ADVERTISEMENT

Gardasil PSA

naturalbornhawk

naturalbornhawk

HR Heisman
Dec 4, 2004
8,050
3,548
113
If anyone here or anyone knows a loved one who is thinking about getting this, I'd recommend watching this beforehand so it can help you make an informed decision on what you're getting yourself into. This video brings attention to some of the numbers behind the science of this vaccine.

For anyone who wants to immediately dismiss this as somehow nothing but lies or misinformation I'd urge you to at least listen to what is said at 0:50 to 1:31. 41 sec.

If mandates w/o exemptions were to ever come to fruition here, these are the types of things, backed by this type of science that are going to be forced onto you and your loved ones, including adults.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: shank hawk
giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: longliveCS40, noleclone2, DFSNOLE and 16 others
Joes Place said:
Gettin' your healthcare advice off Youtube: Bad Idea Jeans
Click to expand...
Well, clearly people aren't going to get these truths from the CDC or other regulatory authorities. If these "authorities" can't come forward with the truth, then why should people listen to them?
 
theIowaHawk said:
What is your reasoning for believing the CDC would withhold or lie to you?
Click to expand...
Well for starters, the CDC is caught in a lie right here: https://www.wellnessdoc.com/1200studies/
It states very clearly that Vaccines (plural) do not cause autism, and it cites the 2011 IOM report as proof. That is not what that report said at all. In fact the IOM looked at the DTaP vaccine in that report and stated that there is insufficient evidence to either confirm or deny a causal link between that vaccine and autism. The only vaccine the IOM could confirm no causal link to autism in that report was the mmr.

They don't link you to the full report so you've got to go digging for it. It sort of backs off it's original statement after they link the summary to the study by saying "on eight vaccines given to children and adults found that with rare exceptions, these vaccines are very safe". Um, are we still talking autism CDC? Can you find in this report where it talks about 8 different vaccines and their relationship or lack thereof to autism? Here is the full report: http://vaccine-safety-training.org/tl_files/vs/pdf/13164.pdf
Check out the middle of p 546 while you're searching.

Please let me know if you can come to the conclusion that vaccines (plural) do not cause autism. I've been looking now for awhile.

The conclusion I've been able to come up with in my search is that the TRUTH is the vaccine schedule has never been properly tested. This CDC page seems to be very misleading to say the least.
 
naturalbornhawk said:
Well for starters, the CDC is caught in a lie right here: https://www.wellnessdoc.com/1200studies/
It states very clearly that Vaccines (plural) do not cause autism, and it cites the 2011 IOM report as proof. That is not what that report said at all. In fact the IOM looked at the DTaP vaccine in that report and stated that there is insufficient evidence to either confirm or deny a causal link between that vaccine and autism. The only vaccine the IOM could confirm no causal link to autism in that report was the mmr.
Click to expand...
You realize this is the Bigfoot argument, right? There is insufficient evidence to either confirm or deny the existence of Bigfoot. All credible data points to denying it, but 100% proof that Bigfoot doesn't exist is impossible.
Even if vaccines did cause autism in a very small number of cases, the very large number of horrible diseases they prevent outweigh the risk. In short, I'd rather have an autistic child than a dead one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: longliveCS40, NDallasRuss, 3 and Out on D and 2 others
naturalbornhawk said:
Well, clearly people aren't going to get these truths from the CDC or other regulatory authorities.
Click to expand...

Sure they are. Only, they'll get actual factual information, not disinformation and scare tactics.

Have you forgotten all the other times your YouTube videos have been debunked on here? How many times your links have completely misrepresented raw data (intermixing countries when attempting to make a point, and you had to acknowledge their information was flat out wrong?).

Plenty of resources to look up Gardasil information, at the AMA and other medical organizations run by doctors, nurses, university researchers, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstp1992
mstp1992 said:
A common misconception among science deniers is that they’re looking for irrefutable proof (I.e., 100% evidence one way or the other).

