump to Conclusion Fallacy, intended to insult and condemn by association, falsely. I get tetanus vaccinations regularly; I got a flu vaccination last Fall; I will be getting a shingles vaccination this week – I’ve had to hold off due to antibiotics I needed for something else. If bird flu gets serious enough, I will get a vaccination for that, too; we have chickens. I got all my shots as a child, and I’m grateful for them. But those are diseases of existing in a population of humans who transmit accidentally and not by irresponsible lifestyle choice.

The hue and cry to vaccinate every eligible female will definitely bring a huge cash flow to Merck, at $300/each every four years for all females between 9 and 26 years old in the USA and around the world. Are you somehow in big pharma’s employ? Or is it purely an ideology attachment which must be satisfied? Does your affection for science include doing the math required to check out the claims? Or do you just accept what they say when it is congenial to your ideology?

Finally, your moral pretensions are onerous in light of your lack of knowledge concerning the subject of which you pretend to be an expert defender. As for sluts in my family, your cheap insults confirm my observation that you have no real argument to provide; after misrepresenting data, you consider insults to be intellect, and that is a standard defect of the AtheoLeft, the inability to argue either logically and civilly. It is because their arguments fail in the light of day, every time.

The massive documented errors of your scientistic “arguments” and the cheap, juvenile slander of your tactic render you useless for discussions of any intellectual value.