Page 1 of 1
 [ 4 replies ] 

Permanent LinkPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 7:49 pm 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/a ... 290088.stm

New study by the CDC saying 1 in 4 girls in America between the age of 14-19 has an STD.

I found another article that says that this means that just over 3 million girls have an STD. Meaning that this survey of 838 girls was suppose to represent 12 million girls. Before running off and giving your girls a shot of the Merrick vaccine, here are some things to consider.

The survey was conducted by the CDC. Centers for Disease Control.

First do the figures sound exaggerated?

Where did they find the girls? Where the girls compensated? If the girls were going for some kind of Birth Control or exam, then this means that they were already having sex, or thinking of it, and then are they an accurate sampling of teenage American girls?

Quote:
Researchers analysed data from a nationally representative sample of 838 US girls aged 14 to 19.


So 838 girls of unknown racial, religious, socio-economic, educational, backgrounds are suppose to represent 12 million American girls ages 14-19. Why am I not convinced?


Quote:
It found that nearly half of the African-American girls surveyed had at least one STD, while the rate was 20% among white and Mexican-American teenagers.


It says that half of the African-American girls surveyed had at least one STD. This tell me nothing. How many African American girls were surveyed? 10 800? If your sample is too high or too low a percentage of one group, you will get figures that are inaccurate either way. Eg. If they interviewed just 10 African American girls and 5 had an STD then the figures would be correct for the survey, but generally wrong for the larger American population.

Also in America if you are bi-racial and have 1 drop of black blood, in many cases you are still required to consider yourself as African-American. Don't tell me that did not throw off the figures.

Great so a survey that is suppose to represent 12 million American girls only surveyed African-American girls, white girls, and not even Latina girls, but only Mexican-American girls.

So what happened to Asian girls, Latina girls that are not Mexican-American, South East Asian Indian, Native American, etc. We are suppose to use this sampling to represent all American girls, but not all American girls were sampled?


Quote:
Human papillomavirus, or HPV, affected 18% of the girls surveyed, chlamydia 4%, trichomoniasis 2.5%, and herpes simplex virus 2%.


So if we took out HPV, which I do believe is what is at the heart of this survey and the Merrick agenda to have all girls vaccinated with their STD vaccine, then we have 8.5% with an STD.


Quote:
he CDC is recommending annual chlamydia screening for all sexually active women under 25, and HPV vaccines for girls aged 11 to 12, followed by booster injections.


I think this is what is at the heart of this survey, and I really think it's a shame that it seems that the CDC is going to be used to push this Merrick agenda on young girls, but also on some populations more than others, as usual. The drug also may not be fully safe according to the aritcle below.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=54713


If the CDC can provide the correct demographics that they used, socio-ecomocic status, religious, etc, that would be a good start. Was there compensation involved?
Without these facts and figures can we truly believe that this was an accurate sampling, and that these figures are truly representative of all American girls between the ages of 14-19?

I think not considering a large demographic of the population seems to have been excluded. Asian, East Asian, Native American, Latina of a none Mexican origin, Middle Eastern, etc.

I would love to see this survey done again with a larger sampling, and a using demographics that match the demographics of the American population. Again if we are only using kids that are having sex, or thinking about having sex again what kind of accurate figures will this produce?


 Profile  
 


Comments
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Permanent LinkPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 9:23 am 

Instead of baselessly speculating on the possible flaws of this analysis and then assuming these speculations are valid given your preconceived notions, why not make some attempt to actually find the actual report by the CDC and see what they've provided regarding these details? That you're trying to undermine the conclusions the researchers offered based on nothing but a brief news article is laughable.

Nothing you've offered constitutes a valid criticism of the report, however flawed it may actually be.

_________________
Image


Permanent LinkPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:40 pm 

[quote="Blue_Nose"]Instead of baselessly speculating on the possible flaws of this analysis and then assuming these speculations are valid given your preconceived notions, why not make some attempt to actually find the actual report by the CDC and see what they've provided regarding these details? That you're trying to undermine the conclusions the researchers offered based on nothing but a brief news article is laughable.

Nothing you've offered constitutes a valid criticism of the report, however flawed it may actually be.[/quote]

I have been trying to find the report. That was one of the first things that I did. Someone else mentioned that it's not on the CDC website yet. I did find an older report which I think might be where the stats are coming from, but again that did not give me the breakdowns that I was looking for and still might not.