Science, especially biology, does not seek to ‘prove’ an hypothesis.
Click to expand...

No, proving or disproving a hypothesis is the scientific method; it's just not "100%" like OP thinks, it's to statistical confidence.

What OP doesn't understand is they never "prove" something 100%, they use statistical analysis to set up a study that has a >90% chance of seeing an effect (known as "Beta error" or study power), along with a confidence level that the effect is real (that they aren't getting a 'chance' result when the hypothesis is actually incorrect - known as "Alpha error" or a p-value).

Typically, study power is 90% or higher (they want studies designed to detect effects when they are there) and alpha error or p-values are 0.05 or lower. And what OPs Youtube buddies consistently do is use the same data to make multiple comparisons, which is Bad Idea Jeans, because alpha error simply means if you run the same test 20 times, using an alpha level of 0.05, statistically speaking ONE of those independent 20 tests WILL show an effect (hypothesis is true, when 19 out of 20 times, it's actually NOT TRUE).

This is a common error in multiple comparison studies, and you can look up the correction for it: the Bonferroni adjusted alpha, so if you are doing 3 comparisons on the same dataset at an alpha of 0.05, you have to actually use 0.05/3 as your p-value limit.

This isn't "Evil CDC" or "Bad Companies" using these methods; this is fundamental statistical analysis which YouTubers are horribly inept at.

I do this stuff all the time in Minitab to run these analyses for companies I work for. And typically use 0.1 Beta errors and 0.05 to 0.01 alpha, depending on criticality. For process capability, sometimes the confidence limits on beta are higher (95%), as there are sometimes standards which dictate it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: seminole97
Joes Place said:
Huh? Proving or disproving a hypothesis IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, and all of Western medicine is founded on that method.

And they never "prove" something 100%, they use statistical analysis to set up a study that has a >90% chance of seeing an effect (known as "Beta error" or study power), along with a confidence level that the effect is real (that they aren't getting a 'chance' result when the hypothesis is actually incorrect - known as "Alpha error" or a p-value).

Typically, study power is 90% or higher (they want studies designed to detect effects when they are there) and alpha error or p-values are 0.05 or lower. And what your Youtube buddies consistently do is use the same data to make multiple comparisons, which is Bad Idea Jeans, because alpha error simply means if you run the same test 20 times, using an alpha level of 0.05, statistically speaking ONE of those independent 20 tests WILL show an effect (hypothesis is true, when 19 out of 20 times, it's actually NOT TRUE).

This is a common error in multiple comparison studies, and you can look up the correction for it: the Bonferroni adjusted alpha, so if you are doing 3 comparisons on the same dataset at an alpha of 0.05, you have to actually use 0.05/3 as your p-value limit.

This isn't "Evil CDC" or "Bad Companies" using these methods; this is fundamental statistical analysis which YouTubers are horribly inept at.

And, yes, I do this shit for a living, and have a professional stats package (Minitab) I use to run these analyses for companies I work for.
Click to expand...
Here’s my point, and I think we’re actually talking about the same thing, so please hear me out.

I used ‘prove’ in a manner to infer that the scientific method allows for the possibility that another explanation, or ‘exceptions to the rule’ can occur. There is very little in biology that can be predicted with 100% accuracy.

This is why God created statistical packages like Minitab, SPSS, SAS, etc.

I do this for a living, and cringe whenever a student or experienced researcher for that matter, says their data ‘prove’ their hypothesis. No, their hypothesis was ‘supported, to a level of statistical certainty.’

The evidence that favors the use of vaccines (just in general) is statistically overwhelming. However, they do not, with 100% certainty, eliminate the possibility of other explanations or outcomes of their use.

Because of this overwhelming evidence, I fully support their use, including Gardasil.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom, 3 and Out on D, Wendy79 and 1 other person
mstp1992 said:
Here’s my point, and I think we’re actually talking about the same thing, so please hear me out.

