ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, August 11, 2013

A lethally unsafe vaccine

Clinical equipoise notwithstanding, it should be interesting to see the anti-science vaccine extremists attempting to claim that "the lead researcher in the development of the human papilloma virus vaccines" doesn't know anything about science or vaccines due to her expressed opinion concerning the risk of adverse side effects from the vaccine:
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.

44 dead.  Notice how the trials were completely unsuitable for proving the safety of the vaccine for the age of the girls to whom it is being administered.

Vaccines are not magic, like everything else, they need to be subjected to a basic risk/reward analysis.  But the scientific community has not only failed to due its duty to provide the public with the necessary information to perform this analysis, it has clearly failed to inform the public of the risks even when they were known, and known to be potentially fatal.

Some vaccines are necessary for certain people at certain times.  Gardasil and Cervarix are not, and no parent with a teenage daughter should permit her to receive them.

Labels:

123 Comments:

Blogger eidolon hope August 11, 2013 3:58 PM  

it would be interesting to see how many would die of the complications of cervical cancer if they were not vaccinated

Blogger JCclimber August 11, 2013 4:06 PM  

And even MORE insane to be trying to mandate boys be vaccinated, when the clinical trials were on another gender.

I think some parents have FAIL tattooed on their head with invisible ink that certain physicians are able to see, and then persuade to get the unnecessary vaccine.

Blogger Phoenician August 11, 2013 4:11 PM  

"At the time of writing, 44 girls are officially known to have died from these vaccines." [...] Vaccines are not magic, like everything else, they need to be subjected to a basic risk/reward analysis.

"In the United States, it is only the 8th most common cancer of women. The median age at diagnosis is 48. Hispanic women are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with cervical cancer than the general population.[68] In 1998, about 12,800 women were diagnosed in the US and about 4,800 died.[2] In 2008 in the US an estimated 11,000 new cases were expected to be diagnosed, and about 3,870 were expected to die of cervical cancer."

So tell us about your risk/reward analysis that happened to overlook those basic facts about cervical cancer, dipshit?

Anonymous VD August 11, 2013 4:16 PM  

it would be interesting to see how many would die of the complications of cervical cancer if they were not vaccinated

We already know. What we don't know is that the vaccinations reduce the risk of developing those cancers, although we know that they risk killing and injuring the girls who receive them.

Anonymous nick digger August 11, 2013 4:20 PM  

Why are these vaccines necessary, again? Is it so difficult to teach young ladies not to be sluts, and keep their coochies clean? It's not like they get cervical cancer from 2nd hand smoke.

Anonymous DT August 11, 2013 4:26 PM  

So tell us about your risk/reward analysis that happened to overlook those basic facts about cervical cancer, dipshit?

The median age at diagnosis is 48.
All trials of the vaccines were done on children aged 15 and above, despite them currently being marketed for 9-year-olds.


So tell us about your risk/reward analysis that happened to overlook those basic facts about cervical cancer, dipshit Phoenician?

Why the hell are we pushing (and in the case of Texas, forcing) little girls to take a risky vaccine for a STD that primarily affects sexually active adult women?

Should a 20yo Hispanic prostitute get the vaccine? Probably. Should a 9yo white girl who doesn't even know what sex is yet? No. How about a 20yo virgin about to marry her virgin husband? Again, no.

Am I missing something? Or is simple reasoning this difficult for the masses and the politicians who lead them?

Anonymous Aphony August 11, 2013 4:37 PM  

I think I'd rather die at 48 than 15.
Just sayin' Phony.

dipshit.

Anonymous Atlas August 11, 2013 4:37 PM  

Vox, Nate, the Dreaded Ilk, what vaccines would you recommend?

We have a two month old daughter and the question is beginning to come up.

So far MMR is the only one we are considering only because there is a history of mumps in the family. Obviously, Gardasil is OFF THE LIST...not that it was ever on the list in the first place...

Blogger A August 11, 2013 4:39 PM  

What a waste of human potential. I'd really hate to successfully raise a beautiful and intelligent daughter only to have her die because of some vaccination, something that shouldn't be killing people this day and age.

Anonymous Noah B. August 11, 2013 4:39 PM  

It was only a couple of flipper babies!

Anonymous Azimus August 11, 2013 4:41 PM  

DT: Am I missing something? Or is simple reasoning this difficult for the masses and the politicians who lead them?

Yes.

1.) There is no money to be made in teaching abstinence

2.) I am not a rancher/cowboy, but I don't think a rancher ever avoided vaccinating his herd of 5,000 cattle because of the chance that 250 could get sick but recover and 5 could die. Politicians' perspective on vaccines is similar to a rancher's perspective on his herd.

3.) The sex economy is massive (just think of how much money is spent on "the pill" alone, much less Levitra, porn, lingerie, "toys", strip clubs, prostitute/escorts, 1-900 numbers etc., etc., etc.), and one of the primary diversions for a miserable general public (aka the herd). Children who are taught to rise above their animal lusts and remain abstinent might spend their time looking around them and seeing how miserable people really are. And they might do something about it.

Blogger IrishFarmer August 11, 2013 4:45 PM  

"""Why the hell are we pushing (and in the case of Texas, forcing) little girls to take a risky vaccine for a STD that primarily affects sexually active adult women?"""

Because most adults already have it, and once you have it it's too late. The vaccine would be largely useless for the adult population. You give it to younger children before they've had a chance to contract HPV.

"""How about a 20yo virgin about to marry her virgin husband? Again, no."""

That assumes that we can effectively segregate virgins from non-virgins, or even potential virgins from potential promiscuous adults.

When dealing with large numbers you play the odds, and the odds are any given child will grow up to be an adult with an average of a handful of sexual partners. Not only that, but they'll also be incredibly likely to contract HPV from one of these partners.

If 4,000 people die from cervical cancer (you won't hear statistics often about men dying from HPV related penile cancer, but it happens), and we know that we can at least prevent a large number of these cases with the vaccine, then a simple pragmatic approach would be to administer the vaccine. 44 < 4,000 after all.

That's if we know the vaccine works. There's also an ethical dilemma involved, similar to the runaway train thought experiment. If there are five people about to be run over by a runaway train unless you flip a switch to have it cross the tracks and kill just one person instead, do you do it?

Despite the fact that less people will die if you take action, in the case of the train and the vaccine, we still have to understand that we are directly taking responsibility for those who die, fewer though they may be, as opposed to letting nature take its course which is often viewed as being amoral.

Personally, on an individual level, if I gave my daughter the vaccine and she died from it, I'd be completely torn up emotionally because I voluntarily chose to take the less risky alternative and that choice led to her death. There's a definite moral dilemma here, efficacy aside.

Anonymous kh123 August 11, 2013 4:55 PM  

Right, but given Orac's take on the whole thing, those 15k+ VAERS entries would predominantly have to be reports of girls turning into Wonder Woman as a result of the vaccine. What percentage? Who knows. Clinical equipoise, my son.

Anonymous Anonymous August 11, 2013 5:02 PM  

The "scientific community" hasn't just failed to present the necessary information to make an intelligent choice, but it's also chosen to ridicule anyone who has a differing opinion instead of arguing with them. So instead of parents and health officials making an informed choice between the factual pros and cons, they're left choosing between taking the word of the guys in white lab coats or some loony Hollywood types. When it's presented that way, most people won't get past the demagoguery to look at the facts.

Anonymous zeonxavier August 11, 2013 5:06 PM  

I'm with Atlas in wondering about a saner vaccine schedule for the little ones. Does anyone have any resources in this area to direct parents to? I'm expecting to meet my firstborn within the month...

Anonymous Papapete August 11, 2013 5:16 PM  

When my wife was a resident 20 years ago she was treating 13-15 year old girls with HPV and precancerous cervixes. Needless to say, they were sexually active and promiscuous, almost universally with older men. So if you don't actually parent your daughter and let her have sex when she's peri adolescent, then Gardasil is a reasonable choice. If however you are actually a parent and not just a breeder popping out feral humans, then I agree that HPV vaccines are a horrible idea for little girls.

Blogger RobertT August 11, 2013 5:28 PM  

"So tell us about your risk/reward analysis that happened to overlook those basic facts about cervical cancer, dipshit?"

I'm not going to pretend my typing is flawless, but I think the question mark was intentional. Maybe he's trying to make up for these flaws with his polite and respectful attitude.

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, Johns Hopkins Hematology August 11, 2013 5:33 PM  

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.

Just to clarify something. Blood clots are a risk any time there is an injection. This has nothing to do with vaccination per say. Any time you cause physical trauma to tissue with a needle, a clot or hematoma can occur. I don't care if it's a vaccine, setting an IV, or an anesthesia injection at the dentist into the gums. That's why a lot of the polio vaccines left little scars behind in the skin.

Just accept it.

