Debunking Vaccine Myths

[Trigger Hippie]

"aluminium, ether, antifreeze, these are toxic ingredients!"

I wonder if Jenny realizes her table salt contains Chlorine. Eeek... Chlorine, that's a toxic ingredient! They make blistering agents out of that stuff.

 

[Bill]

I think Jenny's real objective with her position modification is to deflect the negative commentary that was received when she joined "The View".

 

[Svartbjørn]

I dont think her stance on vaccines is her biggest detraction when it comes to being on the view.. I think that whole adult film star thing would have a bigger impact lol.. unless the network's putting on the screws because they're afraid of losing viewers.

 

[Dan Wilson]

It's funny to see her flawed reasoning played out over the years but it is a real shame to think about how many people she convinced not to vaccinate just because she is famous and many people don't do follow up research on what they hear. A great but unfortunate example of Carl Sagan's quote in my signature below.

 

[Soulfly]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/05/15/measles-vaccine-cancer-mayo-clinic/9115363/

ROCHESTER, Minn. - Mayo Clinic researchers announced a landmark study where a massive dose of the measles vaccine, enough to inoculate 10 million people, wiped out a Minnesota woman's incurable blood cancer.

I can see the anti-vaccers saying we shouldn't vaccinate against measles now since it cures cancer.

I can't catch someones cancer though.

 

[Dan Wilson]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/05/15/measles-vaccine-cancer-mayo-clinic/9115363/

ROCHESTER, Minn. - Mayo Clinic researchers announced a landmark study where a massive dose of the measles vaccine, enough to inoculate 10 million people, wiped out a Minnesota woman's incurable blood cancer.

I can see the anti-vaccers saying we shouldn't vaccinate against measles now since it cures cancer.

I can't catch someones cancer though.

If they ever make that argument, it would never make any sense. In a case where someone's cancer can be cured with a virus like measles, there are many better ways to do it than not vaccinate. This story seems to be pretty new and I only saw one mention of it, but the treatment likely involved a modified virus. We will see if it gets reported in more detailed scientific news sources.

 

[Soulfly]

If they ever make that argument, it would never make any sense. In a case where someone's cancer can be cured with a virus like measles, there are many better ways to do it than not vaccinate. This story seems to be pretty new and I only saw one mention of it, but the treatment likely involved a modified virus. We will see if it gets reported in more detailed scientific news sources.

It did involve a modified virus, but CTers wont know the difference or wont care and will spin it anyway they like.

They will see, measles cures cancer, and think getting measles is better than getting cancer. Not sure what is worse but like I said, you can't catch cancer from someone.

 

[Soulfly]

Been reading various articles and the comments. There are people saying just what I said, that getting measles is a good thing.

Along with, cannabis and your vegetable garden are the real cures.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

It's funny to see her flawed reasoning played out over the years but it is a real shame to think about how many people she convinced not to vaccinate...

Absolutely.

There's also a pattern to her rhetoric. It's almost like she believes that opening with the claim that she's not anti-vaccine somehow negates all the anti-vaccine talking points that follow. It's like claiming not to be a racist then following up with a ten minute spew full of racial bigotry.

 

[deirdre]

Absolutely.

There's also a pattern to her rhetoric. It's almost like she believes that opening with the claim that she's not anti-vaccine somehow negates all the anti-vaccine talking points that follow. It's like claiming not to be a racist then following up with a ten minute spew full of racial bigotry.

that's because ,imo, she was always just a puppet for that Dr. forget his name now. and a Dr. being 'anti vaccine' would never be taken seriously.

 

[Jason]

If they ever make that argument, it would never make any sense. In a case where someone's cancer can be cured with a virus like measles, there are many better ways to do it than not vaccinate. This story seems to be pretty new and I only saw one mention of it, but the treatment likely involved a modified virus. We will see if it gets reported in more detailed scientific news sources.

Not too mention that the measiles vaccine was only able to be used on individuals that had a weak immune system. This way the body wouldn't attack the measiles vaccine and it gave the vaccine time to work on killing the blood cancer.

 

[Soulfly]

California has declared whooping cough an epidemic.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/13/health/whooping-cough-california/index.html

(CNN) -- California is being hit hard with a whooping cough epidemic, according to the state's public health department, with 800 cases reported in the past two weeks alone.

The agency says that there were 3,458 whooping cough cases reported between January 1 and June 10, well ahead of the number of cases reported for all of 2013.

 

[Dan Wilson]

California has declared whooping cough an epidemic.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/13/health/whooping-cough-california/index.html

(CNN) -- California is being hit hard with a whooping cough epidemic, according to the state's public health department, with 800 cases reported in the past two weeks alone.

The agency says that there were 3,458 whooping cough cases reported between January 1 and June 10, well ahead of the number of cases reported for all of 2013.