I used ‘prove’ in a manner to infer that the scientific method allows for the possibility that another explanation, or ‘exceptions to the rule’ can occur. There is very little in biology that can be predicted with 100% accuracy.

This is why God created statistical packages like Minitab, SPSS, SAS, etc.

I do this for a living, and cringe whenever a student or experienced researcher for that matter, says their data ‘prove’ their hypothesis. No, their hypothesis was ‘supported, to a level of statistical certainty.’

The evidence that favors the use of vaccines (just in general) is statistically overwhelming. However, they do not, with 100% certainty, eliminate the possibility of other explanations or outcomes of their use.

Because of this overwhelming evidence, I fully support their use, including Gardasil.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's the "100%" the OP wants to blab about that makes no sense.

No one is arguing that vaccines carry "no risk", they're just "safe" relative to most other medical procedure risks or other generic "living" risks.

And the risk of getting cervical cancers w/o those vaccines can be high - and when you get those cancers, they are aggressive, expensive to treat and lethal for lots of people.

It's why I was required to get the Hep-B vaccine when working in medicine - vaccine risk is low; get Hep B and your odds of liver cancer are better than 50/50, and at the time the only cure for that was a liver transplant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstp1992
naturalbornhawk said:
Well for starters, the CDC is caught in a lie right here: https://www.wellnessdoc.com/1200studies/
It states very clearly that Vaccines (plural) do not cause autism, and it cites the 2011 IOM report as proof. That is not what that report said at all. In fact the IOM looked at the DTaP vaccine in that report and stated that there is insufficient evidence to either confirm or deny a causal link between that vaccine and autism. The only vaccine the IOM could confirm no causal link to autism in that report was the mmr.

They don't link you to the full report so you've got to go digging for it. It sort of backs off it's original statement after they link the summary to the study by saying "on eight vaccines given to children and adults found that with rare exceptions, these vaccines are very safe". Um, are we still talking autism CDC? Can you find in this report where it talks about 8 different vaccines and their relationship or lack thereof to autism? Here is the full report: http://vaccine-safety-training.org/tl_files/vs/pdf/13164.pdf
Check out the middle of p 546 while you're searching.

Please let me know if you can come to the conclusion that vaccines (plural) do not cause autism. I've been looking now for awhile.

The conclusion I've been able to come up with in my search is that the TRUTH is the vaccine schedule has never been properly tested. This CDC page seems to be very misleading to say the least.
Click to expand...

This alone leads you to believe the CDC will lie to you?

Ok, back to original question, why do you believe they would do that and continue to do that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstp1992
3 and Out on D said:
A decade ago I recommended that my adult daughter get Gardasil, it beats ovarian or uterine cancer.
Click to expand...

I have an aunt who died of misdiagnosed ovarian cancer. Never got to see any of her grandkids.

No idea if Gardasil might have changed that, but I can guarantee if there were any chance it might have, she and every one of her kids would have paid anything to have that vaccine available back then.

OP is grossly irresponsible in pushing all these vaccine "conspiracies", because these issues have real and deadly consequences for lots of people. And misinforming them on the issue doesn't help.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom, mthawkeyes, 3 and Out on D and 2 others
mstp1992 said:
A common misconception among science deniers is that they’re looking for irrefutable proof (I.e., 100% evidence one way or the other).

Science, especially biology, does not seek to ‘prove’ an hypothesis. It seeks to show with as much support as possible that the hypothesis is the best explanation for an observation.
Click to expand...
Joe is really good at logical fallacies, like in this case, the strawman. The vaccine skeptic's contention with the vaccine science is not that it's solid up to 99% and doesn't cover the 100%. The problem is that it the science barely gets off the ground. When I (and others) question whether science exists that covers the other vaccines other than the (fraudulent) epidemiological mmr studies and I get nothing or next to nothing, that's the issue. See, if you're not properly testing the other vaccines, individually or combined as in the entire schedule as a whole, how does that translate to "Vaccines (plural) do not cause autism", or, the vaccine schedule does not cause autism?