Anonymous Ann Morgan August 11, 2013 5:33 PM  

Somehow I get the distinct impression that if this vaccine were for preventing a virus that causes homosexuality, most of those who are currently opposed to it's use and complaining that it is 'unsafe' would be DEMANDING it's use, even if it were show to be 10 times as unsafe as it currently supposedly is.

Anonymous Ann Morgan August 11, 2013 5:37 PM  

papapete wrote: **If however you are actually a parent and not just a breeder popping out feral humans**

This would disqualify the 95% of parents dumping their kids in a public school 8 hours a day.

It also discounts a couple possibilities, one being that the virginal girls husband might have this virus.

The second being that she could be raped. Anyone have any statistics on how many women are raped in this country, and what percentage of rapists have this particular virus?

Anonymous Anonymous August 11, 2013 5:39 PM  

"So tell us about your risk/reward analysis that happened to overlook those basic facts about cervical cancer, dipshit?"

Perhaps Phoeny would like to explain to me about my basic facts, and explain why I should trust a vaccine,

1.only administered to girls,
2.for a infection they are most vulnerable to catching under the age of 13
3.to prevent one of the easiest cancers to detect and treat?
4. that can cause adverse reactions, even death?

There's so much misogyny hidden in those facts, it acted as yet another catalyst that sent me running in terror, headlong right into the manosphere.

Anonymous Ann Morgan August 11, 2013 5:46 PM  

Irishfarmer wrote: **If there are five people about to be run over by a runaway train unless you flip a switch to have it cross the tracks and kill just one person instead, do you do it?

Despite the fact that less people will die if you take action, in the case of the train and the vaccine, we still have to understand that we are directly taking responsibility for those who die, fewer though they may be, as opposed to letting nature take its course which is often viewed as being amoral.**

Yes, I do flip the switch. Both options involve making a choice, and taking an action. NOT flipping the switch, is an action. Simply a very subtle one.

I actually addressed this point in my list of actions I regarded as good and evil, in that it may be acceptable to cause a lesser degree of evil (in terms of degree or the number of people affected) if and only if the following is true:

1. You prevent evil only in the form of eliminating a negative value, such as a train. Never in the form of gaining a positive value, such as taking food away from one person to feed 5 people. Assuming of course that the one person came by the food honestly and did not previously take it away from the 5 people himself.

2. The people you are saving are not in any way responsible for the current situation. For instance, if you warned the 5 people to keep off the train tracks and they insisted on going on them anyways, but the single person was not warned, then you should not switch the tracks.

Anonymous Noah B. August 11, 2013 5:48 PM  

It's hard to escape the fact that the government has given legal immunity to vaccine makers, which I know most of you are aware of.

Here's another aspect to this that we don't discuss frequently: by eliminating vaccine manufacturers' liability, government has greatly reduced economic incentives for manufacturers to produce safe vaccines. As a result, even if vaccines were perfectly safe before, government interference will inevitably make them more dangerous.

Anonymous Harsh August 11, 2013 5:49 PM  

@Phony

Great analysis from someone who's most marketable skill is shelving books.

Anonymous Noah B. August 11, 2013 5:52 PM  

Ann, you do realize that your entire system of morality is based on circular logic, right? I suspect that this has already been pointed out to you, but you should really let this sink in.

Blogger Phoenician August 11, 2013 5:52 PM  

http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/p0619-hpv-vaccinations.html

----
New study shows HPV vaccine helping lower HPV infection rates in teen girls

A new study looking at the prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) infections in girls and women before and after the introduction of the HPV vaccine shows a significant reduction in vaccine-type HPV in U.S. teens. The study, published in [the June issue of] The Journal of Infectious Diseases reveals that since the vaccine was introduced in 2006, vaccine-type HPV prevalence decreased 56 percent among female teenagers 14-19 years of age.

About 79 million Americans, most in their late teens and early 20s, are infected with HPV. Each year, about 14 million people become newly infected.

“This report shows that HPV vaccine works well, and the report should be a wake-up call to our nation to protect the next generation by increasing HPV vaccination rates,” said CDC Director Tom Frieden, M.D., M.P.H. “Unfortunately only one third of girls aged 13-17 have been fully vaccinated with HPV vaccine. Countries such as Rwanda have vaccinated more than 80 percent of their teen girls. Our low vaccination rates represent 50,000 preventable tragedies – 50,000 girls alive today will develop cervical cancer over their lifetime that would have been prevented if we reach 80 percent vaccination rates. For every year we delay in doing so, another 4,400 girls will develop cervical cancer in their lifetimes.”
----

Still haven't seen your risk/reward analysis yet, dipshit. Is it any wonder you're so widely considered a clown?

Anonymous Anonymous August 11, 2013 6:00 PM  

..Despite the fact that less people will die if you take action, in the case of the train and the vaccine.."

May I challenge this or ask for a retraction? We have absolutely no evidence that less people will die, in fact, if we just look ahead into the future a bit, we can discover that due to the far reaching consequences of this vaccine, many, many more will die.

Blogger wrf3 August 11, 2013 6:00 PM  

Phoenician wrote: since the vaccine was introduced in 2006, vaccine-type HPV prevalence decreased 56 percent among female teenagers 14-19 years of age.

Has there been a study to see if the rates of sexual activity since the vaccine was introduced have decreased, not changed, or increased?

That's what's so blasted frustrating about the reporting of these studies; things that have multiple inputs only (appear to) report the effect of one input and ascribe the result to that.

Likewise, when the article cited by Vox says, "So far, 15,037 girls have reported adverse side effects...", how many girls were given the vaccine? What were the side effects and what percentages?

Grumble...

Anonymous Anonymous August 11, 2013 6:01 PM  

Somehow I get the distinct impression that if this vaccine were for preventing a virus that causes homosexuality, most of those who are currently opposed to it's use and complaining that it is 'unsafe' would be DEMANDING it's use, even if it were show to be 10 times as unsafe as it currently supposedly is.

You're wrong, despite your impressive spelling. Note that the argument here isn't that the vaccines should or shouldn't be used, but that parents should be given all the pertinent information to make that decision for themselves, and the scientific community shouldn't pick and choose what information to release in order to sway that decision. People here would say the same of your hypothetical anti-homosexual vaccine.

Of course, such a vaccine as you describe would never be allowed to be researched in this country, let alone distributed, because the same people who think we're too stupid to be allowed to make our own decisions about vaccines also think we're too backwards and ignorant to make our own decisions about sexual morality.

Blogger mmaier2112 August 11, 2013 6:01 PM  

Well the NIH only lists HPV as a cause of cervical cancer.

Which makes one wonder why the hell they say "being poor" increases your risk for cervival cancer.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000893.htm

Anonymous The other skeptic August 11, 2013 6:03 PM  

If there are five people about to be run over by a runaway train unless you flip a switch to have it cross the tracks and kill just one person instead, do you do it?

I have never been in this situation and don't ever expect to be in this situation.

Also, I expect people to look out for themselves.

Hypotheticals are a crock of shit.

Anonymous Darth Toolpodicus August 11, 2013 6:05 PM  

"only" 44 deaths officially linked to the HPV vaccine...and well over a 1000 cases of permanent disability linked to it, even more incidents of seizures that don't rise to the level of "permanent disability". This is almost certainly an underestimation of the actual numbers of adverse reactions given the limitations of the VAERS system

And that's in the US. Given the number of doses administered to-date in the US compared to the incidence of cervical cancer in the US the risk from the vaccine is arguably in the same ballpark as from the disease itself.

Blogger redpillrevolt August 11, 2013 6:07 PM  

"About 79 million Americans, most in their late teens and early 20s, are infected with HPV. Each year, about 14 million people become newly infected."

Sexual liberation is wonderful, ain't it! Syphilis-addled idiots like yourself can't think straight enough to reach even the most obvious conclusions. Please tell us, dear deluded Phony, what is the reason we call them "sexually-transmitted diseases" and what behavior could keep one from acquiring said disease?

"Still haven't seen your risk/reward analysis yet, dipshit. Is it any wonder you're so widely considered a clown?"

Says some faceless, disease-ridden troll.

Anonymous Anonymous August 11, 2013 6:16 PM  

"Which makes one wonder why the hell they say "being poor" increases your risk for cervical cancer."

It's such a helpful selling point. Like, "Kitty, why do you want POOR, defenseless, black girls to die a torturous death from untreated cervical cancer? Are you a racist or something?"

Blogger Admiral James August 11, 2013 6:18 PM  

Just my two cents as HPV vaccines vs vaccines in general were my thesis in college. I am comfortable with MMR, Hep B, and Tdap as they have been around a while with minimal issues. They were studied and tested much more extensively than HPV, which was "fast tracked". I do recall an issue with mumps in the 50s or 60s, but it was fixed. ( or was it polio?)

Anonymous VanDerMerwe August 11, 2013 6:20 PM  

No SEX, NO HPV.

HIV also increases risk of cervix cancer, as does smoking. Of course not having regular pap smears increases risk of death from cervical cancer. (The same can be said for anal cancer.)