Thanks for posting this. Whooping cough (pertussis) is a problem, and will likely continue to be one under any circumstances, but anti-vaccination groups do make significant contributions to outbreaks like this. Neither vaccination nor infection with the bacteria will grant lifetime immunity to pertussis, but vaccination is still the best defense against it. The bacteria spreads relatively easily through coughing, so once an unvaccinated individual who is more likely to be infected catches the illness, it can spread even to those who have been vaccinated. Vaccinated individuals are about 8 times less likely to catch the disease but it can still happen. The reason for this is that the vaccine is not perfect. I may have posted this article earlier in the thread, but since it is relevant in current news I will post it again and bold the main points. Some like to say that the pertussis bacteria have evolved and made the vaccine ineffective, which is untrue.

http://www.popsci.com/article/scien...-whooping-cough-evolving-response-its-vaccine

We've reported on the evolution of whooping cough before. Researchers have found evolved pertussis, as whooping cough is scientifically known, in Finland, France, Italy, Japan and the U.S. As we previously reported, the evolved bacteria don't seem to be more dangerous than their predecessors. Nevertheless, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are keeping an eye on whooping cough's evolution. It could help explain another recent pertussis phenomenon: The newest pertussis vaccines seem to wear off much faster than older ones, leaving kids vulnerable at age 8 or 10 unless they get booster shots.

In every country where scientists have found evolved pertussis, the bacteria don't make a protein called pertactin. Pertactin is thought to help un-evolved pertussis bacteria stick to the cells lining people's respiratory tracts. Scientists still have a lot to learn about pertactin, however. "There's still some speculation about that, how it functions in that role," CDC scientist Lucia Pawloski toldPopular Science in December.

You wouldn't think evolving not to stick to the lungs would be helpful to bacteria. But! Pertactin also happens to be one of a handful of proteins that appear in pertussis vaccines used in industrialized countries. Every protein in a vaccine helps teach the body how to recognize real illness when it comes along. The fact that newer strains of pertussis happen to lack one of three or four proteins that are widespread in vaccines? That's what lets researchers know this evolution happened because of the vaccines. (Pertussis has not evolved in response to a version of its vaccine used in many developing countries. Read this to learn why industrialized nations use a different vaccine.)

Whooping cough vaccines are still effective. That's because of the other proteins they contain. Even in this era of evolved pertussis, unvaccinated kids are eight times more likely to get whooping cough than vaccinated ones, Pawloski says. Every doctor and researcher Popular Sciencecontacted, both inside and outside of the CDC, recommended getting whooping cough vaccines right on schedule.

 

[Jason]

Thanks for posting this. Whooping cough (pertussis) is a problem, and will likely continue to be one under any circumstances, but anti-vaccination groups do make significant contributions to outbreaks like this. Neither vaccination nor infection with the bacteria will grant lifetime immunity to pertussis, but vaccination is still the best defense against it. The bacteria spreads relatively easily through coughing, so once an unvaccinated individual who is more likely to be infected catches the illness, it can spread even to those who have been vaccinated. Vaccinated individuals are about 8 times less likely to catch the disease but it can still happen. The reason for this is that the vaccine is not perfect. I may have posted this article earlier in the thread, but since it is relevant in current news I will post it again and bold the main points. Some like to say that the pertussis bacteria have evolved and made the vaccine ineffective, which is untrue.

http://www.popsci.com/article/scien...-whooping-cough-evolving-response-its-vaccine

We've reported on the evolution of whooping cough before. Researchers have found evolved pertussis, as whooping cough is scientifically known, in Finland, France, Italy, Japan and the U.S. As we previously reported, the evolved bacteria don't seem to be more dangerous than their predecessors. Nevertheless, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are keeping an eye on whooping cough's evolution. It could help explain another recent pertussis phenomenon: The newest pertussis vaccines seem to wear off much faster than older ones, leaving kids vulnerable at age 8 or 10 unless they get booster shots.

In every country where scientists have found evolved pertussis, the bacteria don't make a protein called pertactin. Pertactin is thought to help un-evolved pertussis bacteria stick to the cells lining people's respiratory tracts. Scientists still have a lot to learn about pertactin, however. "There's still some speculation about that, how it functions in that role," CDC scientist Lucia Pawloski toldPopular Science in December.

You wouldn't think evolving not to stick to the lungs would be helpful to bacteria. But! Pertactin also happens to be one of a handful of proteins that appear in pertussis vaccines used in industrialized countries. Every protein in a vaccine helps teach the body how to recognize real illness when it comes along. The fact that newer strains of pertussis happen to lack one of three or four proteins that are widespread in vaccines? That's what lets researchers know this evolution happened because of the vaccines. (Pertussis has not evolved in response to a version of its vaccine used in many developing countries. Read this to learn why industrialized nations use a different vaccine.)

Whooping cough vaccines are still effective. That's because of the other proteins they contain. Even in this era of evolved pertussis, unvaccinated kids are eight times more likely to get whooping cough than vaccinated ones, Pawloski says. Every doctor and researcher Popular Sciencecontacted, both inside and outside of the CDC, recommended getting whooping cough vaccines right on schedule.