As always, if anyone could please provide the robust science behind testing the other vaccines, or vaccine schedule as a whole, I'd love to see it.
 
naturalbornhawk said:
Joe is really good at logical fallacies, like in this case, the strawman. The vaccine skeptic's contention with the vaccine science is not that it's solid up to 99% and doesn't cover the 100%.
Click to expand...

Nothing in science or biology is "100%".

You can go in for routine surgery, be in perfect health, and they will not give you a "100%" guarantee you won't have complications or die.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom and mstp1992
Joes Place said:
Nothing in science or biology is "100%".

You can go in for routine surgery, be in perfect health, and they will not give you a "100%" guarantee you won't have complications or die.
Click to expand...
I think you misread, or maybe I wasn't clear. A strawman means you're misrepresenting my arguement. What I said was "The vaccine skeptic's contention with the vaccine science is not that it's solid up to 99% and doesn't cover the 100%. The problem is that it the science barely gets off the ground." In other words, I'm not asking for perfection. I'm saying that the science is almost completely absent. It's a bold contention, I know, but when you realize what my argument is it honestly should be no mystery why. I'll put my previous post in other words. When I first started looking into vaccine safety I started reading that the only vaccine that's been studied in its relationship to autism is the mmr. Then I come here and ask for the vaccine-autism studies and I'm presented with a crap ton of epidemiological mmr (and thimerosal) studies. That's all that's that's ever really been presented here.besides oral aluminum studies.

So, obviously then my contention is naturally (and as you should know has always been) - where are all the studies for all the other vaccines testing their relationship to autism - combined as in the schedule as a whole or otherwise?

If children in the US only received the mmr vaccine, it might then be justified to only study the mmr. The problem is, we of course have several different types of vaccines on the schedule, given multiple times, many at the same time. So, where is the robust body of science testing the vaccine schedule as it is actually administered?

I realize the argument for that is, they supposedly can't do that. Then the reply to that is then don't tell me that we have a robust body of science that proves that vaccines do not cause autism! In other words, don't tell me that vaccines (plural), as they are actually given or individually for that matter, do not cause autism when the only vaccine that's ever been extensively studied for its relationship to autism (albeit fraudulently and of poor design) is the mmr.

If anyone has any science that looks at the US schedule as it it administered, please post it here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shank hawk
naturalbornhawk said:
Well for starters, the CDC is caught in a lie right here: https://www.wellnessdoc.com/1200studies/
It states very clearly that Vaccines (plural) do not cause autism, and it cites the 2011 IOM report as proof. That is not what that report said at all. In fact the IOM looked at the DTaP vaccine in that report and stated that there is insufficient evidence to either confirm or deny a causal link between that vaccine and autism. The only vaccine the IOM could confirm no causal link to autism in that report was the mmr.
Click to expand...

Vaccine= Cell Phones....Autism= Cancer Caused by Radiation.

 
  • Like
Reactions: UKGrad93, Joes Place and mstp1992
Urohawk said:
Vaccine= Cell Phones....Autism= Cancer Caused by Radiation.

View embedded media
Click to expand...
I don't think this is a good comparison at all. NDT describes a scenario where a body of science as a whole indicates no causal relationship with an outcome, but variations in measurements occasionally indicate a positive signal. If a causal relationship does actually exist, then the signal is huge and repeatable. I agree with all this. The problem with the current body of vaccine science specifically is that the science that studies US schedule load of vaccines as it's administered, or otherwise, is absent. Not there. Never been done. How are you supposed to find a true signal when you've never done the appropriate studies to find that signal? That's the issue here.
 
Last edited:
naturalbornhawk said:
If anyone here or anyone knows a loved one who is thinking about getting this, I'd recommend watching this beforehand so it can help you make an informed decision on what you're getting yourself into. This video brings attention to some of the numbers behind the science of this vaccine.

For anyone who wants to immediately dismiss this as somehow nothing but lies or misinformation I'd urge you to at least listen to what is said at 0:50 to 1:31. 41 sec.

If mandates w/o exemptions were to ever come to fruition here, these are the types of things, backed by this type of science that are going to be forced onto you and your loved ones, including adults.

View embedded media
Click to expand...
Can you honestly think of a greater marketing scam in the last hundred years?

Eagerly awaiting the Merck v. Kennedy slander trial; should make for interesting television viewing. :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nat Algren and naturalbornhawk
Joes Place said:
Because they don't.

And several studies have now demonstrated that fact to a high statistical confidence level.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the information, what you're saying makes perfect sense. Which specific studies are you referring to here?
 
Wendy79 said:
I thought Gardasil prevents cervical, vaginal, and vulva (vulval?) cancers, not ovarian or uterine.

Boys should also get Gardasil.
Click to expand...

You're right. I was just going from ancient memory and think about a friend who had ovarian cancer.

Thanks for the correction.
 
Raglefant said:
Thanks for the information, what you're saying makes perfect sense. Which specific studies are you referring to here?
Click to expand...
Here's a recent review paper on MMR vaccine:


Abstract
Autism is a developmental disability that can cause significant social, communication, and behavioral challenges. A report published in 1998, but subsequently retracted by the journal, suggested that measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine causes autism. However, autism is a neurodevelopmental condition that has a strong genetic component with genesis before one year of age, when MMR vaccine is typically administered. Several epidemiologic studies have not found an association between MMR vaccination and autism, including a study that found that MMR vaccine was not associated with an increased risk of autism even among high-risk children whose older siblings had autism. Despite strong evidence of its safety, some parents are still hesitant to accept MMR vaccination of their children. Decreasing acceptance of MMR vaccination has led to outbreaks or resurgence of measles. Health-care providers have a vital role in maintaining confidence in vaccination and preventing suffering, disability, and death from measles and other vaccine-preventable diseases.

DeStefano & Shimabukuro (2019)

And, here's the epidemiological study cited in the abstract regarding the 'high-risk' children (i.e., sibling with autism).

Jain et al (2015)

Here's a good meta-analysis, albeit from 2014 so there are likely more recent publications out there, but I seriously doubt the findings are drastically different.

Taylor et al (2014)
 
Raglefant said:
Thanks for the information, what you're saying makes perfect sense. Which specific studies are you referring to here?
Click to expand...

I posted a Danish study that went on for 15+ years comparing vaccinated vs. later vaccinated; it was a prospective, randomized study, and it actually showed a slight PROTECTIVE effect of vaccines vs. autism. Everything was centered around "no effect". It was just published, and looked at data from the 1990s thru 2015.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstp1992 and bojihawk44
Joes Place said:
I posted a Danish study that went on for 15+ years comparing vaccinated vs. later vaccinated; it was a prospective, randomized study, and it actually showed a slight PROTECTIVE effect of vaccines vs. autism. Everything was centered around "no effect". It was just published, and looked at data from the 1990s thru 2015.
Click to expand...
I've seen that study; > 500,000 subjects were studied, one of the largest (if not the largest) prospective study on the topic.

A. Hviid et al (2019)


Just an aside, these big-ass studies are one benefit from government run healthcare -- your data are always accessible for research.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JWolf74, Joes Place and artradley
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cigaretteman

Women are getting off birth control amid misinformation explosion

Replies
4
Views
184
Off Topic
FAUlty Gator
FAUlty Gator
Finance85

Florida GOP has nothing better to do

Replies
75
Views
1K
Off Topic
goldmom
goldmom
cigaretteman

Florida surgeon general defies science as school tries to contain measles outbreak

Replies
26
Views
412
Off Topic
speak34
speak34
cigaretteman

Tax records reveal the lucrative world of covid misinformation

Replies
15
Views
306
Off Topic
PBhawkeye
PBhawkeye
NorthernHawkeye

Nothing About The Rigged Senate Border Bill Is In The ‘National Interest’

Replies
95
Views
1K
Off Topic
sabula
S
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back