You know, I am confused by the anti-vaccine types.

[Liberal Veteran]

They generally tend to be distrustful of medicine in general and lean toward more natural remedies, but what could possibly be MORE natural than teaching your own immune system how to fight off certain types of infections (many of which can maim, cripple, and kill) by exposing yourself to a non-pathogenic version of the real thing, so you don't have to wait until you are exposed to a potentially lethal infection to produce antibodies and lessen your chance of becoming sick?

I mean, sure, it doesn't have the mystical allure of "herbal teas" and "visualization", but the science is pretty damn sound and easy to understand in principle.

Is it the profit motive that's the real turn off? Would they be okay with say, Gardasil, if a bunch of young democrats developed it in their basement and allowed the formula to be readily used by any and all takers as long as they made no money off it?

[realisticphish]

1. i agree with you

but god help you for posting this.

I wish you luck :patriot:

[madeline_con]

2. There is the Green Our Vaccines group who are concerned

about mercury and other toxins in vaccines.

http://planetgreen.discovery.com/food-health/support-green-vaccines.html


There is also the yet unproven theory that some vaccines can cause autism.

http://specialchildren.about.com/od/autismandvaccines/i/vaccines_2.htm

http://www.know-vaccines.org/autism.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/03/06/vaccines.autism/index.html

Hope this helps. :hi:

[LeftishBrit]

53. 'Yet unproven' is one phrase for it - in fact there's lots of evidence AGAINST it!

Autism rates did not decline when mercury was taken out of most childhood vaccines in many countries. Nor were they affected by the temporary withdrawal and later reintroduction of the MMR vaccine in Japan.

I am all in favour of taking/keeping mercury out of vaccines; and those currently used for kids in Britain don't contain mercury. But I'm also in favour of investigating the real causes of autism, and not getting stuck in one hypothesis that has not received confirmation.

[chicagomd]

57. Lets change some words around here

to make your post a bit more accurate:

If by "concerned" you mean "rabidly anti-vaccine but smart enough to know how to politically sell something" and by "unproven theory" you mean "a concept created by an unethical physician who was paid by a lawyer to do so and is now a martyr for the concerned (rabidly anti-vaccine but smart enough to know how to politically sell something)" then you have a point.

[beam me up scottie]

3. You would think that believers in homeopathy would embrace the science of vaccines.

It's the reality based version of homeopathy, and it does what homeopathy can only pretend to do.

[Tumbulu]

44. And many homeopaths do.

There is a alternative medicine type vet in our area who won't work with animals who have not been properly vaccinated (he calls vaccines homeopathic remedies) and there are homeopathic remedies to take prior to and after human vaccines to help the body make the most of the vaccine. I have given them to my daughter before each shot and I am glad that to be able to give them to her to prepare her body for the vaccines.

It is only here that I read all this anti homeopathic stuff where it is projected that they are pitted against each other.

[beam me up scottie]

51. Homeopathy is based on the theory that water "remembers"- you're giving your daughter plain old H2O.

After serial dilution, there is nothing left of the original substance.

You should save yourself some money next time and just give her tap water.

[Tumbulu]

66. You are entitled to your opinion and I am mine.

I was responding to the statement above that claimed that homeopaths are against vaccines. I have found that not to be true.

I did not ask you opinion about how I spend my money and I do not presume to advise you on how to spend yours.

[beam me up scottie]

68. You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.

And fyi, anything you post when replying to me is fair game, if you don't want me to comment on your statements, don't reply to my posts.

[Tumbulu]

83. the fact is that some homeopaths consider vaccines 20th century homeopathy

that is the fact. To argue about homeopathy is a diversion. I also thought that it was against the rules of this forum to argue about it's efficacy or lack thereof.

[beam me up scottie]

85. Fact: Vaccines are science based medicine. Fact: homeopathy is faith based medicine.

Why on earth would posting facts about homeopathy be against the rules of this forum???

They publish the numbers and theories, btw, I don't make them up.





on edit: please don't make me go back into the annals of this forum to find and post the stats again, I'm really tired. You could look up the definition of homepathy if you really want to know.