I wanted to propose a question on the subject of Vaccine myths, and I didn't want to start a new thread because I don't have all the facts together yet to do so. I've been reading a lot of information about the Gates foundation and their role in funding and collaborating with Big Pharma companies in Africa. It seems there are several lawsuits pending and it's gaining attention in some cirlces about our vaccination methods in Africa. Some sites and articles are even labeling the situation as African's children being used as guinea pigs. A number of cases involving parlyization, brain damage, motor deficiencies, and even death has been a result of Merk or GSK and their vaccination protocal in Africa. Apparently, phase 3 in research and development is the most elaborate phase in testing due to finances and experimentation guidelines. It seems the rules are more laxed in Africa and drug companies seem to be getting around this because they are offering free drugs to the people of Africa. While this might seem good, in truth it's saving the drug companies billions of dollars they would've had to invest in phase 3 of R&D. Is this happening?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/big-ph...dation-guinea-pigs-for-the-drugmakers/5384374

A US think tank has estimated the cost of new drug development at $5.8 billion per drug, of which 90 per cent is incurred in Phase III clinical trials mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration and similar agencies in Europe.confirm the effectiveness and monitor the side effects of new vaccines and other medicines.)

Heavily invested in Big Pharma,43 the Gates Foundation is well positioned to facilitate pharmaceutical R&D strategies tailored to the realities of the developing world, where "[t]o speed the translation of scientific discovery into implementable solutions, we seek better ways to evaluate and refine potential interventions—such as vaccine candidates—before they enter costly and time-consuming clinical trials."44 In plain language, BMGF promises to assist Big Pharma in its efforts to circumvent Western regulatory regimes by sponsoring cut-rate drug trials in the periphery.

Africa soon experienced an "unprecedented increase in health research involving humans" who were typically "poverty-stricken and poorly educated", which revealed that the trials resulted in 151 deaths and caused "serious adverse effects" (e.g., paralysis, seizures, febrile convulsions)

in 1048 of 5949 children aged 5-17 months.meningitis later developed paralysis.49 Citing additional abuses, a South African newspaper declared: "We are guinea pigs for the drugmakers."50

 

[Dan Wilson]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/big-ph...dation-guinea-pigs-for-the-drugmakers/5384374

A US think tank has estimated the cost of new drug development at $5.8 billion per drug, of which 90 per cent is incurred in Phase III clinical trials mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration and similar agencies in Europe.confirm the effectiveness and monitor the side effects of new vaccines and other medicines.)

Heavily invested in Big Pharma,43 the Gates Foundation is well positioned to facilitate pharmaceutical R&D strategies tailored to the realities of the developing world, where "[t]o speed the translation of scientific discovery into implementable solutions, we seek better ways to evaluate and refine potential interventions—such as vaccine candidates—before they enter costly and time-consuming clinical trials."44 In plain language, BMGF promises to assist Big Pharma in its efforts to circumvent Western regulatory regimes by sponsoring cut-rate drug trials in the periphery.

Africa soon experienced an "unprecedented increase in health research involving humans" who were typically "poverty-stricken and poorly educated", which revealed that the trials resulted in 151 deaths and caused "serious adverse effects" (e.g., paralysis, seizures, febrile convulsions)

in 1048 of 5949 children aged 5-17 months.meningitis later developed paralysis.49 Citing additional abuses, a South African newspaper declared: "We are guinea pigs for the drugmakers."50

So I checked a couple of stories in this article. Most of the sources the cite are just news articles from fringe news organizations (e.g. vactruth.com). But when they do cite journal articles, their stories don't seem to be supported.
Let's start with the malaria vaccine where supposedly children who received the vaccination died at twice the normal infant mortality rate in the area. That seems to be an outright lie, as the articles they reference regard it as being relatively successful and make no mention of high mortality rates. What they did notice are higher than normal levels of meningitis cases in their patients. They did not find an explanation for this and mention it may be an anomaly, but this is what happens when you are trying to develop a vaccine for a disease that is only serious in developing nations. You can't know whether or not it will work until you actually try it on the population and the phases in clinical trials are set in place to catch anything too serious before it is administered to a large number of people.

Phase 3: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22007715

CONCLUSIONS:The RTS,S/AS01 vaccine provided protection against both clinical and severe malaria in African children.

Phase 4: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1111777

They claim that meningococcal vaccines, specifically the MenAfriVac vaccine, caused at least 40 cases of paralysis in children. I can't find any verification of that. The vaccine is regarded as highly successful and capable of surviving shipments to very remote areas. Their story doesn't seem to hold up at all. Here is some information on the vaccine.

http://www.cdc.gov/meningococcal/global.html
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61612-8/fulltext#article_upsell
http://www.seruminstitute.com/content/products/product_menafrivac.htm

They go on to claim that Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines were unjustly given to Indian communities because HPV is incorrectly associated with certain cancers? I honestly don't know where they get this idea, the link between HPV and cancers has been well established. You need to look no further than wikipedia for this one, as the page has a good amount of information and citations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus#Cancer

The article makes a lot more claims, but I think it is fairly safe to say that it is bogus. Some of the claims are downright lies while others are either ill-researched or spun to be deceptive. Impoverished communities have been used very inhumanely as guinea pigs in the past, this is very true and something we should not forget. But now there are rules and regulations in place to prevent this from happening again and the rules are rather strict, because if anyone were to find out about such misconduct internationally recognized health organizations, the consequences would be very serious. There are apparently issues with oversight in drug trials in developing nations, which I'm not too familiar with, but I don't think it is anything like what the article claims and my focus in this post is on the specific claims they make concerning certain vaccines. I think a new thread would be appropriate for talking about drug trials in developing nations. With most of the claims in the article being bunk, however, I'm not sure how much further into it we would need to look.

