Eindecker

It is perfectly alright to critique DeLong’s paper: the issue is the repulsive bullying which goes on to get a scientific paper retracted because it is politically off-message. DeLong simply indicated that this required further investigation, but we cannot trust science if safety issues are buried like this -meanwhile you immediately acclaim the usual hatchet job as a triumph.

You don’t get it, do you?

Oh look... a squirrel!
Eindecker with his repeated fake questions attempted distraction. Why isn’t there a question about the pandemic of disabled and dead kids after vaccines? Why isn’t there a question asking Pharma with all its vaccine blood money- is going to do about it? Brain jam Eindecker many autistics have it brain jam and many on here can help you with it, change the record. The side you don’t want to hear is Vaccine Blood Money , Bobby knows.

Pharma For Prison

MMR RIP

Eindeker - I expect John and others will also respond to your challenge but your questions merely invite more speculation.
"Now since I have answered your question would you answer a few of mine:
Q.Do you accept that the removal of thiomersal from childhood vaccines in the UK and Europe has had zero effect on the incidence of ASD?"

A.To be blunt I have no idea. The Madson et al so called 'epidemiological 'study' (which involved that 'wanted felon' Poul Thorsen), initially appeared to show mercury was positively beneficial to children, although this result was quietly toned down. There is no way to measure what you claim is a zero effect on ASD by the withdrawal of Thiomersal from vaccines, particularly since the incidence of ASD is in itself a hotly disputed subject. However, I am very relieved mercury was removed from child vaccines in Europe, although it's still in vaccines destined for the third world, in spite of appeals to the United Nations from representatives from several African countries. Unused vaccines containing Thiomersal is treated as toxic waste, which of course it is. MMR vaccine, still suspected of causing neurological and gut disorders, does not contain mercury and never did.

Q. What would your recommendations be in the case of an outbreak of measles such as in S Wales a few years ago or currently in Samoa?
A. The 2013 S. Wales measles outbreak was quite ridiculously over hyped with cases stated to exceed 1500. The ACTUAL number of cases for the whole year was 327 including adults up to age 57. The outbreak peaked in April with 220 cases. A large cohort was children aged 1-4 an age group then claimed to be vaccine compliant. The Welsh health authorities ordered thousands of vaccines, but the uptake, particularly amongst teenagers was low. Wasted vaccines cost the taxpayers a fortune. No child died and we were not told of any permanent injuries. The young man who died was failed by the hospital. His mother claimed he was measles vaccinated as a child.
http://www2.nphs.wales.nhs.uk:8080/CommunitySurveillanceDocs.nsf/3dc04669c9e1eaa880257062003b246b/6e91e9f36f02b87e80257d72004a91eb/$FILE/monthly%20lab%20201409.pdf

As for Samoa I can't get my head round all the propaganda and counter information. Sherri Tenpenny deals logically with this:-
"The Real Crisis in Samoa"
https://vaxxter.com/the-real-crisis-in-samoa/?fbclid=IwAR2w2AbUHmQ8_bOhtjaFa4JTgd_Bmb6IGO5ocVmFdMhww4VOlPzUcHG4K4E
Sherri asks the following questions:-
Quote:-
"According to ReliefWeb, UNICEF delivered a total of 115,500 doses of measles vaccines to Samoa since October 1, including the required diluent, syringes and safety boxes, as well as sufficient supplies of Vitamin A. Vaccinations started, with the first death from measles occurs on October 15. Within a month, hundreds of cases of measles were reported and the government declared an emergency on November 15, leading to mass vaccination of everyone, irrespective of age, vaccination status or previous recovery. And then, the government requested USD$10.7M from the UN to prevent “future outbreaks.”
What? Wait.
 Now that everyone has been vaccinated, or revaccinated, including adults, another outbreak should not happen for at least the next ten or so years, right?
 And why did they need 215,000 doses of measles vaccine when the entire population of the country is less than 198,000 and the population of Samoan children, aged 0 to 5 years (which would be given two doses of MMR) is only 22,555?
 And why do they need all that money after-the-fact?"