[Warpy]

4. One problem with Gardasil, especially

is that it is a vaccine against one of the worst consequences of sex for young women. A lot of the major howlers on this one are freaked out because they fear their perfect little dolly daughters might let some man do that to them some day if it's a little safer. Since they weren't able to persuade the FDA to do any more to hold up its release for a couple of years, they are now attacking it any way they can.

They've been joined by the usual suspects in the antivax crowd, people whose motives stem from their utter inability to understand the science behind vaccination and their utter ignorance of what diseases did to us before we were able to prevent them.

[cosmik debris]

5. Yeah, and...

That was a great post.

[beam me up scottie]

6. Expect them to do the same thing when a vaccine for HIV is developed.

There is no way in hell these troglodytes would freak out like this if the vaccine didn't protect part of a woman's reproductive organs.

If the virus caused men's penises to shrivel up, it would be mandated and subsidized by both the government and insurance companies.

[Hannah Bell]

7. if it's so great, let's give it to little boys too. after all, the main tranmission method

is sex with men, right?

incidence of hpv 16 & 18 in women is 3.4%.

[dropkickpa]

9. Because there is no reliable test for high risk HPV in men

Very simple reason. The MOST reliable method of determining a man's high risk (cancer causing) HPV status is how many of his past partners contracted it (likely from him). So testing effectiveness when there's not an effective reliable test for HPV is an exercise in frustration, they'd get no useful results.

The reasoning behind including HPV 6 and 11 in the vaccine is that it WOULD encourage men to be vaccinated for the wart prevention factor.

[Hannah Bell]

11. so what? cdc recommends giving it to girls 11-12 because they're unlikely to have been exposed.

(the vaccine's effectiveness is much reduced if there's previous exposure).

the same logic applies: give it to little boys.

[dropkickpa]

12. Ugh

[Hannah Bell]

14. sorry, i don't know who he is.

but if the vaccine's so safe & great, no reason boys shouldn't be vaccinated.

one reason: gay men would still be at risk, & a reservoir for the virus if boys weren't vaccinated.

i think it's odd no one's recommending vaccinating boys.

and going on about how girls MUST be vaccinated to save them from the terror of cervical cancer - which kills fewer than 4000 women a year: fewer than murder. fewer than suicide.

[varkam]

16. I don't think many people advocate that it ought to be mandated.

Indeed, the question of whether or not the vaccine is safe and effective and whether or not it ought to be mandated are two entirely different questions.

Are you suggesting that we not research new medicines unless they address diseases that have a high body count? Erm...okay...I mean, CC kills about a quarter million women yearly, but don't let that stop you from playing down the suffering that is caused by it.

Even if it didn't kill women in droves, would you still be opposed to it just because you don't like Merck? Just because you don't think Merck cares about you? Guess what? Newsflash: They're a corporation. They don't care about you, and they don't care about your kids or your grandkids. They care about money and, at the end of the day, it is advantageous for them to make a product that works (you know, so that people will buy it).

[Hannah Bell]

20. I'm suggesting that every "cure" for death is a trade-off.

Car accidents kill more women than CC: apparently it doesn't bother us enough to develop safer methods of transportation or to stop driving.

In this case, my guess is the vaccine is probaby about as safe as any other, but I'd never have my daughter vaccinated. Why?

Because the potential benefit is 10-30 years in the future, but the risk is NOW, & can be death or disability.

And though it's small, it's too high compatively, for an infection the risk of which can be reduced by very simple counter-measures: condoms & certain kinds of gels/foams. Plus the fact that the incidence of CC is declining, the mortality is declining, CC's very treatable, & if you don't vaccinate men, you leave a reservoir for the viruses (gay/bi men).


I know Merck doesn't care about me, or their customers. That's another reason I don't like seeing the conversation dominated by their talking points & PR $.

[varkam]

25. Well, I think it's human nature..

to want to avoid potential negative consequences in the near future as a trade for potential negative consequences in the distant future. If you don't want to have your daughter vaccinated with it for that reason, then who am I to criticise?

That, however, is not the reason why I have been criticising these anti-vaccine threads. Misunderstanding of the trials, mischaracterizations of the VAERS database, and general fear mongering have been why I and others participate.