 

[Pete Tar]

Global Research articles should be regarded with some skepticism.

While many of Globalresearch.ca's articles discuss legitimate humanitarian or environmental concerns, the site has a strong undercurrent of reality warping and bullshit throughout its pages, especially in relation to taking its news from Russia Today, along with other unreliable and/or open sources.

Despite presenting itself as a source of scholarly analysis, Globalresearch.ca mostly consists of polemics many of which accept (and use) conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and propaganda. The prevalent conspiracist strand relates to global power-elites (primarily governments and corporations) and their New World Order.[1] Specific featured conspiracy theories include those addressing 9/11[2], vaccines[3], genetic modification[4], Zionism[5][6], HAARP[7], global warming[8][9], and David Kelly[10]. Analyses of these issues tend follow the lines of the site's political biases.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch.ca

 

[Jason]

So I checked a couple of stories in this article. Most of the sources the cite are just news articles from fringe news organizations (e.g. vactruth.com). But when they do cite journal articles, their stories don't seem to be supported.
Let's start with the malaria vaccine where supposedly children who received the vaccination died at twice the normal infant mortality rate in the area. That seems to be an outright lie, as the articles they reference regard it as being relatively successful and make no mention of high mortality rates. What they did notice are higher than normal levels of meningitis cases in their patients. They did not find an explanation for this and mention it may be an anomaly, but this is what happens when you are trying to develop a vaccine for a disease that is only serious in developing nations. You can't know whether or not it will work until you actually try it on the population and the phases in clinical trials are set in place to catch anything too serious before it is administered to a large number of people.

Phase 3: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22007715

CONCLUSIONS:The RTS,S/AS01 vaccine provided protection against both clinical and severe malaria in African children.

Phase 4: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1111777

They claim that meningococcal vaccines, specifically the MenAfriVac vaccine, caused at least 40 cases of paralysis in children. I can't find any verification of that. The vaccine is regarded as highly successful and capable of surviving shipments to very remote areas. Their story doesn't seem to hold up at all. Here is some information on the vaccine.

http://www.cdc.gov/meningococcal/global.html
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61612-8/fulltext#article_upsell
http://www.seruminstitute.com/content/products/product_menafrivac.htm

They go on to claim that Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines were unjustly given to Indian communities because HPV is incorrectly associated with certain cancers? I honestly don't know where they get this idea, the link between HPV and cancers has been well established. You need to look no further than wikipedia for this one, as the page has a good amount of information and citations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus#Cancer

The article makes a lot more claims, but I think it is fairly safe to say that it is bogus. Some of the claims are downright lies while others are either ill-researched or spun to be deceptive. Impoverished communities have been used very inhumanely as guinea pigs in the past, this is very true and something we should not forget. But now there are rules and regulations in place to prevent this from happening again and the rules are rather strict, because if anyone were to find out about such misconduct internationally recognized health organizations, the consequences would be very serious. There are apparently issues with oversight in drug trials in developing nations, which I'm not too familiar with, but I don't think it is anything like what the article claims and my focus in this post is on the specific claims they make concerning certain vaccines. I think a new thread would be appropriate for talking about drug trials in developing nations. With most of the claims in the article being bunk, however, I'm not sure how much further into it we would need to look.

Great job Dan, thanks...
So just out of curiosity, are trials like this done in the US or Europe, where they administer vaccines to healthy recipients. How do we test vaccines in the US? For instance, where were phase 3 clinical trials performed for the HPV vaccine used on women and men, ie gardasil.

 

[Hevach]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil#Clinical_trials

Looking through the links, particularly this one: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa061741 I don't find a specific location, which probably means it was done in many locations, which is normal for clinical trials that deal with something that isn't so specialized that only a handful of patients in the country have it - in the case of Gardasil, well over 12000 women were in the phase III trial for three years, very few facitilities could have handled that alone without impacting other patient care. If you look at the list of people involved (in my second link, click full text and scroll down to the appendix), you'll see there's people in numerous facilities in several countries in Europe, North and South America, and Asia.

 

[Jason]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil#Clinical_trials

Looking through the links, particularly this one: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa061741 I don't find a specific location, which probably means it was done in many locations, which is normal for clinical trials that deal with something that isn't so specialized that only a handful of patients in the country have it - in the case of Gardasil, well over 12000 women were in the phase III trial for three years, very few facitilities could have handled that alone without impacting other patient care. If you look at the list of people involved (in my second link, click full text and scroll down to the appendix), you'll see there's people in numerous facilities in several countries in Europe, North and South America, and Asia.

Can marketing a drug before it actually gets approved by the FDA or lobbying government and state legislature with millions of dollars to make the drug a compulsory vaccination for pre teen girls influence the FDA's approval? HPV was big news right about the time this drug and others like it surfaced. Scaremongering campaigns about how HPV causes cancer seemed to also surface around the time the FDA voted on these drugs approvals.

Where do we actually get the clinica trials that took place, when the say 12000 girls between 15 and 25 were tested and hundreds of girls preteen, where do we find the information pertaining to country of origin. Because I highly doubt parents, myself included would allow my child to be subjected to a clinical trial for a vaccine. I wonder how many of the kids resided in the US and what ages were they. Were they all older than 18 which gave them the ability to do the trial on their own accord.... I just can't see a parent allowing their perfectly healthy 9yr old to be apart of a clinical trial.