Anonymous Harsh August 11, 2013 6:21 PM  

I am comfortable with MMR, Hep B, and Tdap as they have been around a while with minimal issues.

I got a Tdap a week ago and my arm is still sore as hell. ::grumble::

Blogger Admiral James August 11, 2013 6:26 PM  

The HPV is not a total prevention anyway. It contains antigens for 4 of the viruses that cause 70% of Cervical Cancer. So even if the vaccine worked perfectly, one still has a 30% chance of getting it. Of course John Hopkins I believe did a study which showed an increase of that 30% of the strains are causing HPV.
Remember the vaccine was first made by Merck, the peopl. Who brought us Viox.
Hence HPV= Help Pay for Viox

Blogger Admiral James August 11, 2013 6:33 PM  

I got a Tdap a week ago and my arm is still sore as hell. ::grumble


Ouch! Sorry! At least its better than getting tetanus.
Exercising the arm may help

Anonymous FP August 11, 2013 6:37 PM  

HPV "myths", its all Michael Douglas' fault for eating out.

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/08/06/myths_about_the.html#comments

Original article here:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/cunnilingus-michael-douglass-cancer-and-the-hpv-vaccine/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook

Blogger Admiral James August 11, 2013 6:41 PM  

I read in a text book that HPV is the sole cause for Cervical cancer (being the primary site that is). In other words you cannot have Cervical Cancer without HPV. Yet when I went to an STD course last month given by the department of health, they stated there are other causes, but did not list them. Does anyone know which one one is correct?

Anonymous kh123 August 11, 2013 6:57 PM  

Remember, according to Orac, most of those 15k+ VAERS reports would have to involve recipients of vaccines turning into Wonder Woman, the Hulk, or various other Marvel/DC properties.

What percentage? We'll never know. Clinical equipoise, my son. Pay no mind to the 44.

Anonymous bob k. mando August 11, 2013 6:57 PM  

Admiral James August 11, 2013 6:41 PM
I read in a text book that HPV is the sole cause for Cervical cancer (being the primary site that is). In other words you cannot have Cervical Cancer without HPV. Yet when I went to an STD course last month given by the department of health, they stated there are other causes, but did not list them. Does anyone know which one one is correct?




why are you anti-Science, Admiral James?

it really distresses me that a Luddite such as yourself could be promoted to such high rank.

Anonymous The other skeptic August 11, 2013 7:12 PM  

No SEX, NO HPV.

This!

The notion that teenagers (as young as 13) or preteens can fuck themselves silly with no risks is totally wrong.

Whenever you have sex you risk catching all sorts of diseases from the person you have sex with.

You better know a lot about that person before you have sex with them.

In addition, the prevalence of STDs differs with different groups. Certain diverse groups have higher prevalence of STDs. Be aware. Be prepared!

Blogger IrishFarmer August 11, 2013 7:25 PM  

Yes, I do flip the switch. Both options involve making a choice, and taking an action. NOT flipping the switch, is an action. Simply a very subtle one.

Perhaps you mean "choice", not action? Don't mistake this for snark, but: inaction is by definition not action.

That might be splitting hairs, however. Inaction could, I suppose, be considered action depending on how you define it so I won't quibble over that one point.

You prevent evil only in the form of eliminating a negative value, such as a train. Never in the form of gaining a positive value, such as taking food away from one person to feed 5 people. Assuming of course that the one person came by the food honestly and did not previously take it away from the 5 people himself.

I think you're playing with words here. Taking away from one to feed five, assuming this is a life and death scenario here, is effectively the same as diverting the train. Albeit, you've introduced confiscation into the mix, I suppose. One dies so that five my live. The train is not "eliminated", as you say, it's still a factor and it will kill one person as a direct result of your control.

The people you are saving are not in any way responsible for the current situation. For instance, if you warned the 5 people to keep off the train tracks and they insisted on going on them anyways, but the single person was not warned, then you should not switch the tracks.

In this case you agree with Vox, and the whole issue becomes incredibly muddled. At what point do we consider people sufficiently informed on the vaccine issue before the government can mandate that citizens are required to have it? That question will be, by my guess, incredibly difficult to answer. If it can be answered. If it should be answered.

May I challenge this or ask for a retraction? We have absolutely no evidence that less people will die, in fact, if we just look ahead into the future a bit, we can discover that due to the far reaching consequences of this vaccine, many, many more will die.

Nah. I did say "If the vaccine actually works..." accounting for the possibility that it doesn't. I assumed for the sake of simplicity that Vox's death statistic was correct, as well. If we make those assumptions then 44 deaths is less than 4,000. But that only stands with those assumptions.

I have never been in this situation and don't ever expect to be in this situation.

Also, I expect people to look out for themselves.

Hypotheticals are a crock of shit.


So you say, and yet here we are discussing a real life case that parallels the hypothetical thought experiment. You know philosophers don't just talk about these things because it makes them happy. Moral dilemmas are considered in the abstract because often, as in the case of these vaccines, the abstract becomes more concrete.

Your disrespect for philosophy is disheartening, and it reminds me of the New Atheist movement's own disrespect for philosophy.

Which makes one wonder why the hell they say "being poor" increases your risk for cervival cancer.

Because the government engineered the virus to recognize when the host is poor, at which point it would give them cancer. Obviously.

But it's probably due to lack of std-minimizing contraceptive use among the poor, as well as riskier sexual activities (prostitutes, et al), and lower immune system efficiency due to poor diet and lack of exercise (your immune system can cure HPV), and so on.

Anonymous Anonymous August 11, 2013 7:27 PM  

Here's another point to consider: lower fertility because of the vaccine.
I'm in my early 30s and, of the women my age, the ones who are having lots of trouble conceiving children with their respective husbands are the ones who've had the vaccine.
This trend probably won't come to light for another 10 years, but a tell-tale sign will be a massive drop in teen pregnancy.

Anonymous Anonymous August 11, 2013 7:37 PM  

I will make several points: First, I can't recommend any vaccine with perhaps the exception of tetanus. I say that generally, but with the understanding none of the vaccines were ever tested in neonates in combination with other vaccines.

Specifically, with respect to the HPV vaccines, this is categorically insane. The hoopla over how dangerous HPV actually is, is the result of selective study. It's been a long time, but I guarantee I can write a protocol (based on a few quick and dirty limiting studies) that will just about guarantee I get the results I want, and those results will support the desperate need for an HPV vaccine.

Cervical cancer is most normally a squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma. Interestingly, high dosages of sodium ascorbate intravenously is a very effective and safe treatement for carcinoma's and adenocarcinomas (as well as other cell types). Understand, when one takes vitamin C orally, it's an antioxidant. Inject it IV and it's an oxidizing agent which creates hydrogen peroxide in the cells that must be neutralized by the catalase present in a healthy cell. However, many cancerous cell types have little or no catalase, so this treatment is specifically cytotoxic to cancerous cells. First it nails down any metastasis and then goes after the tumors.

As a veteran of the drug development industry at both the preclinical and clinical level, I have observed the immorality of the current system which prevents the use of low-cost, safe and effective treatments in favor of patented, profitable treatments that don't actually work to cure anything. The pharmaceutical industry doesn't want to cure anything, they just want the cash flow of endless treatment programs.

I vividly remember attending a society of toxicology convention in 1994, sitting with a certain PhD. statistician. He was drinking a double scotch, smoking a cigarette. I had a snifter of brandy and was smoking a cigar. A colleague approached with a large diet coke. My statistician friend came unglued, jumped up and said "Don't drink that shit! Aspartame wasn't flying with FDA until they brought me in and I had to develop a new test to normalize the data. I've seen the raw data. Do not put that shit in your body."

I think just about everyone who's been in the industry long enough will have these kind of 'aha' moments. Another of my moments was having two agents of the FDA explain (off the record) why Dr. Burzynski's Antineoplastin therapy will never be approved even though it's completely safe and great stuff. Bottom line? The FDA will not issue a drug license to an individual, only to a corporation, and Burzynski and his wife own the patents personally. That was 20 years ago and they were right. If your kid gets one of those rare brain tumors, your only hope is getting on a plane and flying them to Houston.

The discussion is framed in terms of whether we need this vaccine. It needs to be reframed in terms of being allowed to use effective therapies. Look at the introduction of Prozac and the FDA's ban on L-Tryptophan. It's all about money, everything else is kerfuffle.

Blogger tz August 11, 2013 7:58 PM  

Perhaps if we can come up with a vaccine against lung cancer and emphysema, we can all start smoking.

Feminism causes a lot worse starting with the promiscuity that spreads Chlaymidia, HPV, genital herpes, (now resistant) gonorrhea and syphilis. See the book "Unprotected". We need a vaccine against that.

Anonymous fred August 11, 2013 8:00 PM  

So far MMR is the only one we are considering only because there is a history of mumps in the family.

You might want to look a little further into the MMR too.

