What would happen if we stopped Vaccinations....

On May 22, 9

Are you intentionally trying to be dishonest with that article?
That not true and you know it . The real question is are you?
"Investigators in these trials have hit their mark soundly: the
vaccine showed significant efficacy against anogenital and cervical
lesions related to vaccine type in women with no evidence of previous
exposure to vaccine-specific types; the vaccine also appeared to be
safe."

You accurately quoted That.
That means it is safe and effective.
that's your opinion and it is not shared by the authors of the article

"Why is vaccine efficacy modest in the entire cohort? One factor is
the apparent lack of efficacy among subjects with evidence of previous
exposure to HPV types included in the vaccine."
Well you quoted that right??

This simply states that the vaccine is not very effective in women
that have had previous exposure to HPV. Which is why they should get
the vaccine before they begin sexual activity.
....Thats the distortion the authors say nothing like that. I asume
you either do not understand what you read or do not care to translate
it correctly. Maybe you got that from a commercial or some other
source.

"What can be inferred from these data about the potential effect of
vaccination among girls 11 and 12 years of age? The FUTURE trials did
not enroll subjects in this age group. Within both trials, subgroups
of subjects with no evidence of previous exposure to relevant vaccine
HPV types were evaluated separately for vaccine efficacy. In these
subgroups, efficacy of nearly 100% against all grades of cervical
intraepithelial neoplasia and adenocarcinoma in situ related to
vaccine HPV types was reported in both trials."


Lastly, this says there is a nearly 100% effectiveness in the groups
that the vaccine would be targeting. Girls that had no previous
exposure to HPV.


I find it amazing how you can attempt to twist that article into an
attack on the effectiveness of HPV vaccine in women that have had no
previous exposure to HPV.


I won't be replying to this thread again, on the topic of HPV at
least, as it is redundant. You have posted no information that the
vaccine is harmful, or even ineffective, in the least.


I don't really know why you don't like the vaccine and I don't care. I
just hope that not one person will believe the tripe you have posted.


Lets clear up your distortions from the same article "Given the
rarity of incident cervical cancer, preinvasive cervical lesions with
high invasive potential are used in contemporary studies as surrogate
outcomes for cervical cancer. Adenocarcinoma in situ is a rare lesion
widely considered to be a precursor of cancer. Cervical
intraepithelial neoplasia is graded from 1 to 3 on the basis of
histopathological criteria. Grade 1 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
indicates the presence of active HPV infection and is not considered
to be precancerous; current guidelines discourage treatment of this
condition.7,8 Grade 2 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia is treated in
most women but is not an irrefutable cancer surrogate, since up to 40%
of such lesions regress spontaneously9; current guidelines suggest
that some young women with such lesions do not need to be treated.7,8
Grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, on the other hand, has the
lowest likelihood of regression and the strongest potential to be
invasive. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers grade 2 and
3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and adenocarcinoma in situ to be
acceptable surrogate outcomes for cervical cancer; other observers
consider grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and adenocarcinoma
in situ to be more appropriate surrogates.9 "

Now thats a little technical but what it says is that stage 3
lessions are the most relevant surrogate for cancer. But the article
goes on to say ..........."'In the larger FUTURE II trial,6 rates of
grade 2 or 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in
situ were 1.3 in vaccinated women and 1.5 in unvaccinated women, an
efficacy of 17%. In analyses by lesion type, the efficacy appears to
be significant only for grade 2 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; no
efficacy was demonstrable for grade 3 cervical intraepithelial
neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ.'" NEJM MAy 10 2007 Now as
you say this article does not question the effectiveness of this
vaccine lets see what the authors say from same article.............
"On one hand, the vaccine has high efficacy against certain HPV types
that cause life-threatening disease, and it appears to be safe;
delaying vaccination may mean that many women will miss an opportunity
for long-lasting protection. On the other hand, a cautious approach
may be warranted in light of important unanswered questions about
overall vaccine effectiveness, duration of protection, and adverse
effects that may emerge over time. HPV vaccination has the potential
for profound public health benefit if the most optimistic scenario of
effectiveness is realized. " link here
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/19/1991 I do not like
or dislike this vaccine . I perfer that benefit be shown before using
11 year olds as a test tube. You prefer that this vaccine be given
before it shows a real ability to prevent cancer. It might and it
might not. I wonder why you set such a low standard. I encourage
people to look at the article and draw their own conclusions. I have
no vested interest in this product. You write as if you have. thanks

Vince

On May 22, 9:34 am, wrote:
On May 22, 12:58 am, bigvince wrote:

On May 21, -

Are you intentionally trying to be dishonest with that article?