 

[Hevach]

They didn't do any of that - they marketed it and lobbied legislatures after the approval. It's been approved by the FDA for eight years, and was first approved for actual use in states in 2008. Merck started marketing it in 2007, after the Data and Safety Monitoring Board urged them to end the trial early - the results were sufficient that it was considered unethical to continue to deny placebo patients the drug.

And as for children, for starters, many drug trials are compensated - there are a lot of people who are literally professional trial patients, and many of them also enroll their children. It sounds shitty, but it's a thing often born of desperation.

Some trials are compensated with insurance benefits, and when this trial was done, very nearly half of children in the US had no insurance and medicaid in many states denied huge percentages of eligible families.

And because recruitment of individual patients was often left to subordinates of local trial doctors and not the people running the trial (typically young doctors in an immensely competitive field that is not nearly the meritocracy patients would probably prefer), they have access to a lot of ways of persuasion right in patient files. The most obvious is to target mothers who themselves have HPV related cancer, who already know the pain and have already read the statistics and know that their children are facing the same risk just as defenseless. You offer those mothers that hope - that while the doctors can do everything they can for her, they might be able to offer their daughter so much better - they'll take it.

 

[Bill]

They didn't do any of that - they marketed it and lobbied legislatures after the approval. It's been approved by the FDA for eight years, and was first approved for actual use in states in 2008. Merck started marketing it in 2007, after the Data and Safety Monitoring Board urged them to end the trial early - the results were sufficient that it was considered unethical to continue to deny placebo patients the drug.

And as for children, for starters, many drug trials are compensated - there are a lot of people who are literally professional trial patients, and many of them also enroll their children. It sounds shitty, but it's a thing often born of desperation.

Some trials are compensated with insurance benefits, and when this trial was done, very nearly half of children in the US had no insurance and medicaid in many states denied huge percentages of eligible families.

And because recruitment of individual patients was often left to subordinates of local trial doctors and not the people running the trial (typically young doctors in an immensely competitive field that is not nearly the meritocracy patients would probably prefer), they have access to a lot of ways of persuasion right in patient files. The most obvious is to target mothers who themselves have HPV related cancer, who already know the pain and have already read the statistics and know that their children are facing the same risk just as defenseless. You offer those mothers that hope - that while the doctors can do everything they can for her, they might be able to offer their daughter so much better - they'll take it.

One of the reasons we saw such intense lobbying efforts and public awareness campaigns around Gardasil when it was first introduced was the impending approval of a competing vaccine. Merck wanted to tie down as much of the market for Gardasil before GlaxoSmithKline could bring Ceravix to the market. Both drugs did well in human trials but Gardasil had a timing advantage and Merck was doing everything possible to exploit that advantage.

 

[Jason]

One of the reasons we saw such intense lobbying efforts and public awareness campaigns around Gardasil when it was first introduced was the impending approval of a competing vaccine. Merck wanted to tie down as much of the market for Gardasil before GlaxoSmithKline could bring Ceravix to the market. Both drugs did well in human trials but Gardasil had a timing advantage and Merck was doing everything possible to exploit that advantage.

Gardasil is also a HPV vaccine for men, where Ceravix is not, and Gardasil protects against 5 strains where Ceravix only protects up to 2 strains. Why do we not hear about the men's trials?

 

[Dan Wilson]

Gardasil is also a HPV vaccine for men, where Ceravix is not, and Gardasil protects against 5 strains where Ceravix only protects up to 2 strains. Why do we not hear about the men's trials?

Not everyone thinks it's important, but the information is out there.

http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01432574
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X12009516

10. Efficacy in males
The efficacy of Gardasil® was examined in a placebo-controlled, double-blind trial in 4065 men ages 16–26 from 18 countries [51]. The primary endpoint of the study was protection from HPV6, 11, 16 or 18-associated incident EGLs, defined as external genital warts (condylomata acuminata) or penile, perianal or perineal intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) of any grade, or cancer at these sites. Protection against this combined endpoint was 90.4% in the ATP population and 65.5% in the ITT population. Of the EGLs, 28 of 31 and 72 of 77 were genital warts in the ATP and ITT cohorts, respectively, and most were associated with HPV6 or HPV11 infections. Significant protection against EGLs was also observed in both populations, irrespective of the HPV type in the lesion (Table 10), reflecting the large proportion of genital warts caused by the vaccine types 6 and 11. Similar efficacy against persistent infection endpoints was reported in the ATP analysis (Table 10). The results of this study have led to the licensure of Gardasil® for the prevention of EGL in men in several countries.

 

[Bill]

Not everyone thinks its important, but the information is out there.

There is also not the public relations apparatus surrounding men's health issues that there is surrounding women's health issues.

 

[Libertarian]

VEARS and AEFI are reporting systems that track effects after someone gets a shot. If someone dies, it gets reported.

Is there proof of the second portion of claim? Specifically, is there proof that if someone dies or has an adverse side effect, that it is reported? My personal experience is precisely the opposite. Our child had a severe skin reaction to the 6 month MMR shot that we did not report. We did not correllate it to the vaccination at the time because we are inundated with "safe safe safe safe safe" from our health practitioners and the media.

