Debunked: Mike Adam's Claims Regarding HPV "Shock Study"

MikeG

Senior Member
From Mike Adams and Natural News


http://www.naturalnews.com/053851_HPV_vaccines_emergency_room_visits_adverse_events.html


I attached the actual study.

On page 1802, the article makes it very clear that the frequency of Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) was extremely low. [Boldface mine]

The study also notes on page 1802 [Boldface mine]:


So, yes, the rates are low and Mike Adams' shock and incredulity are misplaced. They are the product of cherry picking data. Again.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Auldy

Senior Member
Quite a leap from 192 (0.01%) to 19,351 (10%)!

Can we work back to who made the first false claim?
 

MikeG

Senior Member
Quite a leap from 192 (0.01%) to 19,351 (10%)!

Can we work back to who made the first false claim?
I think that it was Mike Adams. He took the number of "emergency department" visits included in the study and linked it directly to the HPV vaccine, skipping over the actual number of patients (192) who reported a reaction to the vaccine.

I'll dig a little more regardless.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The ED visits number of 10% in 42 days does initially sound high in that isolated context. But you need to compare it against the typical number of ED visits by the same demographic, who did not get the vaccine in that timeframe.

And the timeframe is not 42 days. The HPV vaccine is given in three doses, with gaps of 2 and 6 months. The effective timeframe is then 42 days after any one of those vaccinations. i.e. it's 126 days.

However not everyone got 3 doses, so we need to adjust slightly.


20160502-220202-t27sq.jpg

From the "Number of doses.." in Table 1 above, the average number of vaccinations is (6.4*1+9.9*2+82.4*3+0.1*4)/100 = 2.738. So the average period in which they could have an ER visit within 42 days of one of the vaccinations is 2.738*42 = 115 days.

So the question is what percentage of Canadian girls would use the ER in 115 days?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1197/j.aem.2007.02.030/epdf
20160502-220649-p76c1.jpg

Not exactly the same demographic, but 0-14 and 15-24 are both at around 40 visits per 100 population. So if in a year (365 days) there would be 40 visits per 100, then in 115 days there would be 115*40/365 = 12.6 visits per 100 population.

Most people do not got to the ER multiple times in 115 days, so the 12.6 visits per 100 population seems very much in the same ballpark as the 10% figure used in the HPV claims.

That is, the rate of ER visits is about average.
 

MikeG

Senior Member
The ED visits number of 10% in 42 days does initially sound high in that isolated context. But you need to compare it against the typical number of ED visits by the same demographic, who did not get the vaccine in that timeframe.

And the timeframe is not 42 days. The HPV vaccine is given in three doses, with gaps of 2 and 6 months. The effective timeframe is then 42 days after any one of those vaccinations. i.e. it's 126 days.

However not everyone got 3 doses, so we need to adjust slightly.


View attachment 18995

From the "Number of doses.." in Table 1 above, the average number of vaccinations is (6.4*1+9.9*2+82.4*3+0.1*4)/100 = 2.738. So the average period in which they could have an ER visit within 42 days of one of the vaccinations is 2.738*42 = 115 days.

So the question is what percentage of Canadian girls would use the ER in 115 days?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1197/j.aem.2007.02.030/epdf
View attachment 18996

Not exactly the same demographic, but 0-14 and 15-24 are both at around 40 visits per 100 population. So if in a year (365 days) there would be 40 visits per 100, then in 115 days there would be 115*40/365 = 12.6 visits per 100 population.

Most people do not got to the ER multiple times in 115 days, so the 12.6 visits per 100 population seems very much in the same ballpark as the 10% figure used in the HPV claims.

That is, the rate of ER visits is about average.
Nicely done.
 

MikeG

Senior Member
I found an interesting study of children born between March 2006 and March 2009 in the province of Ontario.

Although a good deal of the science is beyond me, the information does seem to support the study in the OP.

Ontario Study 2.png
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X11004129
 

Attachments

Top