You may not have meant it this way but there is no way we'd be giving anything to a 2 month old. FWIW - Most of ours have nothing but tetanus.

Blogger Admiral James August 11, 2013 8:09 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous mrl August 11, 2013 8:11 PM  

Atlas and zeonxavier here is a website that will help you vaccinate wiser: http://www.nvic.org/. Also when my child was two I stopped her vaccinations after I learned how bad many of the ingredients in them are and I had to get a new Pediatrician. The new doctor we went to said no child under the age of 9 should have an MMR vaccination because their neurological system is not fully developed. He did not give his own children this vaccine.

Blogger Admiral James August 11, 2013 8:12 PM  

why are you anti-Science, Admiral James?

it really distresses me that a Luddite such as yourself could be promoted to such high rank.



LoL. What would make you think that I am ant-science? Furthermore, you needn't distress any further about my rank as it was simply a nicknamee. In reality I am a nobody and a mental midget compared to most people who post here. I was simply asking an honest question.
I do have a problem with the HPV vaccine being approved and mandated in certain states only one year after being created. The test group number for target consumer was a little over 3000. In the research community that is far too small a number.
Add to that that Texas Governor Rick Perry was given money by Merck as well as having relatives connected with Merck and I am suspiscious. To make matters worse, the Lobby group Women in Government is comprised of Merck members, is also concerning.

Blogger tz August 11, 2013 8:16 PM  

@Ann Morgan - I thought people were desperately trying to find genetic markers so that while screening for things like extra chromosomes, just as 95% of the downs syndrome babies aren't allowed to exist to suffer, we an do something similar to Homosexuals. Do they not assert there is a "gay gene"?

And no, I advocate no vaccine for anything that can be addressed by self-control, at least not involuntarily.

Note homosexuality (at least make) has large risks, so it should be weighed v.s. the risks of the vaccines. Nor did you specify if it would prevent homosexuality (so a child would at puberty become hetero), or if applied to those who already are, it would cure them - or turn them into eunuchs.

Anonymous Anonymous August 11, 2013 8:17 PM  

@Fred
You might want to take a look at the European rejection of vaccines such as MMR. The studies showing that measles, mumps and whooping cough are normal childhood diseases that strengthen the immune system in ways we still don't understand, which make adults far more able to withstand adult diseases, are compelling. Those efficient Germans, I hear they throw measles parties in somebody's kid gets measles, so all the kids can get infected and get it over with.

If you want to really go down the rabbit hole, you might find this research of interest:
http://www.soilandhealth.org/03sov/0302hsted/030212campbell/campbell%203-1.htm

The argument is the smallpox vaccine didn't eradicate smallpox, it was DDT.

Blogger Admiral James August 11, 2013 8:26 PM  

Ughh. I apologize for the typos. Feel free to deduct a few more IQ points....

Anonymous stats79 August 11, 2013 8:29 PM  

Another of my moments was having two agents of the FDA explain (off the record) why Dr. Burzynski's Antineoplastin therapy will never be approved even though it's completely safe and great stuff.

So are you Dr. Burzynski, or an employee of Dr. Burzynski? Doesn't seem to be any convincing or definitive studies of his work. Can't believe a real scientist would be so gung-ho about an unproven therapy.

Anonymous fred August 11, 2013 8:31 PM  

@artisanaltoadshall
You might want to take a look at the European rejection of vaccines such as MMR.


Unless I'm misunderstanding you... I think you missed the point of the link. It wasn't to advocate MMR.

Anonymous zen0 August 11, 2013 8:38 PM  

Ann Morgan's schtick is facade hypotheses. We use to do that when we were kids. Its called, " let's pretend", and then you make up a scenario, like you are on a bombing run to Tokyo but you are sitting in cardboard boxes in the back yard.

If people don't play along the whole thing falls apart, especially if someone turns on the sprinkler.

Anonymous Anonymous August 11, 2013 8:50 PM  

@Fred

I know. I was giving you more ammunition... :)

@Stats79
No, I have no association with Burzynski or his clinic at all. A friend was in remission after taking his therapy, but he died after the FDA slapped Burzynski with a cease and desist order and put him on trial for curing children of cancer using a drug the FDA refused to approve (something he is licensed to do in Texas, as a physician).

I'm not at all convinced you're qualified to review any of the dozens of clinical trials he's done in the past few decades or the articles he's published, but if you're enough of a hero to review all that in the past hour, my hat's off to you. Here:

http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/scientific-publications.html

His problems with the FDA center on the fact that the antineoplastin therapy is less toxic than water. By law, unless an LD-50 can be demonstrated, the drug cannot be approved. Second, he can't explain the efficacy. In other words, nobody knows why it works, it just does. The toxicity problem could be overcome by adding something to allow a demonstration of slight toxicity and the inability to explain the specific action could be overlooked given how well it works, but the license cannot be issued to an individual.

Blogger tz August 11, 2013 9:00 PM  

@Ann Morgan

In another thread I noted your fear, hatred, vengeance, and forgiveness were blinding you and rendering your 166 IQ meaningless as it was a slave to your emotion.

Somehow I get the distinct impression that if this vaccine were for preventing a virus that causes homosexuality, most of those who are currently opposed to it's use and complaining that it is 'unsafe' would be DEMANDING it's use, even if it were show to be 10 times as unsafe as it currently supposedly is.

You are babbling. I know the point you might want to make, and you are perfectly capable of arguing it rationally, but instead your grammar breaks (showN not show), nor can you remember to point to whatever your point was supposed to be. There is currently no virus, so "unsafe as it currently supposedly is", the "it" cannot refer to anything real, but what you might have pointed to is obscured. Will your anger cause a premature death of your keyboard typing these broken statements?

If your 166 IQ is not so much a slave to an anger that you cannot produce a grammatically and functionally correct sentence, then what is the cause of your writing words that a 90 IQ with spell check could produce?

Blogger eidolon hope August 11, 2013 9:02 PM  

"it would be interesting to see how many would die of the complications of cervical cancer if they were not vaccinated

We already know. What we don't know is that the vaccinations reduce the risk of developing those cancers, although we know that they risk killing and injuring the girls who receive them."

We actually do know this, you may search the literature if you'd like.

Blogger Kristophr August 11, 2013 9:05 PM  

nick digger Said: "Why are these vaccines necessary, again? Is it so difficult to teach young ladies not to be sluts, and keep their coochies clean?"

Can you guarantee that the man said daughter marries is a virgin?

Of if he is a virgin, that he doesn't cheat, and wont bring this disease into back into bed from elsewhere?

I didn't think so.

Anonymous karen August 11, 2013 9:12 PM  

Here's how vicious and insane these medical "professionals" are--my granddaughter was born 12 weeks premature, weighing only 2 lbs.(she initially lost weight and went down to a pound and a half) Every single day in the NICU was dedicated to keeping her alive, keeping germs and all sorts of infections away from her, helping her to gain precious ounces. Slowly, she gained weight and got stronger, but every day before going to see her (and only 2 people could see her at a time) we had to scrub up and not be sick in any way (obviously). When the baby was only a little over 3 lbs., and still a month away from her true birth date, the nurses came calling with their vaccination pressures. Let me repeat that: they wanted to FULLY vaccinate a 3 lb. still growing fetus with FIVE vaccines. I happened to be there with my daughter the day they came selling this criminal act and I questioned her as to why they would not wait until she was actually 2 months old (her adjusted age) which would have been at least three months away and was told that they like to give the babies vaccines while they are still in the NICU IN CASE THERE WERE COMPLICATIONS!!!! This sent me over the edge as I felt this was confirmation that they KNOW what they are giving our children is dangerous if they want to have them in the NICU to monitor their response. The entire line they were selling was contrary to every moment we lived up until that point. When a blanket touched the floor, it was scooped up so fast and thrown into a laundry basket---but they wanted permission to shoot a fragile 3 lb. baby up with live viruses, mercury, aluminum etc. etc. We said no thank you. Happy ending alert----after 70 days in the NICU, my granddaughter came home--she is currently almost 7 months old, vaccine free, weighs a little over 16 lbs. and has never been sick, her lung damage has repaired itself and she is the absolute joy and miracle of our lives. We are grateful to the NICU for their care during her stay but what struck me the most about this experience is how resilient the human body and spirit is when it is allowed to heal and grow without unnecessary medical interventions such as poisonous vaccines.

Anonymous Idle Spectator August 11, 2013 9:14 PM  

Somehow I get the distinct impression that if this vaccine were for preventing a virus that causes homosexuality, most of those who are currently opposed to it's use and complaining that it is 'unsafe' would be DEMANDING it's use, even if it were show to be 10 times as unsafe as it currently supposedly is.

To be fair, being a practicing homosexual is far more of a risk factor to your health than ANY of the vaccines currently in use.


Are you sure it's 166? I pegged her slower than that.

But what do I know. Everyone looks like ants on Mt. Olympus at above 180.