Worse, under-reporting of adverse side effects may also be compounded or worsened by our medical practitioner's very strong belief in their safety. If our health practitioners believe the claims of near complete safety, are they contributing to confirmation bias by downplaying or denying adverse reactions as not being correlated, and thus causing them to not be reported?

In addition, symptoms such as fever are advertised to be a "normal" side effect and thus it stands to reason that those who encounter a fever after a vaccine would not report the condition.

VAERS and AEFI are worse than useless in my humble opinion.

P.S.

Our child's sensitivity to the MMR shot was much later identified by an incredibly talented Naturopathic Doctor. IE someone that I suspect most here would sumarily dismiss as a "quack". But he completely healed our child, whereas the specialist dermatologist arrogantly advised that "It is eczema. There is nothing you can do." It turned out there was a whole LOT we could do and immediately after we did it, the eczema dissapeared....along with much of our faith in western medicine.

 

[SR1419]

Our child had a severe skin reaction to the 6 month MMR shot that we did not report. We did not correllate it to the vaccination at the time because we are inundated with "safe safe safe safe safe" from our health practitioners and the media.

How do you know it was the vaccine that caused the reaction?

(what was the reaction if you dont mind me asking)

 

[Libertarian]

His skin basically cracked apart and fell off. All of the cracks were oozing puss and his skin felt like sandpaper. He looked like a cracked up lobster. He couldn't bear the pain and we needed to splint his arms to prevent him scratching all of the skin on his face off. He couldn't sleep and cried basically every second that he wasn't on my wife's breast. It was so horrible...

As has been exhaustively proven above, I can only prove that the symptoms began concurrently with the shot...and not that the shot caused the symptoms. So yes I acknowlege up front that I am guilty of the "After this, therefore because of this" fallacy in my reasoning. But nothing else in his life changed. His diet was breastmilk...and our diet was extraordinarily consistent. We lived in the same house, used the same soap, hadn't travelled anywhere, etc. The only change in his life was the needle. We think it pushed him over the edge somehow.Perhaps one of the nasty adjuvents. I wish we would use good vaccines and get rid of the adjuvents. It is within our means, both scientifically and financially. But that's a sidetrack.

The dermatologist prescribed hydricortizone cream. The Naturopath tested his sensitivities to a whole bunch of different stuff with a "debunked" peice of german technology that measured the bodies' electrical conductivity somehow. The MMR vaccine registered very highly (in the bad direction) for our son. I don't remember whether bad stuff had no electrical conduction or really high conduction...I don't really understand the technology. But obviously he did. He told us to stop eating this thing and that, and prescribed various homeopathic remedies to strengthen his liver and help reverse what appeared to be his skin attacking itself. We followed the Naturopath's advice, and the majority of the symptoms dissapeared within 30 days of beginning the quackery. Today the symptoms are gone completely.

The quack told us that those who chose to ignore or suppress their symptoms using steroids end up getting asthma because the lungs are the next organ capable of expressing the symptoms if you suppress their expression on the skin. Our son does not have asthma. His cousin, who had many of the same symptoms as him, but to a much lesser degree, and who saw the same Naturopath but whose parents ignored the advice, chosing the more convenient diagnosis of western medicine, has an inhaler, and has much worse skin than our son, who started off with MUCH MUCH worse eczema than his cousin. All very interesting. And I know I can't prove any of it scientifically. But it all happened nonetheless.

 

[Dan Wilson]

Our child's sensitivity to the MMR shot was much later identified by an incredibly talented Naturopathic Doctor. IE someone that I suspect most here would sumarily dismiss as a "quack". But he completely healed our child, whereas the specialist dermatologist arrogantly advised that "It is eczema. There is nothing you can do." It turned out there was a whole LOT we could do and immediately after we did it, the eczema dissapeared....along with much of our faith in western medicine.

A rash is a relatively common side-effect of the MMR vaccine.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm

What are the risks from MMR vaccine?
A vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions.

The risk of MMR vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.

Getting MMR vaccine is much safer than getting measles, mumps or rubella.

Most people who get MMR vaccine do not have any serious problems with it.

Mild Problems

• Fever (up to 1 person out of 6)
• Mild rash (about 1 person out of 20)
• Swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck (about 1 person out of 75)

If these problems occur, it is usually within 7-12 days after the shot. They occur less often after the second dose.

I think that a death would most certainly be reported as opposed to mild and already documented side-efffects. If you brought your child to a dermatologist who said it was eczema and that nothing could be done about it, he/she was indeed wrong, there are treatments. Eczema also can go away after exposure to an environmental trigger has been taken away.

"debunked" peice of german technology

So, you changed his diet and the symptoms went away? That doesn't like it was the vaccine at all then. What piece of equipment was it?

 

[Jason]

His skin basically cracked apart and fell off. All of the cracks were oozing puss and his skin felt like sandpaper. He looked like a cracked up lobster. He couldn't bear the pain and we needed to splint his arms to prevent him scratching all of the skin on his face off. He couldn't sleep and cried basically every second that he wasn't on my wife's breast. It was so horrible...