These are direct quotes from your article.....

"Investigators in these trials have hit their mark soundly: the
vaccine showed significant efficacy against anogenital and cervical
lesions related to vaccine type in women with no evidence of previous
exposure to vaccine-specific types; the vaccine also appeared to be
safe."

That means it is safe and effective.

"Why is vaccine efficacy modest in the entire cohort? One factor is
the apparent lack of efficacy among subjects with evidence of previous
exposure to HPV types included in the vaccine."

This simply states that the vaccine is not very effective in women
that have had previous exposure to HPV. Which is why they should get
the vaccine before they begin sexual activity.

"What can be inferred from these data about the potential effect of
vaccination among girls 11 and 12 years of age? The FUTURE trials did
not enroll subjects in this age group. Within both trials, subgroups
of subjects with no evidence of previous exposure to relevant vaccine
HPV types were evaluated separately for vaccine efficacy. In these
subgroups, efficacy of nearly 100% against all grades of cervical
intraepithelial neoplasia and adenocarcinoma in situ related to
vaccine HPV types was reported in both trials."

Lastly, this says there is a nearly 100% effectiveness in the groups
that the vaccine would be targeting. Girls that had no previous
exposure to HPV.

I find it amazing how you can attempt to twist that article into an
attack on the effectiveness of HPV vaccine in women that have had no
previous exposure to HPV.

I won't be replying to this thread again, on the topic of HPV at
least, as it is redundant. You have posted no information that the
vaccine is harmful, or even inneffective, in the least.

I don't really know why you don't like the vaccine and I don't care. I
just hope that not one person will believe the tripe you have posted.

And here the original posting ...from NEJM
article.. "HPV Vaccination - More
Answers, More Questions"

George F. Sawaya, M.D., and Karen Smith-McCune, M.D., Ph.D. "In
this issue of the Journal, reports on two large, ongoing, randomized,
placebo-controlled trials show the effect of this vaccine on
important
clinical outcomes," ....the article places the 14% reduction in
perspective....."Given the rarity of incident cervical cancer,
preinvasive cervical lesions with high invasive potential are used in
contemporary studies as surrogate outcomes for cervical cancer" now
mare you do not have to be a math major to realize that 14% of a rare
cancer is a very small cancer reduction. The 14% reduction small and
it is also unproven.. ......now the rest is technical and needed to
understand the science......again from the article ....... "Grade 1
cervical intraepithelial neoplasia indicates the presence of active
HPV infection and is not considered to be precancerous; current
guidelines discourage treatment of this condition.7,8 Grade 2
cervical
intraepithelial neoplasia is treated in most women but is not an
irrefutable cancer surrogate, since up to 40% of such lesions regress
spontaneously9; current guidelines suggest that some young women with
such lesions do not need to be treated.7,8 Grade 3 cervical
intraepithelial neoplasia, on the other hand, has the lowest
likelihood of regression and the strongest potential to be
invasive"...... Let me help you the best marker of which lessions
will become cancerous are grade 3 lessions they are the best
surrogate. the studies showed a 17% reduction in lessions but again
from the journal ..... "an efficacy of 17%. In analyses by lesion
type, the efficacy appears to be significant only for grade 2
cervical
intraepithelial neoplasia; no efficacy was demonstrable for grade 3
cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ.".......
In other words no evidence that this vaccine will prevent any cancer
as it has shown no effect on the best surrogate. again from the
article..."If grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or
adenocarcinoma in situ were the most relevant outcome, evidence was
insufficient to infer the effectiveness of vaccination." the article
balances the hope that this vaccine MAY be effective with
caution ...,
'a cautious approach may be warranted in light of important
unanswered
questions about overall vaccine effectiveness, duration of
protection,
and adverse effects that may emerge over time.'
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/19/1991 Mark I to
mandate an product that has not been proven is the most irresponsible
act. As you could care less as to facts I encourage others to read
the
Journal article. Thanks Vince

bigvince wrote:
On May 22, 8:13 am, Mark Probert wrote:
bigvince wrote:
On May 21, -
- Show quoted text -
Which means that a young woman who has had the vaccine has a 14% less
chance of developing a precancerous lesion.
Which means....
"So that 14% less of a chance isn't worth it?
That's an extra 14 lives out of 100. I would say it is well worth the
effort."
Cancer and precancerous leisons often don't appear for many years so
it's premature to conclude that the vaccine results in a 14% decline
in precancer signs.
Now not one of the statements you have made shows any basis to prove
that HPV vaccine will prevent any cancers and it is in the realm of
possibility that it could increase cancer deaths by allowing more
aggresive viruses to replace those which this product claims to
prevent. So lets actually look at the science before we turn 11 year
olds into test tubes...from NEJM article.. "HPV Vaccination - More
Answers, More Questions"
George F. Sawaya, M.D., and Karen Smith-McCune, M.D., Ph.D. "In
this issue of the Journal, reports on two large, ongoing, randomized,
placebo-controlled trials show the effect of this vaccine on important
clinical outcomes," ....the article places the 14% reduction in
perspective....."Given the rarity of incident cervical cancer,
preinvasive cervical lesions with high invasive potential are used in
contemporary studies as surrogate outcomes for cervical cancer" now
mare you do not have to be a math major to realize that 14% of a rare
cancer is a very small cancer reduction. The 14% reduction small and
it is also unproven.. ......now the rest is technical and needed to
understand the science......again from the article ....... "Grade 1
cervical intraepithelial neoplasia indicates the presence of active
HPV infection and is not considered to be precancerous; current
guidelines discourage treatment of this condition.7,8 Grade 2 cervical
intraepithelial neoplasia is treated in most women but is not an
irrefutable cancer surrogate, since up to 40% of such lesions regress
spontaneously9; current guidelines suggest that some young women with
such lesions do not need to be treated.7,8 Grade 3 cervical
intraepithelial neoplasia, on the other hand, has the lowest
likelihood of regression and the strongest potential to be
invasive"...... Let me help you the best marker of which lessions
will become cancerous are grade 3 lessions they are the best
surrogate. the studies showed a 17% reduction in lessions but again
from the journal ..... "an efficacy of 17%. In analyses by lesion
type, the efficacy appears to be significant only for grade 2 cervical
intraepithelial neoplasia; no efficacy was demonstrable for grade 3
cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ.".......
In other words no evidence that this vaccine will prevent any cancer
as it has shown no effect on the best surrogate. again from the
article..."If grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or
adenocarcinoma in situ were the most relevant outcome, evidence was
insufficient to infer the effectiveness of vaccination." the article
balances the hope that this vaccine MAY be effective with caution ...,
'a cautious approach may be warranted in light of important unanswered
questions about overall vaccine effectiveness, duration of protection,
and adverse effects that may emerge over time.'
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/19/1991 Mark I to
mandate an product that has not been proven is the most irresponsible
act. As you could care less as to facts I encourage others to read the
Journal article. Thanks Vince
Stra wman asshole.

I care about facts, not highly edited crap.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have no concern about facts ,honest discussion of the science ,or
any other obstacle to your agenda ...Nor have you any concern for
those who may suffer serious side effects from this product. Again
address the science you can not and you will not. Publish the parts of
the article that I "edited' explain to me how you know that a vaccine
that has not been shown to reduce the best marker of cervical
cancer ;state 3 lessions is "proven to prevent cancer" You said that
it reduced cancer show some evidence. Not the used car salesman
desciption of the facts you prefer. Or do what an attorney does when
the facts are against him "holler and bang the table' Thanks Vince
Again anyone interested in an honest appraisal of the science behind
this product should read for themselfs the New England Journal of
Medicine articlehttp://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/19/1991
relie on good info to make your decissions. Thanks Vince


The AmazingGuffy said:

Are you intentionally trying to be dishonest with that article?

These are direct quotes from your article.....

"Investigators in these trials have hit their mark soundly: the
vaccine showed significant efficacy against anogenital and cervical
lesions related to vaccine type in women with no evidence of previous
exposure to vaccine-specific types; the vaccine also appeared to be
safe."

