No.
Thank you.
I especially enjoyed your post where you slid in the insinuation that if you don't have kids you don't know what you're talking about.
I know he was making a joke...was a touchy subject, and he didn't know it was suchI think he just wanted to have a giggle at the video and not debate the issue. I respect that. I want to be like that when I grow up.
And me and you need to smoke more weed.
I pointed out the guy had a scoreboard of 204 to zero but only interviewed 6 people and then congratulated himself...that was not well received but it was indeed correct.
Then I was told to use my brain before posting(obviously not a prerequisite here and certainly a bit of an insult)
I then PMed him (politely) to inform of another Forum members with first hand experience with this issue...and now the friendship was terminated in the very thread in which he said he "really liked me".
I find it humorous and rather sad that adults cannot agree to disagree...No hard feeling here and I feel no loss to no longer be interacting with such quick triggered individuals.
To me it is all an overreaction...Is what it is though
Who said that? Can you point me to that post?
This thread got fiery when I mentioned a single doctor not recommending full schedule...nobody asked what that entailed.
He does recommend almost all of the normal Vaccines FYI...just not a few of them
I just wish things could be discussed without anger and frustration..that solves nothing and only creates tensions.
You're welcome.
No, you read me wrong. I did ask if you had a daughter. But then I asked in theory if you would allow your daughter to receive the vaccine. In theory, because I don't know if you have one or not. So I was asking your opinion while being clueless as to whether or not you have children.
I'm open to anyone's opinion.
Odd. I just read that Brits don't get the chickenpox vaccine.
My GF is a well trained, well read MD and has vaccinated (HPV) family members as I have my son. She has no reservations about it at all and she is the most cautious conservative provider I know.
1
1372
Guest
Everything I post here is tongue in cheek...Do you ever see me debating politics or climate change?I think he just wanted to have a giggle at the video and not debate the issue. I respect that. I want to be like that when I grow up.
And me and you need to smoke more weed.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
That's not how it works.
If you only look at Cervical cancer rates, then Gardasil doesn't make financial sense.
If you look at entire spectrum of cervical cancer interventions prevented, like LEEPs, conization, etc. then it makes financial sense.
Then you also start to see that the prevention isn't just mortality in cervical cancer but also a HUGE amount of morbidity being prevented. And at that point the HPV vaccine is an excellent value as well as significantly safer than the risk of HPV and subsequent interventions that currently keep that cancer rate so low.
It isn't Gardasil vs Cervical Cancer.
It's Gardasil vs all the ways we currently stop your precancers from turning into cervical cancer that are highly invasive and costly and harmful to you and your future pregnancies.
Then there's out of context fear mongering from blogs with stuff like this...
It takes a huge amount of time to clear up this intentionally false implication created here by this statement. I timed myself reading the entire article and then typing this. Its about 29 minutes...for something that takes 10 seconds to read and fear monger...and 5 seconds to repost and spread on facebook. That's the problem
In that study, those people did not do a controlled trial. They decided to look through records retrospectively and ask, "of the women who got vaccinated, who ended up in the hospital and why...are there trends there? Specifically, there was a raised theory that HPV vaccine causes VTE -- DVT/PE. They asked...Is that true, does the Gardasil vaccine have any evidence that there are more VTE from it?"
STEP ONE. Identify vaccine group...
STEP TWO. Identify all self reported adverse vaccine events
That's right. 37 events per 100,000 doses. Self reported. None were VTE, the thing this study was powered to find. What events?
Rashes, pain, allergic reactions (worth investigating and prob never poking that person again if a real reaction. But also remembering its self reported and that 90%+ of self reported allergies to things like penicillin are not even real).
STEP THREE. The fear mongering statement
Of 195,000+ people getting 500,000+ HPV shots, 19,000+ went to the ED in the following 42 days FOR ANYTHING. And 958 were hospitalized for ANYTHING. Not powered to find anything linked to the vaccine. Nothing known about those hospitalizations to link them to the vaccine.
They were answering whether this group developed increased rates of VTE. So they decided to look to see if they group was vaccinated and went to the hospital, did they have VTE.
They found FOUR CASES OF VTE. Three of them had VTE and other diagnosis that are known to cause VTE. The fourth person had VTE hung on their ER chart but this was no longer a diagnosis once they were inpatient and worked up. No VTE alone. No increased VTE. The ED and hospital visits after the vaccine are not hospital visits BECAUSE of the vaccine.
So what can you say from this study?
There is no evidence the vaccine increases VTE rates. There is retrospective data suggesting it DOES NOT.
The self reported vaccine adverse reaction rate is 37.4/100,000 doses administered. A plurality of which would be localized rash, pain, swelling at the injection site. And a great majority of which would be self reported allergic reaction that is not anaphylaxis, rash, pain, and swelling at the injection site. Removing localized reactions the self reported adverse event rate is about 18/100,000 of stuff that includes "other unusual events" and only .04/100,000 of deadly reactions like anaphylaxis.
This study suggests the Gardasil vaccine is well tolerated in this group overall.
What'd the authors think?
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
How risky is this number I wondered...
NIH Fact Sheets - Cervical Cancer
Nope...never mind...
Get your anti-cancer vaccine.
I mean, what if we are gambling anaphylaxis at too high of a rate...
NIH Fact Sheets - Cervical Cancer
Nope...never mind...
You'll die sixty times more often from cervical cancer than that reaction. So still a good gamble, especially since almost no one actually dies from that anaphylactic reaction.
Get your anti-cancer vaccine.
@Splinty
What future pregnancies? That vaccine is making girls infertile. Lol
New Concerns about the Human Papillomavirus Vaccine
Nevertheless there are legitimate concerns that should be addressed: (1) long-term ovarian function was not assessed in either the original rat safety studies3,4 or in the human vaccine trials, (2) most primary care physicians are probably unaware of a possible association between HPV4 and POF and may not consider reporting POF cases or prolonged amenorrhea (missing menstrual periods) to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), (3) potential mechanisms of action have been postulated based on autoimmune associations with the aluminum adjuvant used1 and previously documented ovarian toxicity in rats from another component, polysorbate 80,2 and (4) since licensure of Gardasil® in 2006, there have been about 213 VAERS reports (per the publicly available CDC WONDER VAERS database) involving amenorrhea, POF or premature menopause, 88% of which have been associated with Gardasil®.5 The two-strain HPV2, CervarixTM, was licensed late in 2009 and accounts for 4.7 % of VAERS amenorrhea reports since 2006, and 8.5% of those reports from February 2010 through May 2015. This compares to the pre-HPV vaccine period from 1990 to 2006 during which no cases of POF or premature menopause and 32 cases of amenorrhea were reported to VAERS.
What future pregnancies? That vaccine is making girls infertile. Lol
New Concerns about the Human Papillomavirus Vaccine
Nevertheless there are legitimate concerns that should be addressed: (1) long-term ovarian function was not assessed in either the original rat safety studies3,4 or in the human vaccine trials, (2) most primary care physicians are probably unaware of a possible association between HPV4 and POF and may not consider reporting POF cases or prolonged amenorrhea (missing menstrual periods) to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), (3) potential mechanisms of action have been postulated based on autoimmune associations with the aluminum adjuvant used1 and previously documented ovarian toxicity in rats from another component, polysorbate 80,2 and (4) since licensure of Gardasil® in 2006, there have been about 213 VAERS reports (per the publicly available CDC WONDER VAERS database) involving amenorrhea, POF or premature menopause, 88% of which have been associated with Gardasil®.5 The two-strain HPV2, CervarixTM, was licensed late in 2009 and accounts for 4.7 % of VAERS amenorrhea reports since 2006, and 8.5% of those reports from February 2010 through May 2015. This compares to the pre-HPV vaccine period from 1990 to 2006 during which no cases of POF or premature menopause and 32 cases of amenorrhea were reported to VAERS.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Do you know the history of the "American College of Pediatricians" ?
But I'm more likely to get the reaction than I am the cervical cancer.
Absolutely not.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
You're not. I just showed you the numbers.
You're much more likely to
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Fake org
American College of Pediatricians - Wikipedia
Represent between 60-500 people total with every single position being a socially conservative bent. Founded on being against gay parents.
TL;DRThat's not how it works.
If you only look at Cervical cancer rates, then Gardasil doesn't make financial sense.
If you look at entire spectrum of cervical cancer interventions prevented, like LEEPs, conization, etc. then it makes financial sense.
Then you also start to see that the prevention isn't just mortality in cervical cancer but also a HUGE amount of morbidity being prevented. And at that point the HPV vaccine is an excellent value as well as significantly safer than the risk of HPV and subsequent interventions that currently keep that cancer rate so low.
It isn't Gardasil vs Cervical Cancer.
It's Gardasil vs all the ways we currently stop your precancers from turning into cervical cancer that are highly invasive and costly and harmful to you and your future pregnancies.
Then there's out of context fear mongering from blogs with stuff like this...
It takes a huge amount of time to clear up this intentionally false implication created here by this statement. I timed myself reading the entire article and then typing this. Its about 29 minutes...for something that takes 10 seconds to read and fear monger...and 5 seconds to repost and spread on facebook. That's the problem
In that study, those people did not do a controlled trial. They decided to look through records retrospectively and ask, "of the women who got vaccinated, who ended up in the hospital and why...are there trends there? Specifically, there was a raised theory that HPV vaccine causes VTE -- DVT/PE. They asked...Is that true, does the Gardasil vaccine have any evidence that there are more VTE from it?"
STEP ONE. Identify vaccine group...
STEP TWO. Identify all self reported adverse vaccine events
That's right. 37 events per 100,000 doses. Self reported. None were VTE, the thing this study was powered to find. What events?
Rashes, pain, allergic reactions (worth investigating and prob never poking that person again if a real reaction. But also remembering its self reported and that 90%+ of self reported allergies to things like penicillin are not even real).
STEP THREE. The fear mongering statement
Of 195,000+ people getting 500,000+ HPV shots, 19,000+ went to the ED in the following 42 days FOR ANYTHING. And 958 were hospitalized for ANYTHING. Not powered to find anything linked to the vaccine. Nothing known about those hospitalizations to link them to the vaccine.
They were answering whether this group developed increased rates of VTE. So they decided to look to see if they group was vaccinated and went to the hospital, did they have VTE.
They found FOUR CASES OF VTE. Three of them had VTE and other diagnosis that are known to cause VTE. The fourth person had VTE hung on their ER chart but this was no longer a diagnosis once they were inpatient and worked up. No VTE alone. No increased VTE. The ED and hospital visits after the vaccine are not hospital visits BECAUSE of the vaccine.
So what can you say from this study?
There is no evidence the vaccine increases VTE rates. There is retrospective data suggesting it DOES NOT.
The self reported vaccine adverse reaction rate is 37.4/100,000 doses administered. A plurality of which would be localized rash, pain, swelling at the injection site. And a great majority of which would be self reported allergic reaction that is not anaphylaxis, rash, pain, and swelling at the injection site. Removing localized reactions the self reported adverse event rate is about 18/100,000 of stuff that includes "other unusual events" and only .04/100,000 of deadly reactions like anaphylaxis.
This study suggests the Gardasil vaccine is well tolerated in this group overall.
What'd the authors think?
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
I'd be happy to debunk the whole of it if they properly sourced free full text. Their statements jump out as loaded and incomplete. I have no problem with concerns about any vaccine. Vaccine concerns are in journal articles all the time. There is not a lack of study on the subject since the test population is easily available.
@Splinty
I have no dog in the fight...Not starting shit, was never my intention on this topic.
Appreciate you giving your breakdown and analysis of some of the links
just curious if you get flu Shot every year?
Do you get flu often?
Do they give flu shot in the military yearly to your knowledge?
I personally do not and probably get flu like symptoms every 3-4 years...nasty cold every 2 years or so
I have no dog in the fight...Not starting shit, was never my intention on this topic.
Appreciate you giving your breakdown and analysis of some of the links
just curious if you get flu Shot every year?
Do you get flu often?
Do they give flu shot in the military yearly to your knowledge?
I personally do not and probably get flu like symptoms every 3-4 years...nasty cold every 2 years or so
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Yes
Cervical cancer: epidemiology, prevention and the role of human papillomavirus infection. - PubMed - NCBI
Also yes
Advances in the diagnosis and treatment of human papillomavirus infections. - PubMed - NCBI
Also yes
Human papillomavirus infection with particular reference to genital disease. - PubMed - NCBI
And Yes for more than just cervical
Evidence for a causal association between human papillomavirus and a subset of head and neck cancers. - PubMed - NCBI
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Yes
Never had it
Yes its required. I only get it once as its also a requirement in hospitals where I hold staff privileges.So one shot and show proof all around.
There are lots of colds that'll make you feel terrible. They aren't all flu.
Flu vaccine can't cause the flu...its dead virus particles (the injectable we use in the US).
You can still get those bad colds.
If you get the flu vaccine you can still get the flu, depending on prediction models (they build the vaccine a year ahead of time to have stock in time). If you do get the flu afterwards, there is a good chance you will have more benign course.
Kids, 65+, and Pregnant women should get their flu vaccines.
Those with comorbidities like lung disease should do so.
Those living with these groups should do so.
The rest...go ahead and gamble if you want. You're low on the risk level quite frankly. Random 30 year olds do die from the flu. But its pretty rare.
Me? I hope not to miss a week of work feeling like a truck hit me.
I have watched two people die as a direct result of flu this year. VERY late season where we are. One person had a heart attack and succumbed to the combination of flu + pneumonia + heart attack. Another sepsis from flu+pneumonia. Not good stuff.
Thanks
Flu really sucks
Last edited: