Nirvana_Nut85 said:
DeadNotSleeping said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
Mendicate Bias said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
Mendicate Bias said:
Please stop talking out of your ass and show proof that the FDA said HPV vaccine does not prevent papillomavirus.
And I want scientific articles, not some bullshit blog.
|
Because we all know that being ignorant and speaking rudely makes your opinion that much more valid than the person you are disagreeing with!
Now, here's a link to one of those "bullshit blogs" that not only explains how the HPV vaccine is dangerous and ineffective but guess what? They source their information to the FDA website itself throught the article and at the end of it.
http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_HPV_Vaccine_0.html
|
I read through that entire blog. Not one of their pieces of evidence was published. Instead they were all random pdf and word documents with no way to verify their authenticity.
Secondly they cherry pick the fuck out of the data. There are over 40 types of hpv virus. The vast majority are harmless. However about 10% of people get infected with a strain that does cause cervical cancer. Almost every single case of cervical cancer recorded to date is a direct result of hpv. All that crap about the hpv vaccine being dangerous is utter bullshit, its no more dangerous than any other vaccine.
I graduated with a bachelors in biology and biotech and I'm doing my masters in clinical pathology. I worked at a state of the art cancer clinic in California. I've given presentations and developed protocols for combating cancer in the future. I know exactly how and why a viral infection can cause cancer. Are you seriously trying to tell me that some bored guy who doesn't know the difference between a transposon and a oncogene discovered some huge conspiracy that no one else in the scientific or medical community with all their state of the art technology have a shred of evidence for?
Next thing your going to tell me is that we never landed on the moon. Stick to your blogs and I'll stick to reality.
|
No way to autheticate? If you actually read the entire article instead of claiming you did, you would have found direct links to the FDA and other sites (you do realize that the continue arrow brings you to the next screen right?)
For someone who claims they have a "BACHELOR" in biology and biotech and are pursuing a Master's it's very surprising s that you resorted to ad hominems and choose to use the type of language you did, like in the previous post. If anything, you come off more as an ignorant hillbilly then someone with any credibility at all.
Oh wait, let me guess; in your next post you will post a link directly from the A.C.S or one of those organizations, or hell maybe you'll provide me something from the W.H.O! Well I would highly suggest researching into who funds or created the majority of these organizations where alot of this scientific data comes from and who there founders were (you should already know this, considering how smart you are).
Anyways, until you can speak and act like an adult and debate intelligently without swearing or name calling, do not bother replying as I have nothing further to say to you.
Good day to you sir, and kepp drinking that kool-aid.
|
I read the article. The author did not even do his basic math correctly. In study group 013, one subgroup had their risk of developing pre-cancerous lesions by 44.6%. The author (whom I cannot call 'journalist' based on the rampant illogic in this article) then concluded that all non-virgins had a 44.6% chance of developing cervical cancer if they receive a vaccine. But wait a minute...they experienced an increased risk by 44.6% (not to 44.6%); if they were only 0.1% likely to develop pre-cancerous lesions to begin with, you multiply that by 1.446 (44.6% increase) and you get a whopping 0.1446% risk of developing this condition. The article doesn't cite the initial chances, though, so that's up to speculation. Perhaps if the sources were properly cited the actual figures could be found for this one sub-group (and apparently the only one that raised any alarm; at least any that he found to be newsworthy) in at least 13 separate studies. But no, he states that people have 44.6% chance of developing cervical cancer if they get the vaccine. This is a grievous mathematical error.
Somehow this has led him to conclude (without any evidence whatsoever) that virgins will be "interrogated" as a result, and that their sexual history would be revealed because apparently doctor-patient confidentiality doesn't exist in his country. The leaps of illogic taken by this man discredits everything he had to say on the subject, a statement I can make with confidence because he subscribed to at least one logical fallacy every time he tried providing the reader a fact. Every time.
You will find that those who have actually studied microbiology will tend to call BS on this article.
|
Yes, like he stated from the beggining of the article. Some groups of women do have the risk of developing pre cancerous legions. He did not state that all women do as in the The Four Quadrants of Garsadil Vaccinations section he states that "44.6% of that group had an increased risk of precancerous lesions. .so I do not understand where this grevious mathematical error is coming from.
Now as for the section where he states "interrogating young virgins" the age group he was stating were those under the age of 16 as your doctor is allowed to disclose to your parents whether you are sexually active, use narcotics etc which in one sense is good, yet invades the privacy of that individual which I believe was the point he was trying to make.
I don't necessarily agree with everything the author states, but I do disagree with the few of you that he does not make any valid points as there is a lot of research coming out from even "peer reviewed" articles that have the same disagreements as this author did.(could only find the abstract but will look for more)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22188159
|
His statement "44.6% of that group had an increased risk" is not true because he states that all sexually active females compose this risk group. Quadrant IV is incorrect; being sexually active does not mean you have been exposed to the virus. Furthermore, it is possible to be exposed even without being sexually active. Fortunately, microbiology and seriology labs can detect if someone is in this risk group. The Doctor has no reason to even inquire about a girl's sexual past for this vaccine; all the lab needs is a blood sample and a tissue swab. The results will indicate presence of virus or antigens and the Doctor will be informed. The lab cannot conclude how the virus got there because viruses are tiny SOB's and the vehicle/vector of viral transmission isn't limited to being sexually transmitted. Knowing the risks, the Doctor can give the girl a choice, informing her of the risks and adverse reactions and leave the decision up to her with her privacy intact.
Even if the Doctor behaves unprofessionally and asks personal questions, the female in questions can simply say "Irrelevant. Even abstaining I cannot guarantee non-exposure. Run whatever tests need to be done." The tests can only confirm the presence or absence of whatever they are looking for; they cannot conclude how exposure took place.
Now, please demonstrate the validity and soundness (Wikipedia will be your friend) of his argument based on his 'Four Quadrants' (my bold). The bolded sections corrects his assumptions and destroys his conclusion that the vaccine "adds no benefits to any quadrant!".
"Based on what we've learned from the FDA's own documents, here are the likely outcomes of each of the four quadrants:
Quadrant I: Non-Sexually Active, No Gardasil Vaccine
Outcome: No risk of cervical cancer. (This is a falsehood; it is possible to contract HPV without sexual contact and there is no guarantee that the individual in question will remain non-sexually active throughout her life. The vaccine is beneficial thus.)
Quadrant II: Non-Sexually Active, Receives Gardasil Vaccine
Outcome: No medical benefit from vaccine. (This is a falsehood; since it is possible to contract HPV without sexual contact, the vaccine would do what vaccines do and immunize 95+% of those who receive it from contracting it. Furthermore, if one becomes sexually active later, they will actually have protection against sexual exposure to the virus.)
Quadrant III: Sexually Active, No Gardasil Vaccine
Outcome: HPV presence is self-limiting and does not lead to cervical cancer. (HPV-16 has been found in the tumor cells of most patients diagnosed with cervical cancer. I'm not going to get into the science of it, just recognize that the virus in these cases have proven to not be self-limiting and may lead to cervical cancer.)
Quadrant IV: Sexually Active, Receives Gardasil Vaccine
Outcome: 44.6% Increased risk of precancerous lesions. No reduction in cancer risk. (Those sexually active may not have the virus and even among those who do...they might not be part of that particular risk group. Ergo his math is grievously incorrect and there will be sexually active people who benefit greatly from the vaccine.)"