Anonymous Anonymous August 11, 2013 9:24 PM  

For those with an interest in learning more about vaccination, there are several resources available, for free, from the Soil and Health Library. For the layman, I recommend this one (you have to request it with an email):

Universal Immunization by Raymond Obomsawin, M.D.
http://www.soilandhealth.org/copyform.aspx?bookcode=020115

To understand the problems of getting treatment in a medical industry that's controlled by the AMA and the Pharmaceutical industry, read this (Direct download):

Why I Left Orthodox Medicine by Derrick Lonsdale, MD.
http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020172.whyiquit.pdf

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, Johns Hopkins Immunology August 11, 2013 9:45 PM  

I say that generally, but with the understanding none of the vaccines were ever tested in neonates in combination with other vaccines.

Bingo. That's exactly the problem here.

The vaccine A can be perfectly safe, but not if the immune system is not completely developed or impaired in some way. Vaccine A can be safe, and vaccine B can be safe, but when you get A + B together they might not be. That's called a contraindication. Now multiple that by A + B + C + D + E. Or whatever the current vaccine schedule is.

Let's look at the side effects again:

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.

I explained the clots. What about the others? Guillain-Barré Syndrome (proper orthography; GBS) is an autoimmune disease, and so is Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE). GBS affects the peripheral nervous system, and only has a death rate of about 4% at the most. So I think that is freaking out a bit too much there and being a drama queen.

Obviously the brain inflammation and seizures are probably connected there to the GBS thing.
Obviously the autoimmune problems are caused by the vaccine punching the immune system in the balls like Steven Seagal, cockpuncher.



That makes you wonder about giving them in children.

Anonymous bob k. mando August 11, 2013 9:46 PM  

Admiral James August 11, 2013 8:12 PM
LoL. What would make you think that I am ant-science? Furthermore, you needn't distress any further about my rank as it was simply a nicknamee.



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/comedy?s=t

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony?s=t




Idle Spectator August 11, 2013 9:14 PM
But what do I know. Everyone looks like ants on Mt. Olympus at above 180.



dur hur. i think something got through your rhetordoric armor. that is to say, some of the stupid got out.

Blogger Admiral James August 11, 2013 9:52 PM  

Ahhh. I get it now. Thanks for clarifying. ...

Anonymous Anonymous August 11, 2013 10:09 PM  

@Dr. Spectator

The vaccine A can be perfectly safe, but not if the immune system is not completely developed or impaired in some way. Vaccine A can be safe, and vaccine B can be safe, but when you get A + B together they might not be. That's called a contraindication. Now multiple that by A + B + C + D + E. Or whatever the current vaccine schedule is.

I'm afraid it's a bit more complicated than that. Drug approval isn't based on a simple evaluation of the drugs' toxicity and known side effects, but rather within the context of what the drug is attempting to treat. This is why there are a number of chemotherapeutics that have been approved even though they are proven to be quite carcinogenic and extremely toxic. The idea is the cancer is going to kill you, but this stuff might just kill the cancer and keep you alive long enough for the medical industry to extract all of your wealth before they send you to a hospice to die, so we'll allow it given the severity of the problem it's going to treat.

Contrast that to the strict scrutiny a food additive must meet, because it's assumed a large number of individuals will consume the additive on a daily basis. There's always the economic angle too: saccharine was banned after a study was designed and commissioned specifically to demonstrate carcinogenicity. That opened the way for Aspartame to become a billion-dollar food additive by removing the competition. See how it works?

One of the 21 essential amino acids, L-Tryptophan (a natural precursor of Serotonin, was banned under extremely questionable circumstances as an OTC food supplement because it was a natural and side-effect free competitor to the SSRI's that were coming onto the market such as Prozac. It's all about money.

Vaccines are a guaranteed money-maker because in most states (probably all of them) children covered by the various welfare medical treatment insurance programs such as Well Kids are required to receive every 'recommended' vaccination. The parents can't say no without it effecting the benefits. For those on public assistance, it isn't an issue of informed consent, they don't have a choice.

To get back to the testing and approval of vaccines, the same logic holds and given the specific disease or condition, there will be a certain level of problems that are 'acceptable' in the desire to offer a new profit opportunity to the drug companies. Again, the object of the drug company is to run the studies in such a way they provide the FDA with the data it wants while minimizing any problematic issues.

Anonymous Mudz August 11, 2013 10:09 PM  

Somehow I get the distinct impression that if this vaccine were for preventing a virus that causes homosexuality, most of those who are currently opposed to it's use and complaining that it is 'unsafe' would be DEMANDING it's use, even if it were show to be 10 times as unsafe as it currently supposedly is.

How surprising. It's gay rights that's on your mind.

Lol. I wouldn't. For one thing, I don't believe it's genetic, and that's not really the point. They simply should not be putting their penis into another penis-equipped person. That doesn't require genetic therapy, that requires self-control.

If there was a dangerous 'de-gay' therapy, I think it would be up to said gay people whether they would make the decision to de-gay themselves in order to make it psychologically easier for them not to engage in homosexual relations. Otherwise, it's the equivalent of stuffing your kids full of dangerous drugs to keep their 'aggresion' under control. It ain't right to do it like that.

I find the notion of a genetic cure both ludicrous and of no concern to me. I certainly wouldn't be vaccinating children in order to prevent gayness, just like I wouldn't have hetero-confirmed infants' testes/tube blocked/tied to prevent reproduction until they're 'ready'.

Treating everything as a genetic problem misses the point. People simply shouldn't be having homosexual relations regardless.

Anonymous The other skeptic August 11, 2013 10:12 PM  

Of if he is a virgin, that he doesn't cheat, and wont bring this disease back from a diverse bed from elsewhere?

Fixed that for you ...

Anonymous Boris August 11, 2013 10:12 PM  

That's a pretty silly article you're quoting there. Published on August 7th, 2013 about a presentation given in October of 2009?

At any rate the sentence "At the time of writing, 44 girls are officially known to have died from these vaccines." is wrong. Perhaps 44 have died soon after receiving the vaccine, but I'd doubt that is higher than background rates given the millions of doses administered. In fact, I found an interview with Dr. Harper from 2011 and she makes no claims that this vaccine causes death, only that adverse events (including death) are "associated" with the vaccine.

Anonymous geoff August 11, 2013 10:16 PM  

how to find out whether elite children follow cdc schedule?

Anonymous Idle Spectator August 11, 2013 10:23 PM  

dur hur. i think something got through your rhetordoric armor. that is to say, some of the stupid got out.

Oh. You again. And it was rhetarderic. Come on, it was only June 22 we had that conversation. This is your left, this is your right...

Anonymous Idle Spectator August 11, 2013 10:34 PM  

I'm afraid it's a bit more complicated than that.

I know. I am keeping this as simple as possible.


Vaccines are a guaranteed money-maker because in most states (probably all of them) children covered by the various welfare medical treatment insurance programs such as Well Kids are required to receive every 'recommended' vaccination. The parents can't say no without it effecting the benefits. For those on public assistance, it isn't an issue of informed consent, they don't have a choice.

To get back to the testing and approval of vaccines, the same logic holds and given the specific disease or condition, there will be a certain level of problems that are 'acceptable' in the desire to offer a new profit opportunity to the drug companies. Again, the object of the drug company is to run the studies in such a way they provide the FDA with the data it wants while minimizing any problematic issues.


Precisely. The problem is they are describing vaccines as a magic bullet (no side effects) that lasts forever (wrong, as we know now).

Unlike OTCs, chemotherapy, and food additives where we know the risks. I mean, shit, they freaked out over yellow dye no. 5 or Tartrazine even at a rate of complications at >0.12%.

Anonymous Anonymous August 11, 2013 10:45 PM  

You're talking about ethical marketing, but that's a different discussion.

MPAI. In my opinion, it's because they don't want to accept the responsibility the decision to refuse to vaccinate their children imputes upon them as parents. The responsibility required to make such a decision triggers an emotional response and making logical arguments about it is useless.

Anonymous Idle Spectator August 11, 2013 10:54 PM  

You're talking about ethical marketing, but that's a different discussion.

I'm talking about a lot of things. I know they banned the L-Typt, but didn't they bring it back? Or is that just online?

Anonymous Scintan August 11, 2013 11:56 PM  

Is it any wonder you're so widely considered a clown?

Irony so thick you can cut it with knife.

Anonymous Scintan August 12, 2013 12:05 AM  

Somehow I get the distinct impression that if this vaccine were for preventing a virus that causes homosexuality, most of those who are currently opposed to it's use and complaining that it is 'unsafe' would be DEMANDING it's use, even if it were show to be 10 times as unsafe as it currently supposedly is.

Is this your first time reading this blog? One of the few things that actually tie the "ilk" together is that so many of them are in complete opposition to pretty much anything being made mandatory by the government.