The problem with gels and whatnot is that they have to be applied every time - whereas a vaccine doesn't. Also, CC may be treatable here where people generally have access to medical care, but that doesn't seem to be as true where mortality from CC is much higher (as I noted, it kills a little over a quarter million women yearly, mostly in underdeveloped countries).

And who has been using their "talking points & PR $"?

[chicagomd]

60. So what are you going to do

when she, assuming she is into men, gets married? Are you going to assume that her partner has also done all those things you are (a little irrationally, I might add) a 100% sure your daughter has done/not done? Are you going to screen her dates to make sure all of them have not had multiple partners and could potentially be carriers? Are you going to remind her to use condoms and foam on her wedding night?

That is a lot of control to try and exert on your daughter's life.

How about the worst case scenario:

What are you going to say to her "10-30 years in the future" when she has her first abnormal pap smear and the physician asks her if she was vaccinated? What are you going to tell your grandkids when she is vomiting from the chemotherapy? Will you help them pick out a wig that matches her hair? And what will you tell them at her funeral?

[beam me up scottie]

64. Thank you. Any sane person who has suffered through that would want their kid vaccinated.

Take my word for it.

[Marie2]

19. They can always get it later.

If a parent has concerns about the safety of the vaccine, the girl (woman) can always get vaccinated when she turns 18. It's not necessarily a "death sentence" to wait until you're 18, any more than it's a "death sentence" to get it when you are 12 and have one of the supposedly rare side effects.

Also I understand it only prevents a certain few strains of HPV, not all of them - someone can correct me if I'm wrong. So it doesn't even claim to prevent all HPV.

[Hannah Bell]

21. The reason CDC recommends 11-12 is the efficacy goes down

by half once a girl is sexually active (exposed to the viruses before vaccination) - from ~ 90-98% to ~44%.


It's for 4 viruses, 2 for CC (supposedly cause 70% of CC), & 2 for warts.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

30. They are doing studies for using it on males.

Surely you just wouldn't want them to start giving it to men without testing it.

David

[Hannah Bell]

35. surely they could have tested it in males when they tested it on females.

cdc is recommending vaccinating girls 11-15, though they haven't tested it on that group.

& down to 9 yo's.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. I don't know that they would have automatically tested a cervical cancer "vaccine" on men.

In hind sight they should have.

David

[Hannah Bell]

38. it's not a "cervical cancer vaccine". it's a papilloma virus vaccine.

also effective for genital warts caused by papilloma virus. which men get. men also get tissue dysplasia, & it's likely HPV plays into male cancers.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. That's why I put it in quotes.

My point is that the vaccine was designed to stop the virus that causes most types of cervical cancers. Intuitively I wouldn't assume that they would automatically test it on men as I assume they wouldn't test birth control pills on men.

David

[lizerdbits]

40. My gyn has had requests from parents to give it to their sons

It came up in the discussion of he can give it to me but I'm too old by insurance standards so I have to pay for the whole thing. :(

[Hannah Bell]

8. all you guys got is name-calling, smears & blanket generalizations.

someone's not for this vaccine, or not for using it on children, & they must be a fundie anti-science type.

wow, your "scientific" thought process & method of expression is so worthy of emulation, such a good example of your cause.

[varkam]

10. How's the weather up there on your high horse, Ms. "Vaccine Brigade"?

Yes, that really is "all we have". It's not like we have clinical trials that followed upwards of 12,000 women for two years. It's not like the FDA approved it or anything, and it's certainly not like the CDCs position is that the vaccine is "safe and effective". Oh, no ma'am. It's also not as if the VAERS database can't be used to infer causation, nor that it reports to it are influenced by litigation and publicity. Nope.

And it is not at all as if you have tried to toss doubt on the medicine by going over the ethical missteps of Merck that were unrelated to the medicine itself. No, you sure didn't. In addition, I can't recall you ever engaging in ad hominem behavior (I mean, other than now, of course) at your opponents. Squeaky clean, there.