Q.
Do you accept that herd immunity is a fact, not a concept?
A. Absolutely NOT, This is nothing more than a hypothesis. I object to this kind of wishful thinking being dressed up as science.

I am unaware of the AoA article to have quoted from. Can you provide a link? Was this from a comment or an article?

"Is it ethical for the AoA to publish articles, not comments, with statements such as If vaccines work, why in nearly every “outbreak” of pertussis, measles, and mumps in our country has the majority, if not a full 100%, of those infected been vaccinated? That should not be the case if vaccines work as claimed, and it makes null and void the theory of vaccine-induced herd immunity. Blatantly untrue example given is from Laura Hayes
I look forward to your answers John and no strawmen or “whataboutery”"

I find it remarkably ironic that you would complain of strawmen and whataboutery while engaging in strawmen and whataboutery.

Oh, I forget...you can freely do so because SCIENCE!!!!

It strikes me, Eindecker, that you're employing highly selective and tautological evidence here: criticism of the DeLong article was "pretty universal" among those who criticized it. In fact she has received many requests for the article from sympathetic medical professionals. And what about the work of Deirdre Little, Harvey Ward, Ludmilla Tomljenovic, Yehuda Shoenfeld, and others on the HPV vaccine and premature ovarian failure, which dovetails with DeLong's findings? Moreover, as Hans Litten notes below, HPV vaccinated married women were much less likely to use contraception than their unvaccinated counterparts, a fact that seems to strengthen the possible association between the vaccine and ovarian failure.

Again -- and I hope I get through to you this time -- neither I nor DeLong nor John Stone claim that the association between the HPV vaccine and ovarian failure is absolutely proven. But the research I've mentioned gives us very compelling reasons to suspect that such an association exists, and to conduct further research into a possible connection. The safety of the HPV vaccine is an open scientific question, and far from proven. We are calling for free scientific debate, whereas you and those who secured the retraction of this article want to shut down that debate. To tell young girls and their parents that there is no reason to doubt the safety of this vaccine is a violation of the basic medical ethic of fully informing a patient about the possible risks of a procedure. It is a glaring example of the "misinformation" that tech companies claim they want to stop, and it could have disastrous consequences for a generation of young women.

Eindecker

I asked you if you are not an extremist to dissociate yourself from the people you appear to support who want compulsory vaccination and to suppress all public discussion. That is the position of Peter Hotez and probably the position of David Gorski who uses hate language.

Disagreeing with the paper would be a perfectly honourable thing but it is obvious that something else is going on. There is a cadre of people who simply do not want vaccine science and vaccine policy to be publicly discussed and they want absolute compliance. Ultimately, there are no finer arguments, and this is what you have become tangled with.

Eindecker: "Pretty universal criticism" of the DeLong paper? Then how do you explain more than 24,000 downloads? In fact the original paper did take account of education levels. As she pointed out, the data on birth control usage is fragmentary and not very useful, but what we have suggests that it would not affect the results very much. Again, even if the paper isn't absolutely conclusive, you don't seem to be bothered at all by the very real possibility that Gardasil is causing infertility on a massive scale. Don't you at least want to check this out?

Pretty good ad hominem John "You are the people advocating for extremism." Who's "you" John. I don't support compulsory vaccination, except in cases of medical emergency. They DeLong paper was met with pretty universal criticism, she initially ignored potential co founders such as use of birth control (!!!) and then education level.

Hans re Kenya I suggest you look at the Kenyan birth rate stats before and after the tetanus campaign, guess what there has been no alteration whatsoever in the trend for a slow decline in birth rate going on before the MNT campaign. I'm not going to spoon feed you on where to find them, there are easily available on the web

Your contribution at 10.39 is the most sensible one that you've ever posted, sums up your thinking Hans

The initial scientific critque of the paper by Gorski was obfuscated by hundreds of words of hate filled ad hominem which by any historic standard of decent behaviour ought to have compromised any points of substance which followed. Thought you were talking about Kennedy's rant then John

Naturally I was upset when my best friend showed me the email retracting her article. But the publication of the retraction notice has itself spurred a flood of requests for the article, which had already enjoyed tens of thousands of downloads. As a historian of censorship, I can point to this as yet another example of the "Banned in Boston Effect", where the very act of suppression calls attention to what the authorities are trying to suppress. Before their respective revolutions, French and Russian readers eagerly read Voltaire and Solzhenitsyn precisely because they were forbidden fruit. Everyone now knows that science has been thoroughly corrupted by corporate interests, to the point where the suppression of a scientific paper actually enhances its public credibility.

And anyone reading this retraction notice would have observed that it offered no specific criticisms of the DeLong paper, just evasive generalities. (What flaws in statistical analysis and interpretations of data?) In my field, historians criticize the analyses and interpretations of other historians all the time: that's considered normal scholarly debate, certainly not grounds for suppression. In effect, the journal editors said they are withdrawing the article because some readers disagree with it. (By the way, it is not true that all of the post-publication reports recommended retraction.)

Greg, the passage you quote from Gorski illustrates a shocking moral failure on his part. Note that he admits that DeLong might be right that the HPV vaccine can cause ovarian failure. He even admits that it might cause ovarian failure more often than the DeLong paper estimates. But he seems perfectly insouciant about what could be catastrophic damage to reproductive health affecting untold millions of women around the world. Anyone with a sense of humanity would be profoundly shocked by real evidence that a medical intervention is causing mass infertility. Even if that evidence isn't conclusive (and the DeLong paper admitted it is not conclusive), anyone who cared about women's health would demand further safety investigations, as well as caution in prescribing this vaccine until the question is settled one way or the other. Indeed, one of the post-publication reviewers urged the journal to open its pages to debating that question, but evidently the editors decided to close down that discussion.

Eindecker

Yes, we just saw this. What is interesting and significant is the way people like you and Gorski and Oransky seem to regard this as some kind of blood sport. The initial scientific critque of the paper by Gorski was obfuscated by hundreds of words of hate filled ad hominem which by any historic standard of decent behaviour ought to have compromised any points of substance which followed. The point which he finally addressed was whether the confounder of contraception might invalidate the author's concerns, which was first addressed by Delong here as is mentioned in a prejudicial way in Oransky's report. A further response to the issue by Delong was published by the journal which I paste below. But what is not clear is why after all these months the journal should have suddenly decided to retract the article. In scientific terms it is a meaningless gesture - it does not invalidate Delong's case since no argument has been provided. What it does do is help to bully into silence anyone who wants to look at this issue: it is a bureaucratic manoeuvre to protect policy but it sheds no light whatsoever on the scientific issue. If Delong was in error the appropriate way to deal with it would have been through civilised discourse. But the absence of this is demonstrated firstly by Gorski, then by Oransky and now by you.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645515.2019.1622977?src=recsys

Letters to the editor; Response to: a possible spurious correlation between human papillomavirus vaccination introduction and birth rate change in the United States
Gayle DeLongORCID Icon
Pages 2503-2504 | Accepted author version posted online: 03 Jun 2019, Published online: 18 Jun 2019
Download citation https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2019.1622977 CrossMark LogoCrossMark

In their letter to the editor, Shibata and Kataoka,1offer a critique of my paper, “A lowered probably of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection”.2 They suggest three reasons why my conclusion that HPV vaccine uptake is related to lowered probability of ever having been pregnant could be spurious. While the lowered fertility I found among women who received the HPV shot could be related to variables other than the HPV vaccine, the finding cannot be the result of the reasons they offer. The authors do not explain my findings, and their analysis does not negate the need for more research into the possible effect of the HPV vaccine on fertility.

The first reason the authors offer is that the vaccine is recommended mainly for women who are not yet sexually active. The birth rate among such women would, by definition, be nil. This argument is weak, because even if a woman is not yet sexually active when she receives the shot, she could begin to be sexually active shortly thereafter. Precisely her concerns about a sexually-transmitted disease could spur her to obtain the shot.

The authors continue their first argument by observing that the average age of a mother at her first birth rose in the United States from 24.9 years in 2000 to 26.3 years in 2014. They appear to suggest that the lowered birth rate among younger women was offset by a higher birth rate among older women. Data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services do not support this argument.3 In 2007, the birth rate per 1,000 females aged 25 to 29 was 118.1 and among 30 to 44 year olds was 50.5. By 2017, the birth rate among younger women had fallen by 20.1 to 98.0 and increased by 5.7 to 56.1 for older women. The increase in the birth rate for older women does not offset the fall in the birth rate among younger women.

The second reason the authors offer for my results is that the fertility rates of countries with high HPV vaccine uptake have not fallen. They show steady overall fertility rates in Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom as well as steady fertility rates by age group in Australia.

The overall fertility rate is a very blunt measure of births among specific age groups. The girls who received the shot in the UK were 11 and 12 years old, and yet fertility measures births per 1,000 females aged 15 to 49. Girls who receive the shot are not included in the fertility measure until three years after they receive the shot. Since the UK began its nationwide program in 2009, we would not expect fertility rates to begin to fall until 2012. Even then, the fall would be relatively small, as most women who conceive are older than 15.

A more precise measure of the change in fertility in a country is to examine the birth rates by age group. The authors provide such information for Australia in their Figure 1. However, the figure is misleading in that the birth rates range from zero to 140. Such a wide span reduces the ability to detect changes in an individual age group. Additionally, the chart stops in the year 2012, too soon for much of an effect to be noticeable.

Examining the raw data on the birth rates by age group for the four countries with high HPV vaccine uptake as well as one country with low uptake is much more revealing. Table 1 shows the birth rate per 1,000 females by age group in the four countries included in Shibata and Kataoka analysis for the year in which the HPV vaccine was introduced as well as the year of the most recent data, 2015. Also included in the table is Romania, which suspended its HPV vaccine program after very low uptake.5 In the four countries with an active HPV vaccine program, the birth rates of the younger women have fallen dramatically since the introduction of the vaccine. The increases in the birth rates of older women in these countries do not offset the lowered rates of the younger women. During the same time period, Romania showed a substantial increase in birth rates for all but the youngest age groups.

Table 1. Birth rate per 1,000 females by age group for year of HPV vaccine introduction and 2015.

CSVDisplay Table
Importantly, my published study is even more precise than observing fertility in age groups. The database I use – the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey – reports vaccine uptake and pregnancy status by individual. Such information allows me to separate women who received the HPV vaccine from those who did not, allowing a more refined analysis of differences in characteristics of the women in each group. Such refined analysis renders discussion of overall fertility rates moot.

The third reason the authors offer to explain why women who received the HPV vaccine were less likely to conceive than women who did not receive the shot is the increased use of long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs). Such birth control is considered more effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy than other short-acting contraceptives such as the pill and the condom. The authors cite an eight-fold increase in the use of LARCs among 15 to 24 year old women between 2006 and 2013 (from 0.6% to 5.0%).

While the use of LARCs has increased, the increase appears to be among women who have had at least one birth. Kavenaugh, Jerman and Finer,6 find that nulliparous women are significantly less likely to use LARCs than women who have already given birth.

We do not know how many of the nulliparous women in my study were using birth control. The NHANES database has limited information concerning birth control; for example, it does not include widely-used methods such as intrauterine devices, sterilization, or abstinence. A follow-up study is therefore essential to determine how many women who received the HPV vaccine were actively trying to prevent pregnancy.

My data show that women who received the HPV shot were less likely to have ever been pregnant. The correlation between the HPV vaccine and lowered fertility could be spurious, but not for the reasons that Shibata and Kataoka offer. Observations of young HPV vaccine recipients experiencing premature ovarian failure have also been noted,7,8 which could provide more plausible hypotheses to explore. More research into the statistical result is essential.

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest
In 2006, the author filed a claim under the U.S. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for her daughter. The claim of vaccine injury did not include the HPV vaccine.

References
Shibata A, Kataoka Y. Letters to the editor; a possible spurious correlation between human papillomavirus vaccination introduction and birth rate change in the United States. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2019. doi:10.1080/21645515.2019.1586032. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
DeLong G. A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2018;81(14):661–74. doi:10.1080/15287394.2018.1477640. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (US DHHS). WONDER on-line database, natality public-use data 2007–2017. [accessed 21 April 2019]. http://wonder.cdc.gov/natality-current.html. [Google Scholar]
United Nations. World Fertility Data 2017. [accessed 21 April 2019]. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/dataset/fertility/wfd2017.asp. [Google Scholar]
Sheikh S, Biundo E, Courcier S, Damm O, Launay O, Maes E, Marcos C, Matthews S, Meijer C, Poscia A, et al. A report on the status of vaccination in Europe. Vaccine. 2018;36(33):4979–92. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.06.044. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Kavanaugh ML, Jerman J, Finer LB. Changes in use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods among U.S. Women, 2009–2012. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(5):917–27. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001094. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Little DT, Ward HR. Adolescent premature ovarian insufficiency following human papillomavirus vaccination: A case series seen in general practice. J Investig Med HighImpact Case Rep. 2014;2:4. doi:10.1177/232470961456129. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
Little DT, Ward HR. Premature ovarian failure 3 years after menarche in a 16-year-old girl following human papillomavirus vaccination. Br Med J Case Rep. 2012. doi:10.1136/bcr-2012-006879. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]

Interesting that all these papers that are retracted by their journals have conclusions that are unfavorable to the Mercks or Monsantos of this world. Isn't it the usual procedure in academia, if a paper is not accurate, for scientists to publish another paper refuting it? I'd love to see an analysis of papers withdrawn compared to papers now known to be inaccurate that are still "on the books".

How many young men are getting this vaccine, too?
https://vaxxter.com/gardasil-and-male-infertility/

Gardasil invented 2006

And the BBC reports this :
The strategy, which led to better access to contraceptive services and more sex education in schools and clinics, lasted 10 years - but rates have continued to fall, by 50% since 2007.

Mycoplasma Genatalium (the cover story for Gardasil ????)

https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/health/sex-superbug-could-have-infected-thousands-in-east-sussex-1-8569700

Sex ‘superbug’ could have infected thousands in East Sussex

Or perhaps it is a freebie included in the Gardasil vaccine ?

https://www.marieclaire.com.au/doctors-warn-this-little-known-sti-could-be-the-next-big-superbug
While relatively unknown, MG isn’t new, it was first discovered in the early 1980s according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The greatest consequence of this is for the women who present with PID caused by MG, which would be very hard to treat, putting them at increased risk of infertility," Dr. Paddy Horner, a consultant senior lecturer at the University of Bristol told CNN.

Interestingly, in blogging about the study,
The Great, vaccine injuries denialist, Gorski wrote....

There’s also another huge problem with this study. One of the most important covariates that could impact pregnancy rates is (obviously) usage of contraception. Yet nowhere in the analysis is there a consideration of contraception usage. Yes, Delong brings up the lack of statistical significance of the results among never-married women by suggesting that maybe most of them want to avoid pregnancy (which could be true), but, again, contraceptive use is an incredibly important factor, which was not even included as a covariate. My first thought was that maybe it was a question that wasn’t asked. It’s possible. Oh, wait. It’s not. The questionnaire asks whether a female has ever used oral contraceptives, if she is taking them now, and how long she’s taken them. So why did Delong not include oral contraceptive use in her analysis? She could have. She doesn’t even really discuss it other than discussion of contraceptive failure rates. I strongly suspect there was a reason for this. I also strongly suspect that a correlation between HPV uptake and oral contraceptive use (which is not unreasonable to hypothesize) could explain the results Delong observed and that correcting for oral contraceptive use in the survey sample would likely have resulted in the results of the logistic regression no longer being statistically significant. In fairness, if the correlation is not positive but negative (i.e., HPV vaccination is associated with less oral contraceptive use), the results could be more robust than what Gayle found.

I guess the author has effectively answered!

"Birth rates in the United States have recently fallen. Birth rates per 1000 females aged 25–29 fell from 118 in 2007 to 105 in 2015. One factor may involve the vaccination against the human papillomavirus (HPV). Shortly after the vaccine was licensed, several reports of recipients experiencing primary ovarian failure emerged."

I guess its time to roll out the old reliable .. "correlation does not mean causation" .. nothing to see or be concerned about here … move on.