Anonymous Anonymous August 12, 2013 12:09 AM  

@Spectator
FDA allowed it to be sold again about 10 years ago, but with a warning label, and God help you if you make any claims about it that would hurt SSRI sales.

I find L-Tryptophan and L-Theanine taken together is a really nice nootropic combination, but that's just my opinion.

Blogger LL August 12, 2013 12:23 AM  

@Admiral James hit the main point about how this vaccine only covers 4 of the versions shown to cause cervical cancer. Also, the virus is shed by most people with no ill effects. I would add that Phoeecian is a flipping idiot to quote "lifetime" anything on this vaccine because there is NO existing cohort of women who have lived their lifetimes under this vaccine since it is relatively new. I can easily see a large group of young women getting HPV (in any of the strains covered by the vaccine) in the next 5-10 years because no one knows how long it covers and if women believe they are "safe," because they did the series as teens, they may take greater risk by skipping PAPs and other screening precautions. Just as with varicella, we don't know "long term efficacy" and should not take the word of the pharm companies that all is well once you receive their magic bullet.

Anonymous Anonymous August 12, 2013 12:38 AM  

"Feminism causes a lot worse.... We need a vaccine against that."

TZ, is this what you meant? Because there really is a vaccine, you know. I am consumed by the wonder of it all. It doesn't prevent the disease, but it creates immunities and prevents it from becoming fatal. It's a built in fail safe, almost as if there were a plan all along. A very intelligent design.

As to what you said at that other place, ouch, even chopped liver serves a purpose, you know. A wonderful, magical purpose, I tell ya...okay, I'll just go back to my corner now.

Synchronicity, I'm so addicted to the stuff, I could probably hurt myself with it.

Anonymous Vandermerwe August 12, 2013 1:22 AM  

Other factors may increase the risk of developing cancer following a high-risk HPV infection (5). These other factors include the following:

Smoking
Having a weakened immune system
Having many children (for increased risk of cervical cancer)
Long-term oral contraceptive use (for increased risk of cervical cancer)
Poor oral hygiene (for increased risk of oropharyngeal cancer)
Chronic inflammation

Can HPV infection be prevented?

The most reliable way to prevent infection with either a high-risk or a low-risk HPV is to avoid any skin-to-skin oral, anal, or genital contact with another person (1). For those who are sexually active, a long-term, mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner is the strategy most likely to prevent HPV infection (1). However, because of the lack of symptoms it is hard to know whether a partner who has been sexually active in the past is currently infected with HPV.

Research has shown that correct and consistent use of condoms can reduce the transmission of HPVs between sexual partners (10). Areas not covered by a condom can be infected with the virus, though (1), so condoms are unlikely to provide complete protection against virus spread.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved two HPV vaccines: Gardasil® for the prevention of cervical, anal, vulvar, and vaginal cancer, as well as precancerous lesions in these tissues and genital warts caused by HPV infection; and Cervarix® for the prevention of cervical cancer and precancerous cervical lesions caused by HPV infection. Both vaccines are highly effective in preventing infections with HPV types 16 and 18. Gardasil also prevents infection with HPV types 6 and 11. These vaccines have not been approved for prevention of penile or oropharyngeal cancer.

from:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV

Blogger Justthisguy August 12, 2013 1:43 AM  

Yeah, they brought the L-tryptophan back. I bought a jar of capsules of it in the local hippy-health-food store a coupla years ago. That gave me the first good nights' sleeps I had had in years. I wish I could afford to buy more. IIRC, there was just the one bad batch which caused the ban.

Blogger Azzur August 12, 2013 2:04 AM  

We can argue until we are all blue in the face, but no one will be able to convince anyone regardless.

The anti-vaccination people (me included) do not want vaccines banned. All we want is the free choice to vaccinate (or not). If the medical community has their way, we could reach the stage where parents would not even have a choice to do so or not.

The cost/benefit analysis of anything should be done by those accountable for the results (i.e. the parents) with as much information disclosed to them as possible. If you want to vaccinate, by all means do so, but don't expect (or force) others to do so.

Anonymous Anonymous August 12, 2013 2:39 AM  

Irish Farmer wrote: **Taking away from one to feed five, assuming this is a life and death scenario here, is effectively the same as diverting the train. Albeit, you've introduced confiscation into the mix, I suppose.**

Irish Farmer: The food is a positive value, it is something that is *required* to live. The train is a negative value, it's something that must be eliminated (or diverted) in order to live. There's a moral difference between the two.

Anonymous zen0 August 12, 2013 3:31 AM  

The main weapon against cervical cancer besides sexual restraint is the PAP test for early detection of cervical erosion so that treatment may be administered.

The HPV vaccination is a lazy way to deal with the problem, and has the aforementioned side effects. No one died from a PAP test.

Anonymous Ann Morgan August 12, 2013 7:08 AM  

zenO wrote: **The HPV vaccination is a lazy way to deal with the problem, and has the aforementioned side effects. No one died from a PAP test.**

This is making two very big assumptions, neither of which are necessarily true. One is that a woman whose parents are in a financial situation to give her a vaccine as a young teenager will necessarily be in a financial situation to get regular pap tests throughout her entire life. The other is that there won't be any economic/technological collapse, such that pap tests and cancer treatments won't be available any more.

I also notice that none of these people who claim to be so concerned about possible health problems caused by this vaccine seem to be very active in demanding the relegalization of DDT, the current illegal status of which is resulting in the entirely preventable deaths of 3 million people a year. It seems to me that if the REAL concern were with 'saving lives' then all these people would first work to get DDT relegalized, then afterwards worry about possible safety issues with the HPV vaccine (which is a very miniscule problem compared to malaria).

Blogger James Higham August 12, 2013 7:20 AM  

There is method, Vox, there is method.

Anonymous Ann Morgan August 12, 2013 7:30 AM  

The article in the link said: **Why do nine-year-old girls need vaccinations for extremely rare and symptom-less venereal diseases that the immune system usually kills anyway?**

No idea. Why do infant boys need surgical mutilation for extremely rare 'problems' that are either actually the normal bodily state of prepubescent boys, or that the body normally eliminates anyways?

Both questions have the same answer, which is that if you have an agenda of some kind, those medical facts that disagree with you are tossed out the window, and those that agree with you are used not for their own sake, but to justify the agenda that you would have had anyways.

The real question is, why is this information regarding the HPV vaccine coming out now, as it certainly is going to cause an uproar? I'm pretty sure this means that Obama is up to something (or about to be) that he wants to distract people from.

Anonymous Boris August 12, 2013 7:32 AM  

"the relegalization of DDT"

DDT is legal almost everywhere for vector control. It's just not that effective.

Anonymous Anonymous August 12, 2013 8:52 AM  

"There is method, Vox, there is method."

James Higham speaks the truth. There is also a method to this madness, the madness of liars and fools. Remember this, "I am a girl, God sent me, I am a gift." We madwomen seek desperately to honor Vox.

God may well be punishing him however, I don't presume to understand what God is up to.


Anonymous Sigyn August 12, 2013 9:00 AM  

There's a moral difference between the two.

1. Do you have some measure of "moral" other than "I don't like that" this time?

2. If a person can demonstrate that the "elimination" of something limits unnecessary deaths and injuries that come as a result of it, would you agree with outlawing it?

Anonymous Anonymous August 12, 2013 9:30 AM  

Ann,

"This is making two very big assumptions, neither of which are necessarily true. One is that a woman whose parents are in a financial situation to give her a vaccine as a young teenager will necessarily be in a financial situation to get regular pap tests throughout her entire life. The other is that there won't be any economic/technological collapse, such that pap tests and cancer treatments won't be available any more."

Do you know how they screen for cervical cancer in third world countries? With a few drops of vinegar and a flashlight, something so simple it could be accomplished under complete economic/techno collapse.

When you are ignorant of just one or two simple facts, the rest of your logic simply collapses upon itself.

Anonymous The other skeptic August 12, 2013 9:51 AM  

DDT is legal almost everywhere for vector control. It's just not that effective.

More proof by assertion.

Anonymous The other skeptic August 12, 2013 9:58 AM  

Somehow I get the distinct impression that if this vaccine were for preventing a virus that causes homosexuality, most of those who are currently opposed to it's use and complaining that it is 'unsafe' would be DEMANDING it's use, even if it were show to be 10 times as unsafe as it currently supposedly is.

There is a difference between demanding to be allowed to use some vaccine on your own children and forcing all other parents (except those who know better like those parents who are drug company execs or CDC exec) use the vaccine on their children.

If there was a vaccine against homosexuality (something that is a possibility--check Greg Cochran's blog) then I would support allowing parents to make their own decisions whether to use the vaccine or not.

Unfortunately, that does not help drug company profits. In fact, if there were such a vaccine, I believe that the drug company that invented it would spearhead a campaign to force its use.