:eyes:

[Hannah Bell]

13. how's the weather down there on your low road?

notice the post i responded to: the "western arrogance" of the "they can get pap smears brigade."


i've read through these various threads on gardasil. everytime someone posts something, they get a rash of grief, mostly from the same people, & more than half of it is contentless namecalling.

it's actually possible to argue the science without it.

i made one post on the blood clot reports & the first post i got was that i didn't know what the hell i was talking about. it was followed by posts telling me i was ignorant, anti-scientific, anti-sex & fundie, most delivered with heapings of snark. folks babbling about how i didn't respect science, blah-blah.

as it turned out, i knew the science, they didn't.

the "vaccine brigade" is setting the tone of the discussions. the posters are trying to put up information they feel is important; whether you agree or not, there's no need for snark. it's possible to discuss your views without denigrating others.

[varkam]

15. Let's see...

I've been repeatedly called a shill, been accused of "living in my mother's basement", been called a "sick puppy", merely because I had the temerity to disagree. Further note that I have had a grand total of one post deleted since starting here on DU - and that was because I asked the mods to delete it. So quite frankly, I resent your accusation that I'm on "the low road".

i made one post on the clot reports & the first post i got was that i didn't know what the hell i was talking about. it was followed by posts telling me i was ignorant, anti-scientific, anti-sex & fundie, most delivered with heapings of snark. folks babbling about how i didn't respect science, blah-blah.

as it turned out, i knew the science, they didn't.

So then the way to respond is in kind, while pretending otherwise? I see. Note that I didn't say anything about you in that discussion that we had. I didn't say you were "ignorant, anti-scientific, anti-sex, & fundie".

[Hannah Bell]

22. I wasn't addressing my comments to you in particular, but to the tenor of this thread. And I

agree, you were civil in that conversation. But then, so was I. & you graciously admitted the evidence for my position after 3 rounds.

But it began with the poster who shall remain nameless.

I just started feeling kind of sick reading through the ad hom & buddy-buddy namecalling. Perhaps an overreaction.

[Jim__]

42. Well said - n/t

[FirstLight]

17. Are we only talking about this Giardisil vaccine? What about DTP and Measles?

I immunized my firstborn because it was the thing to do, without question and I was 22 and didn't know much. Besides, my family was pretty adamant that this was the "Normal" thing to do. When he went in for his kindergarten shots - they jabbed him (2 nurses, 2 syringes in each thigh) all at once! When he had a reaction and a welt from one of the shots, they couldn't tell me which one was which and to this day we still don't know what reacted with his immune system, it could show up in a variety of other ways as he grows older. (Immunological disorder runs in my family, causing inflammation, skin lesions and joint pain among other things)

Having connected some of the dots, as my next 2 children were to be born, 10 years later...I really read up on the ingredients, and the theories. I made my own decision to waive my younger kids' immunizations. Time will tell if I did the right thing...though I believe they may have a better shot at NOT getting the inflammation that both myself and my sister have.

At first I was afraid I would get a lot of flak from the dr's etc, and they tried..but I just asked for the waiver, signed them off and now I just say "we don't immunize" My oldest has not had shots since the kindergarten incident. I will cave in an emergency room situation, if they need teatnus. But that is it.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. My mom lived through measles, whooping cough, mumps, chicken pox, etc...she grew up on a farm in the south, and it was non-pasteurized milk that actually got her really sick at age 8...so go figure.

So that's some of my 2 cents

[LeftishBrit]

69. It's up to you..

but the prevalence of epidemics in the past, and in countries that don't have ready access to vaccinations nowadays, don't suggest that 'it ain't broke'.

Plenty of people did NOT survive measles, whooping cough and (to an even greater extent) diphtheria. Many who did survive were left permanently damanged.

I don't know what your family's health problems are; and it may be that they are indeed contra-indications to vaccination. At any rate, the decision should be up to you. But that does not mean that vaccinations are *in general* undesirable.

[varkam]

18. I think that a lot of people simply cannot look past the profit motive.

Yet, those same people somehow give profit a free pass when it comes to things like CAM.

W/ respect to gardasil, I think it is also because Merck lobbied to get it mandated. That IMO, was a bad move for them.

[Hannah Bell]

23. I agree. Very bad move, & pretty much shows their motivation.

There's no compelling public health reason for mandatory childhood vaccination, except their bottom line.

[varkam]

24. Well...that's the motivation of any business.

There is nothing inherently evil about making money.

[Liberal Veteran]

26. True. And it really just shows the motivation of marketing department.

Which likely are business majors, not researchers.

The motivation of the marketing department has no empirical impact on the safety of the vaccine or the process it went through for approval.

They are completely separate issues that have been used to taint arguments with irrelevant information.

By that, I mean that we might all agree that overzealous marketers trying to make it mandatory is a bad thing and have one discussion about that.

But it has no weight whatsoever on the efficacy and safety of the vaccine which is seems to be the direction it is being attacked from BECAUSE some people were turned off by the marketing department's behavior.

[varkam]

27. Exactly.

I agree with you that a lot of people got turned off immediately by the fact that they lobbied to have it mandated, and then started attacking it as not being safe or effective.

[Hannah Bell]

36. oh, marketing doesn't represent the corp, eh?

it's a loose cannon, right? lobbyists get paid straight from the marketing dept, i presume?

[Liberal Veteran]

41. And that has what to do with the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.

This is the problem with this debate.

I've already tried (repeatedly) to separate the aggressive marketing argument from the actual efficacy/safety of the vaccine, but there is such an anti-big pharma sentiment, that a rational argument on the merits of the vaccine becomes intertwined with prejudices about pharmaceutical companies in general and makes for sloppy discussion.

For example. Nystatin (an anti-fungal that has been in use for half a century) was patented by two women who worked for the New York Department of Health. They donated their royalties and released the patent to allow any manufacturer to make the drug.

Now, had this product been developed by Merck or GSK, every time the discussion came up concerning the safety and efficacy of the product, we'd have people bringing their pre-conceived biases about big pharma to the debate instead of rationally discussing whether or not the vaccine is effective and safe.

[Hannah Bell]

28. There's something evil about lobbying for people to undergo

unnecessary & potentially harmful treatments on the public dime at gov't-enforced monopoly costs.

[Liberal Veteran]

29. You mean like smallpox and measles vaccines?

They are potentially harmful as well.

But you are arguing two different issues here. As I said, I might agree with you that the marketing strategy was woefully heavy-handed, but it is illogical in the extreme to mix that argument with argument of the vaccine's efficacy and safety.

It turns a legitimate ethics discussion into a logical fallacy based on an appeal to emotion on the scientific merits of this vaccine.

[Hannah Bell]

32. The difference is: both were serious, epidemic diseases transmitted by

casual contact which were an immediate risk to the populations vaccinated.
Not the case with cc.

The issue is risk/benefit trade-off, which is where questions about efficacy & safety come in.

[Liberal Veteran]

33. So, if there was an anti-HIV vaccine that was effective, the argument would be the same?

HIV usually takes over a decade to become AIDS (although that term has fallen out of favor and is now referred to as advanced HIV-disease) and is not spread through casual contact.

And since the best time to vaccinate someone is BEFORE exposure to a pathogen, I can assume you'd be opposed to an HIV vaccine on the same grounds?

[Hannah Bell]

34. I don't know. I'd have to look at the data.

In the case of CC in the US:

< 4000 deaths/yr, most in women over 40 = < .003% (Less than car accidents, murder or suicide)
est. 70% of cases caused by HPV 16 & 18 = 2800 deaths

Per literature: est ~1500 deaths prevented with 70% vaccination coverage & 3-year boosters

Incidence of CC: declining on the order of 3%/yr
Mortality of CC: declining

Incidence of HPV 16 & 18 in females: 3.4%

[NickB79]

43. Apparently 4000 people dead each year isn't serious enough to warrant your attention

:shrug:

[Hannah Bell]

47. apparently i don't see the public health risk that justifies mandates

for 11-12 yr-olds.

& it's 2800, not 4000. of which an estimated 1500 may be spared with 70% coverage & 3-year boosters, according to one (pro-gardasil) analysis.

So you think it's a good idea to vaccinate millions of 12-year-olds, with the attendant risk, to save 1500 women 30 years in the future?

(See, I can build straw men too. But there is such a thing as risk/cost/benefit analysis. If people want to vaccinate their kids, it's their business, but there's no justification for mandatory vaccination, which was what merck was lobbying for, & which nearly went through in a couple of states.)

[LeftishBrit]

55. Could we make a distinction between mandates and free provision with well-publicized information?

Most Western Europaean countries do NOT mandate most vaccines. But they do publicize them and provide them for free.

[LeftishBrit]

54. There's something evil about denying treatments to those who can't afford them

If they're not available 'on the public dime' then the poor, as always, will be the ones to lose out.

And who decides what's 'unnecessary'? For the record, I am quite sympathetic to civil-liberties-based arguments against vaccine mandation, and think that the risk to the public has to be quite strong in any given case to justify this level of government control. But I think that the vaccines should be given to people for FREE.

[mhatrw]

59. Yes, Merck should do this. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

70. Actually, I think that vaccinations should be made available for free by governments...

whether Merck is providing the vaccines or not.

I am strongly in favour of free universal health-care everywhere.

[mhatrw]

88. Let's just socialize Merck. n/t

[Tumbulu]

45. I think there is

if the motivation is to make money without regard to consequences of action.

Mandating a vaccine is very different than offering it on the market. Once talk of mandating starts all sorts of people go nutty.

My impression from very far away is that there is a very small profit margin for vaccines in general and so the only way to make any money is with sufficient volume in sales. If vaccines were made by not for profits or paid for my the government perhaps it would be better. I suspect that the government has to mandate vaccines to guarantee enough of a business for a private company to put all the money into commercializing and producing such a low margin item.

[Hannah Bell]

48. i suspect the margin on gardasil (I've read the initial series costs

$500-$800) is higher than you think. But I also suspect that's not public information.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. For any childhood vaccination or just Guardasil?

[LeftishBrit]

56. The public health reason for universal provision of childhood vaccinations...

is that it prevents epidemics of potentially serious diseases.

The fact that it may provide a profit to certain companies is not a good reason for having them; BUT - it's also not a good reason for NOT having them.

[chicagomd]

61. Wait...what?

"There's no compelling public health reason for mandatory childhood vaccination."

You have some very serious public health research to do if this post was supposed to be anything but flame bait.

[mhatrw]

46. Let's see. Gardasil has completely unproven efficacy against cervical cancer --

a threat that was diminishing each year because of HPV testing anyway-- as well as a poisonous aluminum adjuvant? Could this possibly have something to do with the "turn off"?

[varkam]

49. Oh noes! Not toksins!!1!

How much aluminum is in Gardasil, mhatrw?

[mhatrw]

50. How much was in the "placebo control" Gardasil's ill effects were

were measured against?

[trotsky]

52. Don't make others answer the questions addressed to you.

You screeched about aluminum, you should provide some data to back yourself up. Will you?

[mhatrw]

58. What a crock of shit. Merck makes Gardasil with an alum adjuvant.

The exact amount should be listed on each injection with a giant warning label as well as mentioned every time one of Gardasil's 800 million television ads roll. But somehow it's MY duty to come through with some "data" to back myself up. Each injection of Gardasil (3 are needed) contains 225 mcg of aluminum, 50 mcg of polysorbate 80 and 35 mcg of sodium borate. That's versus just 120 mcg of total HPV L1 proteins.

[chicagomd]

62. Ummmmm.

So what?

Do you make vaccines? I don't tell the baker how much yeast to put into my bread, how the hell do you know how much of whatever to put in the vaccines? Does the ration of HPV L1 proteins to other ingredients matter?

Do you have a reference for those numbers, and even if you do, can you show that those amounts somehow matter in any way, shape or form?

Oh, and since you seem to be all fired up with aluminum, how much is dangerous, anyway? What, in your mind, should that "giant warning label" say?

[mhatrw]

63. It should say, "WARNING: THIS VACCINE'S SIDE EFFECTS WERE MEASURED

AGAINST AN ALUM ADJUVANT 'CONTROL' RATHER THAN A TRUE SALINE PLACEBO!"

[varkam]

65. It was also measured against a saline placebo.

And the dose makes the poison....wait, what the hell am I doing trying to explain something to you? You've pretty clearly got your agenda and are stricking to it.

:boring:

[mhatrw]

67. And in the one study in which this was done, Gardasil had twice as many adverse effects as saline.

Furthermore, study group 018 was not injected with a true saline placebo, but rather a non-alum "carrier solution" containing L-histidine, polysorbate 80 and sodium borate.

[varkam]

71. Wow.

Maybe you missed this bit in the data, or just don't appreciate the significance of it:

In table 237, have a look at the number of people in each group. Yes, the absolute numbers do seem to indicate that there are more adverse effects in the experimental group than in the control group. However, the experimental group is roughly twice the size of the control group, and the percentages are non-significant. And that's comparing Gardasil with a saline placebo.

In other words, you need to look at the percentages - not the absolute numbers.

Of course, that looks like that's just for systemic adverse reactions where Gardasil doesn't appear any worse than placebo. It looks like there are significant differences for injection site reactions, though.

Do you mean to tell me that Gardasil causes pain at the injection site? Call the FDA! Call the CDC! It needs to be taken off the market now!!!1!

[mhatrw]

96. In the one group in which a TRUE saline only placebo was used,

Gardasil had roughly twice as many side effects.

[mhatrw]

72. And you need to realize that this wasn't a saline placebo.

It was a "carrier solution" containing saline, L-histidine, polysorbate 80 and sodium borate.

[varkam]

73. Scary!

I guess that means you'll be throwing out your ice cream, milk, and cosmetics. Do you realize how small those numbers are? I posit that you do not, and moreover that you simply do not care.

Anyway, L-histidine is also found....in the human body! It's an amino acid. Polysorbate 80? It's found in milk and ice cream (at a concentration, by the way, much greater than in the vaccine). Sodium borate? Again, tiny amounts - we're talking micrograms - whereas the levels where you start to encounter problems are in the grams per kilogram area (meaning many, many GRAMS - not micrograms). It's also found in cosmetics and, in Europe, is used as a food additive. Again, though, not that you care.

Oh, and also the concentration of saline was roughly ten to one hundred times higher than anything else in it. But I guess you probably think homeopathy is legit, so there you go.

Not to mention that aluminum salts have an 80-year-track record of safety (http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20040129/aluminum-in-vaccines-poses-no-harm)

Again, not that you care.

Do you realize where you sourced those images from? Slummin' it over at Renew America, huh? Say hi to Alan Keyes for me.

[beam me up scottie]

74. They've been playing at Renew America?

That's where they're getting their info??? :rofl:

Man, does that ever explain a lot...

Ask them for some info on abortion.

[varkam]

75. The silence, it deafens. eom

[mhatrw]

91. Do you EVER have ANYTHING but kill the messenger bs?

Seriously. :wtf:

[beam me up scottie]

98. I'm not the one who's quoting right wing hacks and then "forgetting" to credit the source.

That would be you.

[mhatrw]

103. Stop lying about me. n/t

[varkam]

116. It's not a lie. I mean, *you* know where you grabbed those images from.

If you don't believe me, go back to them, right-click, select properties, and have a look at the URL that you copy-pasted into your post.

[Liberal Veteran]

76. Aluminum salts? Aren't Maalox, Mylanta, and Gaviscon chock full of these?

The horror....they are poisoning us without a prescription!

[varkam]

77. Call Alan Keyes! He'll know what to do!

:rofl:

[Liberal Veteran]

78. I don't have a phone in my basement because mom says I'm too brain damaged to use it.

...because of the vaccinations I had as a child, or I'd be dialing as we speak.

[varkam]

79. In that case, just contact Alan Keyes via telepathy.

In the meantime, I'll try to get my video games back from my mom.

:rofl:

[mhatrw]

92. Ridicule & kill the messenger bs is ALL you EVER do.

How about some substance?

[varkam]

113. I've given you substance plenty of times. You just ignore it and call me names.

So, I figure I might as well have a little fun.

[beam me up scottie]

80. Yeah, but are they in a "carrier solution"?

It's not the facts, it's the punctuation. :)

[Liberal Veteran]

81. Actually, I think they are in a "carrier suspension" along with MAGNESIUM!

And magnesium is what they make flares out of of!