That means it is safe and effective.

"Why is vaccine efficacy modest in the entire cohort? One factor is
the apparent lack of efficacy among subjects with evidence of previous
exposure to HPV types included in the vaccine."

This simply states that the vaccine is not very effective in women
that have had previous exposure to HPV. Which is why they should get
the vaccine before they begin sexual activity.

"What can be inferred from these data about the potential effect of
vaccination among girls 11 and 12 years of age? The FUTURE trials did
not enroll subjects in this age group. Within both trials, subgroups
of subjects with no evidence of previous exposure to relevant vaccine
HPV types were evaluated separately for vaccine efficacy. In these
subgroups, efficacy of nearly 100% against all grades of cervical
intraepithelial neoplasia and adenocarcinoma in situ related to
vaccine HPV types was reported in both trials."

Lastly, this says there is a nearly 100% effectiveness in the groups
that the vaccine would be targeting. Girls that had no previous
exposure to HPV.

I find it amazing how you can attempt to twist that article into an
attack on the effectiveness of HPV vaccine in women that have had no
previous exposure to HPV.

I won't be replying to this thread again, on the topic of HPV at
least, as it is redundant. You have posted no information that the
vaccine is harmful, or even inneffective, in the least.

I don't really know why you don't like the vaccine and I don't care. I
just hope that not one person will believe the tripe you have posted.

-----

So, Biggie....why are you so selectively editing to change the meaning
of the article? Doesn't fit your anti-vac liar agenda, eh?

I do not play games with anyone who is intellectually dishonest as you
have been shown to be. I was being Mr. Niceguy to your stupidity.

Now, you have been outed.

bigvince wrote:
On May 22, 9:34 am, wrote:
On May 22, 12:58 am, bigvince wrote:

On May 21, -
Are you intentionally trying to be dishonest with that article?

These are direct quotes from your article.....

"Investigators in these trials have hit their mark soundly: the
vaccine showed significant efficacy against anogenital and cervical
lesions related to vaccine type in women with no evidence of previous
exposure to vaccine-specific types; the vaccine also appeared to be
safe."

That means it is safe and effective.

"Why is vaccine efficacy modest in the entire cohort? One factor is
the apparent lack of efficacy among subjects with evidence of previous
exposure to HPV types included in the vaccine."

This simply states that the vaccine is not very effective in women
that have had previous exposure to HPV. Which is why they should get
the vaccine before they begin sexual activity.

"What can be inferred from these data about the potential effect of
vaccination among girls 11 and 12 years of age? The FUTURE trials did
not enroll subjects in this age group. Within both trials, subgroups
of subjects with no evidence of previous exposure to relevant vaccine
HPV types were evaluated separately for vaccine efficacy. In these
subgroups, efficacy of nearly 100% against all grades of cervical
intraepithelial neoplasia and adenocarcinoma in situ related to
vaccine HPV types was reported in both trials."

Lastly, this says there is a nearly 100% effectiveness in the groups
that the vaccine would be targeting. Girls that had no previous
exposure to HPV.

I find it amazing how you can attempt to twist that article into an
attack on the effectiveness of HPV vaccine in women that have had no
previous exposure to HPV.

I won't be replying to this thread again, on the topic of HPV at
least, as it is redundant. You have posted no information that the
vaccine is harmful, or even inneffective, in the least.

I don't really know why you don't like the vaccine and I don't care. I
just hope that not one person will believe the tripe you have posted.

And here the original posting ...from NEJM

You mean your highly selective andedited version to change the meaning.

Intellectual dishonesty.

"Mark Probert" wrote

Intellectual dishonesty.

You are a fine example.

http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/sandraprobert.htm

"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Mark Probert" wrote

Intellectual dishonesty.

You are a fine example.

http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/sandraprobert.htm


Adding nothing to a thread:

KACHING!! - $1
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Mark Probert" wrote

Intellectual dishonesty.

You are a fine example.

http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/sandraprobert.htm

"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Mark Probert" wrote

Intellectual dishonesty.

You are a fine example.

http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/sandraprobert.htm



KACHING!! - $1 adding nothing

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com