Anonymous LL August 12, 2013 9:58 AM  

@Ann Morgan

yttik covered it. See here. If you don't know of this extremely cheap, low tech, "no medical skills necessary" type of screening, then I suggest you pipe down on the topic of PAP smears and the cost benefit of them versus the risk of a relatively new vaccine. And you don't know our positions on DDT and malaria, so again, you are laying some sort of "argument by indirect association of positions" with absolutely NO knowledge of the audience here. Don't make assumptions about us. Please note, this WHO document was published in 2006, 7 years ago. Just because DDT is illegal here in the US does not mean it is illegal elsewhere and does not mean it is not being used to control malaria transmission by controlling mosquito population. Take the time to actually research things before forwarding an argument as if you have a clue.

Anonymous VD August 12, 2013 10:38 AM  

Both questions have the same answer, which is that if you have an agenda of some kind, those medical facts that disagree with you are tossed out the window, and those that agree with you are used not for their own sake, but to justify the agenda that you would have had anyways.

You're projecting, Ann. Simply because you think that way doesn't mean everyone else does. And I note your intellectual dishonesty as well; you cannot make any appeals to "moral distinction" here anymore now that your complete lack of an objective moral system has been exposed and explored. You have no morals that apply to anyone else to which you can appeal.

Learn to think consistently, otherwise you will continue to be incoherent.

Anonymous Boris August 12, 2013 10:54 AM  

More proof by assertion.

Which part? DDT is recommended for indoor spraying for malaria control by the WHO and the Stockholm Convention allows its use for vector control. So it is not "illegal."

As for its effectiveness, you'll have to delve into the literature for yourself. Resistance is a major issue with DDT, but it is an okay choice in countries where it's cheaper than pyrethroids and resistance hasn't set in.

Anonymous Ann Morgan August 12, 2013 12:19 PM  

yttik wrote: **Do you know how they screen for cervical cancer in third world countries? With a few drops of vinegar and a flashlight, something so simple it could be accomplished under complete economic/techno collapse.**

Flashlight, huh? How long are you going to have batteries for it under a technological collapse?

Anonymous Ann Morgan August 12, 2013 12:38 PM  

VD wrote: **You have no morals that apply to anyone else to which you can appeal.**

True enough, but do the Christians here have any source they can *prove* to appeal to?

And given that I wouldn't kill a teenage girl for being too frightened to scream when a knife is held to her throat, or a dog because some sicko came in and abused it, my moral system is arguably better than that of many people here.

And Vox - I was actually agreeing with you regarding the dangers of the HPV vaccine when I talked about people who have an 'agenda' throwing the medical facts out the window. Perhaps I didn't make it entirely clear that the evidence given here had changed my mind on that issue.

Provided that the evidence is accurate.

*IF* the situation is as you describe, that is to say, the danger of the vaccine is that high, and the benefits consist of *possibly* protecting against 10% of all strains of HPV virus for a short amount of time, and the virus seldom causes cancer, and the cancer is easily treated (though not in a technological collapse), then the vaccine has a poor risk-reward ratio and those who want to make it's use mandatory are guilty of tossing out medical facts that disagree with them. But the same thing is true of those who support circumcision of male infants. On which topic, btw, my stand is similiar to what people here claim to want for the HPV vaccine. It does harm 100% of the time, the supporters toss out medical evidence about the harm it does, most of the claimed 'benefits' are highly dubious, the pharmaceutical and medical industries are making huge profits on it, and I don't want to eliminate it, I simply want to leave the choice of whether to get it done or not up to the boy, when he turns 18.

Blogger mina smith August 12, 2013 12:57 PM  

I haven't really followed the vaccination debate and so I was really surprised at the veracity of the shaming and brutal aggression my pediatrician showed when I told her my 16yo daughter and I weren't interested in their cervical cancer vaccination.

When it finally dawned on me that her next move might be to call child protective services due to my lack of interest in her inoculation, I informed her that any further questions on the topic directed at me or my family would be considered harassment and I'd be pleased to send a report to her management.

I walked out of the office sure that she had lots of stock in Gardasil.

The arguments for this particular vaccine remind me very much of one of the big reasons people use to rationalize male infant circumcision: the intact penis is "dirty" so it's good to remove the foreskin so that boys don't give girls cervical cancer.

Anonymous Josh August 12, 2013 12:58 PM  

True enough, but do the Christians here have any source they can *prove* to appeal?

Behold the goalposts, they doth move.

Anonymous Ann Morgan August 12, 2013 1:04 PM  

Irish Farmer: Here's why I make the distinction between a 'negative value' and a 'positive value' in my ethical system.

As I stated before, I believe that it may be morally correct to cause a small evil to some people, in terms of degree or the people affected, (more on that later) in order to prevent a larger evil to other people. If and only if the following are true:

1. The people you are 'saving' are not responsible for the evil. In the example of the train for instance, if the 5 people sabotaged the tracks, you should not kill the one innocent person instead of them.

2. The 'evil' you are saving them from takes the form of eliminating a negative value, such as a train, something that makes life impossible. Never the form of seizing a positive value, such as food, or something that is *required* for life.

The reason for the distinction is for two reasons:

1. If one person has food and the other 5 don't, he is likely to be more fit to survive in some way than the other 5. He was smarter or otherwise more competent, and starving him to death would serve little purpose in the long term, since the other 5 are probably doomed in the next famine anyways.

2. There is probably very little that you have, that could not be taken from you to save the lives of other people, elsewhere. Live in a nice house? Why not take it from you and sell it, and use the money to save the lives of starving children. You can survive in a 10' x 10' cabin. Have two kidneys? We'll strap you down, and take one of those to save the life of someone who needs a trasplant, you can live just fine with only 1 kidney. In fact, maybe we'll just take both your kidneys and save 2 lives, that outweighs your single life.

I'm sure you see the picture, once you start seizing positive values from people, on the grounds of 'need it to save the lives of a greater number' there is really no end to it except who can present themselves as cutest, or make the most noise.

One more thought on the train scenario, another factor I might take into account on whether to divert the train, would be the particular value of the 5 people vs the 1 person to me (in my own subjective view). If I knew that the 5 people were all serial killers, and the 1 person was Mother Theresa, I'd probably leave the train to kill the 5 people. The same thing if I didn't know who the 5 people were, but the 1 person was my brother or my sweetie.

Anonymous Sigyn August 12, 2013 1:09 PM  

Ann, calm down.

True enough, but do the Christians here have any source they can *prove* to appeal to?

Yes, and that proof is frequently offered. Your rejection of it, for whatever reason, does not cause it to not exist.

And given that I wouldn't kill a teenage girl for being too frightened to scream when a knife is held to her throat, or a dog because some sicko came in and abused it,

I'm going to lay aside the obvious misogyny of this comparison of women to dogs, and just point out that this is not relevant here.

my moral system is arguably better than that of many people here.

Do you have some source you can *prove* to appeal to for your assertion of moral superiority? Or are we still at "I don't like that, therefore it is bad"?

Anonymous Sigyn August 12, 2013 1:13 PM  

As I stated before, I believe that it may be morally correct to cause a small evil to some people, in terms of degree or the people affected, (more on that later) in order to prevent a larger evil to other people. If and only if the following are true:

1. The people you are 'saving' are not responsible for the evil. In the example of the train for instance, if the 5 people sabotaged the tracks, you should not kill the one innocent person instead of them.

2. The 'evil' you are saving them from takes the form of eliminating a negative value, such as a train, something that makes life impossible. Never the form of seizing a positive value, such as food, or something that is *required* for life.


Under this definition, would you be in favor of outlawing a non-vital behavior that results in provable injury and contributes to ill health and even earlier deaths among its practitioners?

Anonymous Sigyn August 12, 2013 1:16 PM  

One last one:

One more thought on the train scenario, another factor I might take into account on whether to divert the train, would be the particular value of the 5 people vs the 1 person to me (in my own subjective view). If I knew that the 5 people were all serial killers, and the 1 person was Mother Theresa, I'd probably leave the train to kill the 5 people. The same thing if I didn't know who the 5 people were, but the 1 person was my brother or my sweetie.

Are you an Objectivist? (If you haven't answered that already, of course.)

Blogger mina smith August 12, 2013 1:16 PM  

oops "veracity" - wrong word. meant, "energetically overexcited and threatening" No idea what word I had in mind but "veracity" ain't it! (sorry)

Anonymous Ann Morgan August 12, 2013 1:18 PM  

mina smith wrote: **The arguments for this particular vaccine remind me very much of one of the big reasons people use to rationalize male infant circumcision: the intact penis is "dirty" so it's good to remove the foreskin so that boys don't give girls cervical cancer.**

yeah, I've come across that BS argument before. I don't think sex is dirty, I don't think a normal human body is dirty, I do know that amputating a normal healthy body part without the consent of the patient is contrary to medical ethics. It's also amazing how many feminists are against female genital mutilation but in favor of male genital mutilation. So much for 'equality'.

As for the 'preventing cervical cancer' argument, that's actually more BS. Infants don't have sex, so doing what I propose, and letting the boy decide for himself about the matter when he is older will work just fine. It's not as if his skin is suddenly going to become invulnerable like Superman's when he turns 18, and require a kryptonite blade to perform the surgery. And washing and a condom will always work wonders. Hygeine and cleanliness are always good ideas.... did I mention that the medical profession tossed out the evidence for quite a while when Dr. Lister first proposed the radical idea of a doctor actually sterilizing his hands after disecting a rotting corpose before treating a living patient?

And as a biologist, I am *very* cautious about simply eliminating a feature that has not been eliminated by evolution. Most traits that actually aren't needed are lost to evolution (eyes in cave fish, fear and flight in birds on islands with no predators). Mind you, it is possible to improve on nature, the human eye could use a good redesign to put the blood vessels behind the retina rather than in front of it. But you'd better really know just what you are doing, before you start doing it.

Blogger mina smith August 12, 2013 1:37 PM  

"But you'd better really know just what you are doing, before you start doing it." which you could just as easily apply to vaccines.

Blogger mina smith August 12, 2013 1:56 PM  

"I'm in my early 30s and, of the women my age, the ones who are having lots of trouble conceiving children with their respective husbands are the ones who've had the vaccine."

Interesting! I am sure there is no reason whatsoever for us to don our tin foil hats on this one, is there?

Anonymous LL August 12, 2013 1:58 PM  

Along the same lines, the FDA takes care of us. They do. Really. Just trust them. Everything goes through deep and thorough testing before they put it out there to the public.

The medication was approved by the FDA in 1989 under the brand name Larium and quickly became a leading drug for preventing and treating malaria — among travelers and the military.
...
The FDA strengthened its warning this week based on a new review of medical literature and reports of patients suffering from dizziness, loss of balance, tinnitus and vertigo, according to a statement from the agency.

The symptoms often started after the first dose or two but continued for months or years. In some cases, the damage was deemed permanent. Usually, the neurological symptoms were accompanied by psychiatric ones, including anxiety, confusion, paranoia and depression, which were also long-lasting.


That was just for Ann Morgan because she seems to assume that we are ignorant on malaria issues and are against DDT because...well, she just knows, right?

Anonymous Ann Morgan August 12, 2013 3:32 PM  

mina wrote: **"But you'd better really know just what you are doing, before you start doing it." which you could just as easily apply to vaccines.**

As a matter of fact it does. However, there's a big difference between vaccines and circumcision. Vaccines have a certain small percentage of bad effects. The exact percentage varies from vaccine to vaccine. Circumcision has a 100% rate of bad effects, the bad effect is the desired goal. Anyone who forces their child to undergo a so-called medical procedure with 100% rate of bad effects, and a very small rate of good effects does not know what they are doing. They either have been lied to, or have malevolent or irrational goals.

LL wrote: **That was just for Ann Morgan because she seems to assume that we are ignorant on malaria issues and are against DDT because...well, she just knows, right?**

Wrong. I make no assumption on the positions of people here regarding DDT. My statement was that if people here were actually interested in saving lives then what they should really be talking loudly about is not the bad effects of the HPV vaccine, but the bad effects of banning DDT.

I find the same error in politicians who bleat about how everyone needs to lower their lifestyle to reduce pollution. If they were REALLY interested in reducing pollution, the first thing they would do is legalize hemp, and the second thing they would do is ban garbage compactors and locked dumpsters behind businesses. Since none of the politicians who claim to be so interested in 'reducing pollution' have proposed either action, I can only conclude that they are not actually interested in really 'reducing pollution' but only in using the supposed concept of 'reducing pollution' as a justification for their real agenda, which is forcibly lowering everyone else's lifestyles.

Blogger mina smith August 12, 2013 4:04 PM  

Ann Morgan August 12, 2013 3:32 PM: You misinterpret my point but ... since you continue to draw the parallel with circumcision ... circumcision generally continues because prospective new parents are not given enough information to make an informed decision.

I believe the position of many on this blog in regards to vaccinations is just the same: without full disclosure of all of the facts, people are unable to make informed decisions about vaccinating their children.

In the eyes of many intelligent people who desire to make decisions on their merits the withholding of facts and data often implies something is being hidden intentionally - something that works against the "agenda" of the withholder - whatever that may be.

In this case the agenda is probably a simple desire to sell as many inoculations as possible. It could also be that more sinister agendas are also at work (tin foil hat.)

The point being that making an informed decision is based on the ability to analyze all of the available data, not just the data biased, not-disinterested groups are willing to give.

Circumcision is falling out of favor for just this reason. People are demanding access to all available information and specifically-biased, not-disinterested groups with agendas are being exposed.

I suspect in this climate of pharmaceutical companies being insulated from failure and the coming Government monopoly of our health care system (and our not unimportant healthy suspicion and distrust of this same Government), this will become more, not less, critical to people who desire to make their own decisions about vaccinations.

Most critical to that IMO is whether the vaccination manufacturers really know what they are doing ... in a lot of cases I think their main concern is a lot more about making money than anything else. I'm sure I don't need to point this out, but wanting to make a lot of money selling inoculations does not equate to knowing what they are doing by ensuring millions of young girls are injected with their products.

Anonymous LL August 12, 2013 5:08 PM  

I also notice that none of these people who claim to be so concerned about possible health problems caused by this vaccine seem to be very active in demanding the relegalization of DDT, the current illegal status of which is resulting in the entirely preventable deaths of 3 million people a year. It seems to me that if the REAL concern were with 'saving lives' then all these people would first work to get DDT relegalized, then afterwards worry about possible safety issues with the HPV vaccine (which is a very miniscule problem compared to malaria).

The bolded is a judgment statement stating that we do not have REAL concern for saving lives because we are not working to "relegalize" a chemical that is already legal in those places where malaria is most prevalent. Do not tell me you are making no assumptions.

Blogger Unknown August 12, 2013 5:55 PM  

War paradigm of vaccines is what more and more people are disagreeing with. The notion that there is an acceptable level of death and dysfunction that is going to happen, but that's okay because the collective is better off. I'm not willing to allow my daughters to be a casualty of questionable science. Would you sacrifice your daughters for the collective? No thanks. Dipshit, I'm gainfully employed and don't sit in my skivies in my moms basement throwing e-bombs. Don't have the time. Sucks that more and more people are actually getting informed and making an informed decision doesn't it.

Blogger WATYF August 12, 2013 6:57 PM  

The claims from the original article are in question...

http://www.hyderus.com/anti-vaccine-crazies-back-on-the-attack-despite-us-hpv-figures/

http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1ggkw4/gardasil_developer_comes_clean_on_the_dangers_of/

WATYF

Anonymous geoff August 12, 2013 8:41 PM  

why the antagonism to circumcision? isn't God clear?

Blogger mina smith August 13, 2013 12:17 AM  

http://www.stopcirc.com/christian.html

Anonymous Ann Morgan August 13, 2013 12:53 PM  

mina wrote: **I'm sure I don't need to point this out, but wanting to make a lot of money selling inoculations does not equate to knowing what they are doing by ensuring millions of young girls are injected with their products.**

Mina, call me paranoid, but I think it highly likely that the pharmaceutical and medical industries 'know what they are doing' regarding various vaccines and circumcision, in that they are fully aware of the rate of the various harmful effects of both. It's the people they are trying to sell both procedures to who often 'don't know what they are doing', because the pharmaceutical and medical industries work to conceal the facts from them.

The same thing even happens in the veterinary business. The 'declawing' operation for cats is incredibly harmful to them. It would be better called 'detoe-ing' as it involved amputating the very same joint of the toes that the cat actually walks on. Most people who get this done to their cats 'don't know what they are doing' because they don't know anything about cat anatomy, or what the operation actually entails. But a lot of vets keep doing it anyways, it's an easy few hundred dollars for 10 minutes of work.

Blogger MarcusD August 13, 2013 12:57 PM  

As to why there might be a 56% decrease in the 14-19 female category for vaccine strain infection:


"Among sexually active 15–19 year olds, those who received HPV vaccine were more likely to report always wearing a condom [aOR=3.0 (1.1, 7.9)] than those who had not received vaccine."

Liddon, N., et al. "P1-S6. 42 HPV vaccine and sexual behaviour among US adolescent and young adult women." Sexually Transmitted Infections 87.Suppl 1 (2011): A213-A213.



"This study design did not account for changes over time in trends in sexual activity (increasing or decreasing)."

Forster, Alice S., et al. "Human papillomavirus vaccination and sexual behaviour: Cross-sectional and longitudinal surveys conducted in England." Vaccine 30.33 (2012): 4939-4944.



And trends of sexual activity are decreasing:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6117a1.htm#tab

Blogger Longstreet August 14, 2013 11:18 AM  

my moral system is arguably better than that of many people here.
No it isn't, not even arguably so. It's just....different.

Blogger mina smith August 14, 2013 10:52 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts