Should my daughter get the Gardasil vaccine?

[Doormat]

You have moved from technical attacks on one vaccine to a generalised attack on the whole vaccine industry and science...

Another irrational statement.

...claiming that since you must be right (along with the hand picked minority objectors) then all arguments in favour of the vaccinations must be illogical, fallacious, belief inspired ...

Another irrational statement. You appear to be nothing more than a believer in faith-based medicine.

You have fatally undermined your attempt at a scientific argument with your virulent conspiracy theory. Stick to the 'it spooks me out, I don't understand it, so I won't have it' approach. At least that would be honest.

More irrational statements.

I suppose that was easier for you than addressing my points. Sad.

 

[Tyrathca]

Another irrational statement.

On the contrary thats exactly what you're doing. The Gardasil vaccine has gone through the same safety trials and been held to the same standard, standard which you are attacking (and aluminium in vaccines) in your later posts. Ergo this is an attack on the process for all vaccines rather than just an issue with Gardasil.

I'd love to re-hash this (not all that new) debate about vaccines with someone who clearly has an axe to grind against medicine in general, I always seem to learn a few interesting facts reading up on the latest relevant journals. Unfortunately I'm flying overseas on holiday tomorrow so I'll have to leave that fun to someone else who can be bothered. :wave:

 

[quip]

Should my daughter get the Gardasil vaccine? That is the question I was seeking to answer. My two oldest daughters are 11 and 13. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends they get vaccinated against the human papillomavirus (HPV), variants of which are believed to cause cervical cancer. After researching the matter we have decided to not get the HPV vaccinations for our daughters because the risks clearly outweigh the potential benefits.

I didn't with my daughter for the exact reasons you expressed.

BTW she's 21 now and doing just fine.

 

[Doormat]

The Gardasil vaccine has gone through the same safety trials and been held to the same standard ...

What "same standard" are you referring to? I live in the U.S. Our system is heavily influenced and corrupted by politics and money. That is factual, and your ignorance of it is not my problem. Furthermore, the clinical trials done for U.S. approval were flawed because the "placebos" in all the studies were not placebos. It should not have been approved. The safety is unproven.

... standard which you are attacking (and aluminium in vaccines) in your later posts. Ergo this is an attack on the process for all vaccines rather than just an issue with Gardasil.

First, not all vaccines contain aluminum adjuvants. Second, aluminum adjuvants were used in 9 out of 10 of the "placebos" in the clinical trials, proving they were not placebos. Ergo you cannot claim I am attacking "all vaccines" and cannot assert the vaccine was properly tested. Basically you found yourself on the losing side of an argument and you are trying to extricate yourself.

I'd love to re-hash this (not all that new) debate about vaccines with someone who clearly has an axe to grind against medicine in general...

I am for evidence-based medicine and against faith-based medical woo. Gardasil appears to fall into the latter category. Failing to defend your woo, you feign "love" for a debate that, in the case of this particular vaccine, you cannot win.

I always seem to learn a few interesting facts reading up on the latest relevant journals. Unfortunately I'm flying overseas on holiday tomorrow so I'll have to leave that fun to someone else who can be bothered. :wave:

Did you get your Gardasil vaccine yet? Herd immunity, mate. Get with it.

 

[gcthomas]

Doormat. Which mass vaccination programs for children do you support?

 

[Doormat]

Doormat. Which mass vaccination programs for children do you support?

First you answer my on topic questions directed to you. There are some points you need to concede or refute. And don't forget the question I asked everyone: are YOU going to get the Gardasil vaccine? If not, why not? That question goes to the idea of herd immunity for this particular vaccine.

 

[gcthomas]

First you answer my on topic questions directed to you. There are some points you need to concede or refute. And don't forget the question I asked everyone: are YOU going to get the Gardasil vaccine? If not, why not? That question goes to the idea of herd immunity for this particular vaccine.

No, I won't. It is only licensed here for girls over 9 years and young women under 26 for the prevention of cervical cancer. I am not female, in that age group, and I have no cervix.

Answer the following: [please?]

1. Do you concede the "placebo" in 9 of the 10 study groups was not a placebo because it contained aluminum adjuvant? If not, explain why.

No. Since it was testing the novel part of the vaccine. The adjuvant has been tested elsewhere, and changing the adjuvant would spoil the trial of the active part, which was the purpose of the trial.

2. Do you concede the alleged saline "placebo" in the remaining study was also not a placebo because it was not normal saline but the vaccine carrier solution that contains 9.56 mg of sodium chloride, 0.78 mg of L-histidine, 50 mcg of polysorbate 80 and 35 mcg of sodium borate? If not, explain why.

What was the purpose of the salts? All placebo injections will need to be balanced for salts if they are to avoid inbalances. (The body is salty y'know!) I am not qualified to determine whether that was a poor placebo or not, but I suspect it was fine.

1. You fail to distinguish between ingested aluminum and injected aluminum adjuvants.

Because the toxicity that you refer to is a systemic one. It doesn't really matter what the source of entry is. See here and here, for example.

2. You ignore aluminum toxicology.

No, I don't. I pointed out that other sources of aluminium are ubiquitous. Such as, from the above links:

Quantity of aluminium in vaccines (per dose) compared with foods (per 100g) Vaccine Brand name Aluminium (μg) Food Aluminium (μg) Hib/MenC Menitorix 0 Cornflakes 410 MMR vaccine MMRVaxPro 0 Avocado 390 Pre-school vaccine Repevax 330 White Bread 220 HPV vaccine Gardasil 225 Spinach 970 Cervarix 500 Brussels Sprouts 420 Teenage booster vaccine Revaxis 350 Parmesan 2000

Sorry for the table formatting. Note that Gardasil (225 μg) supplies less than twice the Al than morning bowl of Cornflakes (120 μg from a 30 g serving.)

3. You fail to recognize that aluminum adjuvants are added to vaccines to enhance the recipient's immune response to the vaccine antigen.

How'd you comclude that? What else could they be they added for?

4. You fail to recognize that aluminum is an antigen.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

I suggest you find and watch Dr. Chris Exley’s lecture on aluminum in vaccines. He is an expert on the toxicology of aluminum.

His conclusions are not universally accepted by toxicologists, and some are rejected. He is one person, whose opinions should be taken seriously, but not as some sort of gospel.

Can we not believe a principle investigator in the clinical trials for Gardasil who is an international expert in HPV science and was a paid consultant for Merck and GSK?

If we can believe her, then perhaps you should read this interview that supports my reasons for not allowing my daughters to receive the vaccine.

From that interview:

Could you clarify the content and context of the statements that you made at the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination in October 2009, which have been so widely read and misquoted? Specifically the reported quote, "The rate of serious adverse effects is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer." "The rate of serious adverse events reported is 3.4/100,000 doses distributed. The current incidence rate of cervical cancer in the United States is 7/100,000 women. This is what I said."

Seems like you have misquoted her, earlier in the thread, misrepresenting what she meant. She is quite clear that you shouldn't draw conclusions from the adverse event reports.

If you can't refute her claims in the interview, perhaps you should keep your irrational opinions to yourself.

She seems to be commenting almost entirely about the need for informed choices and about the [obvious] lack of long term efficacy evidence. Which claims do you refer to specifically?

So, which childhood vaccination programs do you support?

 

[Doormat]

[A]re YOU going to get the Gardasil vaccine? If not, why not?

No, I won't. It is only licensed here for girls over 9 years and young women under 26 for the prevention of cervical cancer. I am not female, in that age group, and I have no cervix.

You are mistaken and apparently don't understand the vaccine is for males, too. The Gardasil vaccine is licensed in the U.K. for boys age 9-15. Furthermore, in the U.K. you can receive the vaccine off-label at the doctors discretion. Here is the link for Fleet Street clinic in London.

Now will you attempt to get the vaccine? If not, why not? Remember, you believe the vaccine is safe and herd immunity is allegedly important to vaccination programs. Prove your faith in this vaccination.

1. Do you concede the "placebo" in 9 of the 10 study groups was not a placebo because it contained aluminum adjuvant? If not, explain why.

No. Since it was testing the novel part of the vaccine. The adjuvant has been tested elsewhere, and changing the adjuvant would spoil the trial of the active part, which was the purpose of the trial.

First, you cannot change the definition of placebo. Second, you haven't provided any evidence that aluminum adjuvants have been tested for safety in clinical trials (they haven't been). I expect either a concession from you or a rational refutation.

2. Do you concede the alleged saline "placebo" in the remaining study was also not a placebo because it was not normal saline but the vaccine carrier solution that contains 9.56 mg of sodium chloride, 0.78 mg of L-histidine, 50 mcg of polysorbate 80 and 35 mcg of sodium borate? If not, explain why.

What was the purpose of the salts? All placebo injections will need to be balanced for salts if they are to avoid inbalances. (The body is salty y'know!) I am not qualified to determine whether that was a poor placebo or not, but I suspect it was fine.

Injectable normal saline is 0.9%, and that would have been an acceptable placebo. You haven't provided any reason to include the other ingredients in the carrier solution. I have already shown that one of the ingredients, polysorbate 80, was found to cause infertility in rates. The carrier solution was not a placebo based on the definition of placebo.

1. You fail to distinguish between ingested aluminum and injected aluminum adjuvants.

Because the toxicity that you refer to is a systemic one. It doesn't really matter what the source of entry is. See here and here, for example.

The link you posted states the following: "The calculated body burden of aluminum from vaccinations exceeds that from dietary sources..."

Sorry for the table formatting. Note that Gardasil (225 μg) supplies less than twice the Al than morning bowl of Cornflakes (120 μg from a 30 g serving.)

Supra. And the table you provided is erroneous. For example, the Hib vaccine contains aluminum adjuvant yet your table lists it as having none.

3. You fail to recognize that aluminum adjuvants are added to vaccines to enhance the recipient's immune response to the vaccine antigen.

How'd you comclude that? What else could they be they added for?

Please Google adjuvants and educate yourself. Don't waste my time.

4. You fail to recognize that aluminum is an antigen.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Rather, it's quite relevant to the discussion and my point about placebo. Don't wast my time.

I suggest you find and watch Dr. Chris Exley’s lecture on aluminum in vaccines. He is an expert on the toxicology of aluminum.

His conclusions are not universally accepted by toxicologists, and some are rejected.

Provide evidence for your claim.

From that interview:

Could you clarify the content and context of the statements that you made at the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination in October 2009, which have been so widely read and misquoted? Specifically the reported quote, "The rate of serious adverse effects is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer." "The rate of serious adverse events reported is 3.4/100,000 doses distributed. The current incidence rate of cervical cancer in the United States is 7/100,000 women. This is what I said."

Seems like you have misquoted her, earlier in the thread, misrepresenting what she meant. She is quite clear that you shouldn't draw conclusions from the adverse event reports.

The quote was directly from ABC News. She was not misquoted and if you read more carefully that is what she meant. The vaccine is three doses. 100,000 women will receive a total of 300,000 doses. In other words, 7/100,000 women will get cervical cancer and 10.2/100,000 women will have serious adverse reactions. Why did you not underline doses distributed as the article had it? Don't waste my time.

She seems to be commenting almost entirely about the need for informed choices and about the [obvious] lack of long term efficacy evidence. Which claims do you refer to specifically?

The claims that prove the vaccine could hardly be called beneficial. Read the article more carefully.

So, which childhood vaccination programs do you support?

You will have to do a better job of responding to my argument, and stop wasting my time, if you want me to go down that rabbit trail with you. And you will have to start your own thread on the topic instead of trying to derail this one with your nonsense.

 

[gcthomas]

I answered your questions, even though you didn't like or misread the answers.

Time for you to answer my question in exchange as discussed.

Which childhood vaccine programmes do you support, if any?

 

[Doormat]

I answered your questions, even though you didn't like or misread the answers.

Time for you to answer my question in exchange as discussed.

Which childhood vaccine programmes do you support, if any?

You misunderstood me. When you tried to change the topic, I told you to first address my arguments on topic. I never agreed to change the topic of this thread after you answered, and in my last post I made it clear that you need to start your own thread if you want to discuss that topic. And if you start a thread, I suggest you define your terms. Start with defining what you mean by "childhood vaccine programmes."

 

[gcthomas]

You misunderstood me. When you tried to change the topic, I told you to first address my arguments on topic. I never agreed to change the topic of this thread after you answered, and in my last post I made it clear that you need to start your own thread if you want to discuss that topic. And if you start a thread, I suggest you define your terms. Start with defining what you mean by "childhood vaccine programmes."

From that cop-out answer and your other answers it is obvious you are a general purpose anti-vaccine loose cannon, whose objection is not specific points of safety, but the whole concept. :dizzy:

Thanks for clearing that up! :carry on:

There is no point putting any effort helping you to understand the issues from a science standpoint. You phrased the OP as a question but had already made up your mind to reject all and every pro-vaccine comment.

 

[gcthomas]

Supra. And the table you provided is erroneous. For example, the Hib vaccine contains aluminum adjuvant yet your table lists it as having none.

You are demonstrably wrong, there, although your little mistake did let you avoid the question about food sources of aluminium.

The Hib vaccine is listed in the as Menitorix, which according to the manufacturer does indeed have no aluminium adjuvant.

So the point about two bowls of Cornflakes providing the same system load of aluminium as a one-off inoculation stands. Yes, I know that the vaccine does temporarily increase the load over the average pre existing level, hence the need for TWO bowls of breakfast cereal to match it. Should we be banning cornflakes for children?

But, as an antivaxer you will simply dismiss this point, probably with a juvenile personal insult or two to boot.

:carryon:

 

[doloresistere]

Someone is unhinged. it is funny how he wants to teach the "science" but has a very anti science attitude when asked to defend his positions.

 

[gcthomas]

Someone is unhinged. it is funny how he wants to teach the "science" but has a very anti science attitude when asked to defend his positions.

Care to identify a bit of antiscience from me?

 

[doloresistere]

Care to identify a bit of antiscience from me?

What makes you think I was talking about you?

 

[gcthomas]

What makes you think I was talking about you?

Sorry, Dolo. I've got used to being unjustifiably insulted endlessly on this thread.

:wave:

 

[Doormat]

You are demonstrably wrong, there, although your little mistake did let you avoid the question about food sources of aluminium.

First, the Hib vaccines licensed in the U.S., ActHIB and Pentacel, both contain an aluminum adjuvant. See this list of vaccine ingredients. Your table was poorly formatted by your own admission. Second, I didn't avoid the question about food sources of aluminum, pointing out in response to your previous question that your own citation stated: "The calculated body burden of aluminum from vaccinations exceeds that from dietary sources..." That is why I responded "Supra."

The Hib vaccine is listed in the as Menitorix, which according to the manufacturer does indeed have no aluminium adjuvant.

Menitorix is licensed in the U.K, not the U.S. I live in the U.S.

So the point about two bowls of Cornflakes providing the same system load of aluminium as a one-off inoculation stands. Yes, I know that the vaccine does temporarily increase the load over the average pre existing level, hence the need for TWO bowls of breakfast cereal to match it. Should we be banning cornflakes for children?

The Hib vaccine is administered at 2 months old, 4 months old, 6 months old, and 12-15 months old. At what age did you start eating cornflakes?

 

[Doormat]

There is no point putting any effort helping you to understand the issues from a science standpoint.

Someone is unhinged. it is funny how he wants to teach the "science" but has a very anti science attitude when asked to defend his positions.

Care to identify a bit of antiscience from me?

What makes you think I was talking about you?

Sorry, Dolo. I've got used to being unjustifiably insulted endlessly on this thread.

Poster gcthomas: It is you who has been unjustifiably insulting people on this thread.

And don't flatter yourself. You can't help anyone understand the issues from a science standpoint if you claim using an antigen in a "placebo" to test another antigen's safety is irrelevant to the discussion. You apparently don't even know what the definition of a placebo is.

 

[gcthomas]

First, the Hib vaccines licensed in the U.S., ActHIB and Pentacel, both contain an aluminum adjuvant. See this list of vaccine ingredients. Your table was poorly formatted by your own admission.

Is that an apology for mistakenly claiming the table was wrong? You're welcome. :up:

Second, I didn't avoid the question about food sources of aluminum, pointing out in response to your previous question that your own citation stated: "The calculated body burden of aluminum from vaccinations exceeds that from dietary sources..." That is why I responded "Supra."

You take 'exceeds by a little for a short time' as meaning 'dangerous', which is not justified by any evidence you've supplied.

Menitorix is licensed in the U.K, not the U.S. I live in the U.S.

Then you shouldn't have told me its table entry was wrong, then. I didn't raise it. The table was to compare Gardasil with foods as you know.

The Hib vaccine is administered at 2 months old, 4 months old, 6 months old, and 12-15 months old. At what age did you start eating cornflakes?

We were talking about Gardasil, which is given to children rather older than that.

And one litre of infant formula has the same level of aluminium as a dose of Gardasil. Are you campaigning against formula with the same gusto as your anti-vaccine stance?

 

[gcthomas]

You can't help anyone understand the issues from a science standpoint if you claim using an antigen in a "placebo" to test another antigen's safety is irrelevant to the discussion. You apparently don't even know what the definition of a placebo is.

Vaccines have been tested with and without the main active ingredient, as well as with and without the adjuvant.

If you don't think that is a good test, then explain what would have been better. Most experiments, naturally, will be looking at the effects of changing the new vaccine ingredient, not an old one that has been in use for a very long time. But the experiments you want have been done. And guess what? There appears to be no safety risk of a short term slight increase in Al load.

Life expectancy increases wherever vaccination programs are introduced. At the very least the effects of the adjuvant are much smaller that the benefits of the inoculations. There may be better ones, but that doesn't mean the current system is significantly dangerous.