HPV Vaccine - What Parents Need to Know

My math works out on the fact that this is a vaccine that is not 100% effective, and the study of long term effects of the vaccine are not known.

Your math in no way accounted for any of these variables, period. Your less than scientific assertions do, but your math certainly doesn't.

This vaccine “works” when it works, and it doesn’t work all the time, by mucking with a persons autoimmune system. It can take years if not decades for long term side effects to even show, let alone be properly traced back to the cause.

Again, nothing real here, more global warming "science" upon my review. I wouldn't disagree that long term side effects don't show up overnight, but you provide absolutely nothing regarding specific reasons why. What makes your assertion of a negative long term issue more probable that an neutral or positive long term issue?

Lets do the math again .3% of the people who get the vaccine have dropped dead of it. Now, lets take a statistical sample of even developing cervical cancer shall we.

First issue, per the post, the numbers indicate that 0.3% of the people who had adverse events died, not 0.3% of the people who got the vaccine. Your math starts off wrong.

Every year about 4000 women die from cervical cancer, in a population of 150 Million. That means the odds of dying from cervical cancer per year are .002% in any given year.

Now you have started getting to a comparable risk value which can provide some value.

Gardisil’s death rate over the year and a half its been around is 39, over a far smaller population.. so .3% is far larger over 1.5 years than .002% per year.

As noted above, based on the information provided in the article, 0.3% is purely based on the subset of people who had adverse reactions, not the total of people vaccinated (back to that primary math failure noted above).

I could use your same logic to say that only 39 deaths as compared to 4000 deaths means that it is proven good. I won't since that isn't a realistic risk comparison, but using your logic I could.

Since the article noted 12,424 adverse reactions at least 12,424 people got the vaccination. Assuming the advverse reaction rate is 1 in 100, likely less, the risk of death would be 0.003%. Granted, that is 50% greater than your 0.002% rate, but as you noted, the vaccinated population is much smaller, even smaller than the unqualified 150 million number you threw out to get to your 0.002% value.

Still, on a risk basis that's close. At an adverse reaction rate of 1 in 1000, the number drops to 0.0003%, an order of magnitude less than your 0.002% number.

Keeping up with the math?

So, lets see, .3% death per 1.5 years, generally at a very young age, or .002% death rate per year on a much older population...

Feel free to provide real info or stats to back up your point if you can. Won't be holding my breath. Again, by your logic I could say 39 deaths per 1.5 years versus 4000 per year. You even fail to correct for age - are there 150 million women in the US at the "much older" age you note or did you just use half of 300 million (regardless of age) to make your point? Nice methodology there - are you a climate scientist?

Yea, my math holds up just fine, you might want to re-examine yours.

A fourth grader could blow your numbers out of the water.

Just saying...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.