I did find out that HPV is transmitted via none sexual means. Meaning that some of those girls in the survey could have caught this via none sexual means.

Also HPV is tranmitable via en utero. Meaning that a mother has the potential to pass this to her child. What I could not accuratly find out is what percentage. One report said anywhere from 5-85 that a range that can not be really used. Also how many children who get this from birth remain asymptamatic?

If this is tranmitable at birth, have any real studies been done to try to find out tranmission to male and female ofspring.

The thing that get's me is that it sounds like a hidden ad for Merick and no one is really looking into this.

Someone else did mentiond that with a survey like this to get a really accurate sampling you would want to do at least 5 different survey, however another person mentioned that the figures match other surveys done, but I think they were refering to surveys done for adults.

It's not like I have not been trying to find out more, or not connecting with others who have similar questions.

My blog posting just pointing out some of the immediate inadequecies that I see that I have questions about, and others should as well, but htey don't.

Also what does not offer a valid criticsm of the report? I am working with what they gave me. If the news article is what's available and what many will be going by, then I have a right to critise what's available till I can find further documentation or proof. I will keep looking, but I don't think I am the right authorative body to challege this. I did however find that an authorative body is challenging Merick on their desire to pimp the STD shot to young girls.

I also found out that they may be getting some competion for the STD shot soon. I also read up on the deaths caused by this, and other adverse reactions.

Again I am still alarmed that the article can be so targeted without providing the breakdowns that I was looking for.


Permanent LinkPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:51 pm 

In most of the forums that I have been to, they are discussing the article. Very few are asking critical questions. They are absorbing the article and getting into discussions about abstinance only education, immoral kids, ethnic morals, boys have a responsibility also, etc.

Very few are concerned about these stats to begin with. I did connect with a few people who also see the Merick agenda, and one person who outlined how this has been pitched. Eg. First awareness ads for HPV out of the blue, causing panic and alarm, then the but there is hope from Merick, stage 2 of the ads. Then finally this and the push to innoculate girls, very young girls, and the focus seems on be on ethnic girls. The person pointed out that much like Vioxx, in 10-15 years we could be hearing that this cause all sorts of problems. No one is even worried about that either.

Also people forget that the vaccine only cures I think it's something like 2 or 3 of the possible HPV strains that can possibly lead to HPV.

My point being, people go by what they read in the article, so at this stage it makes sense in my book, to go after the article, cause that's what is at hand. Ofcourse I am still looking for proof, that the survey might be flawed, or have a hidden agenda.

Someone has to voice these concerns. However it should be the parents of these girls, no bloggers on the internet. I am still trying to see if there are any parent advocacy groups that have a serious problem with this, and who might be looking into these findings.

Again the fact that the article did not test boys also leads me to believe this is the Merick agenda that we are seeing. The STD drug is just being tested on boys now from what I understand. Once approval is ready for the boys, I am sure we will see a similar survey.


Permanent LinkPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:39 am 

Yep, it's all a conspiracy. Thanks ganghumping for enlightening us with your unifomred, delusional, paranoid tinfoil hat junk!

She's only pissed because she's the #1 spreader of SyphilisClapHerpesgangstalking in Canada. On other forums, she's clapstalking1

_________________
"Wannsee was just a conference of top administrators." (BeaverFeaver trying to downplay the origins of the Final Solution)





 Page 1 of 1
 [ 4 replies ] 


 

Author

Blog: View Blog (284)

Archives
- July 2009
MJ makes sainthood
   Tue Jul 07, 2009 5:48 pm
Psi Ops
   Sat Jul 04, 2009 6:02 pm
A baiting we will go.
   Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:52 pm
Are informants stupid?
   Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:38 pm

+ June 2009
+ May 2009
+ April 2009
+ March 2009
+ February 2009
+ January 2009
+ December 2008
+ November 2008
+ October 2008
+ September 2008
+ August 2008
+ July 2008
+ June 2008
+ May 2008
+ April 2008
+ March 2008
+ February 2008
+ December 2007
+ November 2007
+ October 2007
+ September 2007
+ August 2007
+ July 2007
+ June 2007
+ May 2007
+ February 2007
+ January 2007
+ December 2006
+ November 2006
+ October 2006