The dermatologist prescribed hydricortizone cream. The Naturopath tested his sensitivities to a whole bunch of different stuff with a "debunked" peice of german technology that measured sensitivity to a whole ton of different things, told us to stop eating this thing and that, and prescribed various homeopathic remedies to strengthen his liver and help reverse what appeared to be his skin attacking itself. We followed the Naturopath's advice, and the majority of the symptoms dissapeared within 30 days of beginning the quackery. Today the symptoms are gone completely.

The quack told us that those who chose to ignore or suppress their symptoms using steroids end up getting asthma because the lungs are the next organ capable of expressing the symptoms if you suppress theme via steroid cream. Our son does not have asthma. His cousin, who had many of the same symptoms as him, but to a much lesser degree, and who saw the same Naturopath but whose parents ignored the advice, chosing the more convenient diagnosis of western medicine, has an inhaler, and has much worse skin than our son, who started off with MUCH MUCH worse eczema than his cousin. All very interesting. And I know I can't prove any of it scientifically. But it all happened nonetheless.

I can understand your sentiment, and the heartache you and your wife must have gone through worrying about your son like that. As a parent you feel helpless and threatened, like why is this happening to my perfectly healthy child. We start asking those questions and inevitably we do the natural thing as a parent, we look for answers to resolve the situation. Sometimes, and I know its hard to accept this, but things happen inexplicably for no rhyme or reason. My daughter developed allergies literally overnight, and within months ended up in the hospital twice for pneumonia. Watching here bleed from her little nose, while vomitting with fever's in the 104's has a way of bringing parents to their knees. I too went on the net looking for resolve, someone or something to point the finger at because as far as me and my wife were concerned, "there was no way it could've been our doing". But the truth is, it had nothing to do with us, the medical profession and had more to do with her. Her immune systems inability to ward off the infection that ravished her body. The answer wasn't what I expected nor what I was looking for, but in the end it made the most sense. Sometimes things like this happen to our children, and its so easy to correlate our child's symptoms to others who've suffered the same fate on line. But the truth is we aren't Dr's, and it isn't fair for us to diagnose. I know things cleared up after seeing the nature specialist but that could also be a coincidence, and I'll admit sometimes their lotions and rememdies work better for skin rashes, especially when the child is sensative to medications like corticosteroids. We used to try putting them on Bri, but they burned so bad that we had to give up and go the old fashion way. Vazolene, literally we couldn't use any lotions that had a hint of acetyl alcohol or similar products, but that doesn't mean our Dr.s were wrong, and if fact they recommended products like that to us.

 

[SR1419]

His skin basically cracked apart and fell off. All of the cracks were oozing puss and his skin felt like sandpaper. He looked like a cracked up lobster. He couldn't bear the pain and we needed to splint his arms to prevent him scratching all of the skin on his face off. He couldn't sleep and cried basically every second that he wasn't on my wife's breast. It was so horrible....

That does sound horrible...so sorry you and he had to go through that- glad he is better. Thanks for sharing.

I asked because my 7mos old has had a slight rash on her face for sometime...I cannot correlate it directly to her vaccine but it does make me wonder. (it doesn't seem to bother her and is nothing like what you described)

 

[deirdre]

The Naturopath tested his sensitivities to a whole bunch of different stuff with a "debunked" peice of german technology that measured sensitivity to a whole ton of different things, told us to stop eating this thing and that, and prescribed various homeopathic remedies to strengthen his liver and help reverse what appeared to be his skin attacking itself.

not sure how you equate "food allergies" to a mmr reaction. (which is common and tends to disappear on its own, although never heard of any childs skin falling off!)

The most common adverse events following the MMR vaccine are pain where the vaccine is given, fever, a mild rash, and swollen glands in the cheeks or neck. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/MMR/MMR.html

If your GP didn't report it, I imagine its because it didn't look like a MMR rash. assuming you did bring your child back to the Pediatrician when his skin started falling off.

 

[Libertarian]

Libertarian said: ↑
"debunked" peice of german technology
So, you changed his diet and the symptoms went away? That doesn't like it was the vaccine at all then. What piece of equipment was it?

I googled it and am quite sure that it was "Electrodermal testing". Here is one of many debunks on it:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/13926/

Despite well intentioned people presumably like those here, testing and concluding that it is "bunk", when we removed the identified triggers (which included the MMR vaccine) from our childs' environment, the symptoms dissapeared. When we later re-introduced items that we had been recommended to remove, he would get a rash that would initially bloom in his cheeks, and depending on the severity of the reaction, would then travel to the rest of his body.

So yes, taking both the foods which triggered him and the vaccines that did so out of the picture dramatically improved the situation. And we have now stopped vaccinating altogether. We have asked our local health department whether we can pay extra for clean, live virus vaccines similar to the one that Angela Merkel received when publically being vaccinated in Germany. Just google "Merkel different vaccine" to read about it if you are interested. We are advised that there is no amount we can pay for our kids to receive the type of vaccinations that Merkel received. And in fact we were denied the complete "ingredient list" of the vaccinations recommended for our children when we asked. So we would rather take our chances and go without. The "herd" will need to get their immunity without our help if our health depts insist on injecting us with cheap garbage.