[beam me up scottie]

82. Oh, I get it!

So they just called it "Milk" of Magnesia to fool us into thinking it was as safe as mother's milk!
How utterly diabolical.

[salvorhardin]

84. And MacGyver made a cutting torch out of a magnesium bicycle frame

Don't people UNDERSTAND! We're all going to turn into human torches if we keep letting BIG PHARMA POISON US!!!11!!!

[mhatrw]

94. WTF is wrong with all of you?

A control placebo should be mildly saline water only. Do you agree or not?

[mhatrw]

93. Wow! That's clever! n/t

[mhatrw]

89. Have you injected these medication lately?

Why not?

[trotsky]

86. I noticed you got absolutely no response from the anti-vax crowd.

How strange!

[mhatrw]

95. Ridicule & kill the messenger bs is usually all you ever do.

But nice to see you branching out to baiting!

[trotsky]

99. I love how your side redefines words.

Somehow pointing out other common uses of "deadly" vaccine ingredients is now called "baiting"?

LOL

[mhatrw]

101. When and where did you do that? The post I responded to was pure bait. n/t

[trotsky]

106. The post you responded to wasn't directed TO you.

It was a response to someone else. If it was bait, then you were foolish enough to take it, huh?

[mhatrw]

107. It was ridiculing bait.

The post you responded to had some substance. Yours had none. What a surprise!

[mhatrw]

105. So when will you be injecting ice cream & milk into your blood?

Have at it!

[varkam]

114. Thanks for continuing to ignore substance!

Discussing things with you is such a joy.

[beam me up scottie]

87. Well, lookie here, we found where you got your quotes. Aren't you supposed to credit your sources?

In the study group 018 the saline placebo was not a true saline placebo. This placebo was a non-alum carrier solution placebo.

This was written by Cynthia A. Janak. You can find her expert opinion at Renew America, The Dobbs Report and other assorted right wing/conspiracy net rags.

Let's take a gander at ole Cynthia's qualifications, shall we?:

Cynthia Janak is a freelance journalist, mother of three, foster mother of one, grandmother of five, business owner, Chamber of Commerce member. Her expertise is as an administrative professional. Her specialties are adoptee and genealogy research and research journalism. Hobbies: Writing prose, crocheting, Conservative Studies, and rehabbing houses.

Isn't that special? Looks like she got her masters in Googlology too.

;)

[mhatrw]

90. Yes, I grabbed Merck's charts from someone else's server.

Do you challenge anything I wrote?

If so, explain yourself.

[beam me up scottie]

97. You grabbed more than that, you stole Cynthia's words, too, and tried to pass them off as your own..

But who wouldn't, after all, she's obviously a brilliant medical professional. :eyes:

[mhatrw]

100. Stop lying about me. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

102. Nice feint.

But it won't work.

[mhatrw]

104. OK. Show us the money quote then.

Or admit you have been lying about me and apologize.

[beam me up scottie]

108. Google Cynthia Janak, Renew America and Gardasil

Take your pick.

[mhatrw]

112. You are lying. n/t

[dropkickpa]

109. Here ya go, highlighted for all to see

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Hxb1NPH_eoEJ:www.renewamerica.us/columns/janak/080723+%22In+the+study+group+018+the+saline+placebo+was+not+a+true+saline+placebo.+This+placebo+was+a+non-alum+carrier+solution+placebo.+%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

[mhatrw]

111. When and where did I lift that exact quote and attribute it to myself?

Stop lying. All I did was restate the patently obvious in my own words.

[dropkickpa]

115. You restated a right-wing rag

written by a woman with NO medical or scientific credentials. Read some of her other articles, she a wonderland of right wing hate and propaganda. The fact that THIS is your source for your information is both unsurprising and disturbing. Especially the fact that you refuse to cite them as your source, and yet have no problem using their words, stance, and graphics.

[mzmolly]

110. Vaccination originated in Ancient China 200 BC (as far as we know). It's a form of natural medicine.

I don't have a problem with the scientific philosophy of vaccination. I have an issue with the additives, animal tissue and adjuvants used in their manufacture. I'm encouraged by the notion of synthetic and/or green vaccines for example.