 

[Jason]

If your GP didn't report it, I imagine its because it didn't look like a MMR rash. assuming you did bring your child back to the Pediatrician when his skin started falling off.

And you could also navigate the CDC's website and contact them about this and your concerns. The CDC takes things like this very seriously, and I can guarantee you that you will get a response from the shortly. I would keep it sweet and simple.

 

[Jason]

Despite people presumably like those here, testing and concluding that it is "bunk", when we removed the identified triggers (which included the MMR vaccine) from our childs' environment, the symptoms dissapeared.

But that's the thing Libertarian, you didn't remove the "triggers" because a vaccine is meant to last in the system by creating the antibodies to ward off future infection. I also haven't read anyone calling your claim as bunk, just asking for proof the skin rash was directly coorelated to the MMR vaccine.

 

[Jason]

So yes, taking both the foods which triggered him and the vaccines that did so out of the picture dramatically improved the situation.

How do you know it wasn't just the food that triggered it, like a severe case of allergies?

 

[Libertarian]

But that's the thing Libertarian, you didn't remove the "triggers" because a vaccine is meant to last in the system by creating the antibodies to ward off future infection. I also haven't read anyone calling your claim as bunk, just asking for proof the skin rash was directly coorelated to the MMR vaccine.

I already said up front that I am aware I am guilty of the "after this therefore because of this" fallacy.

How do you know it wasn't just the food that triggered it, like a severe case of allergies?

I don't.

But I'm also never going to be swayed back to injecting our children with god only knows what. Not ever. Because I witnessed what happened to our child in the day following the shot. What had been manageable slightly red itchy skin went to cracked open, puss oozing, blistering skin that felt like sandpaper. And nothing else changed a bit. He continued drinking the same breast milk. Our diet did not change at all. And he's a baby, so there wasn't any placebo in his response to the naturopath's dubunked suggestions of what to do about it.

As I said earlier, I don't think the MMR caused it in isolation. I think it just pushed a sensitive child over the edge. But unfortunately our scientific method has eliminated from the stable of non-debunked science, the only thing that successfully identified all of our son's allergies or sensitivities or whatever you would call them. In our dedication to "the method" we have become myopic and conceited.

I believe my wife and my reaction to the myopia and conceit was a natural one. And now we are "harming the herd" or whatever. But we don't give a damn. Because the shepherds of that herd are arrogant, conceited, and disconnected from reality. (In our personal experience). So we'd rather go our own way.

 

[deirdre]

And in fact we were denied the complete "ingredient list" of the vaccinations recommended for our children when we asked

if your pediatrician wouldn't give you the info, you can contact the manufacturer direct. only because if such a severe reaction WAS caused by a vaccine it is kinda imperative you report this info to the manufacturer and the cdc. But heres a list from the cdc to get you started.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf

Vaccine Excipient & Media Summary
Excipients Included in U.S. Vaccines, by Vaccine
This table includes not only vaccine ingredients (e.g., adjuvants and preservatives), but also substances used during the manufacturing process, including vaccine-production media, that are removed from the final product and present only in trace quantities.
In addition to the substances listed, most vaccines contain Sodium Chloride (table salt).
Last Updated September 2013
All reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this information, but manufacturers may change product contents before that information is reflected here. If in doubt, check the manufacturer's package insert.

 

[deirdre]

What had been manageable slightly red itchy skin went to cracked open, puss oozing, blistering skin

oh. yea. if he was already immune compromised I could see the mmr exasperating things.

 

[SR1419]

Despite well intentioned people presumably like those here, testing and concluding that it is "bunk", when we removed the identified triggers (which included the MMR vaccine) from our childs' environment, the symptoms dissapeared. When we later re-introduced items that we had been recommended to remove, he would get a rash that would initially bloom in his cheeks, and depending on the severity of the reaction, would then travel to the rest of his body.

I dont understand this comment...how did you remove the vaccine from your child?

...and if you re-introduced items..and then the rash reappeared...wouldn't that suggest that they were the cause?

(not trying to pick on you...just understand...and I will be honest and say I have not read all 6 pages of this thread)

 

[Jason]

But I'm also never going to be swayed back to injecting our children with god only knows what. Not ever. Because I witnessed what happened to our child in the day following the shot. What had been manageable slightly red itchy skin went to cracked open, puss oozing, blistering skin that felt like sandpaper. And nothing else changed a bit. He continued drinking the same breast milk. Our diet did not change at all. And he's a baby, so there wasn't any placebo in his response to the naturopath's dubunked suggestions of what to do about it...

I can respect that Libertarian. Your mind is already made up and I can respect that as well. No one is here promoting or prompting a parent to do one thing or the other. We're just offering up our opinions is all. It's a two way streak Libertarian. Now that I mentioned I respect your opinion, I would hope you would give me the same fortitude going forward. Have you considered the consequences of not giving your child vaccines? And have you weighed those options? Have you read the opinions of Dr.'s and their research for the lethality of measles, mumps, and rubella. Are you also considering not giving other vaccines to your child.

Do you also understand that if your child isn't vaccinated you might have to homeschool them as well? Schools, at least public schools require children to be vaccinated, and it sounds like your son is still young so you haven't had to consider this yet?