They can't. They're saying it out loud updating their guidance.
In polite terms, on earnings calls you're going to hear "we don't know what the fuck to predict".
Follow Bloomberg and you'll hear bank CEOs saying the same thing about the markets, they have no idea what to predict or how to price anything. Right now the line is that America looks like an emerging market with unpredictable wild swings based on policy changes. That is going to drive everyone away from the US, industries, customers, and trade partners.
It is either A) underreporting risks or B) not acknowledging risk unknowns and plowing ahead with advice anyway.
This was the major problem and behavior that CAUSED anti-vax opinions. They made safety claims that they couldn't logically make, because they couldn't know. A new vaccine using a new vaccine technology vs a new virus. They did not correctly report the amount of uncertainty and they lost trust. Then folks who "knew better" did their best to manipulate the narriative.
And speaking of manipulating the narrative, you can't use google to find the bits of history that shows the CDC giving contradictory advice because the results aren't there any more. Nearly every result gives the same tone and they're almost all CDC links.
This kind of information control and lack of transparency isn't science, it's power dictating truth.
The actual truth is that the risk of cancers as a result of HPV have a pretty high chance of being prevented if young females get the vaccine, but as you get further away from that group the risk avoided by getting vaccinated gets progressively smaller and runs into the safety uncertainty of taking the vaccine. When you're doing population level risk management you also have to do things like comparing the risk of getting hit by a bus going to the clinic against whatever the clinic could do for you. It is often safer to do nothing than to avoid a very tiny risk because of the very mundane risks you face day to day.
You're missing important stuff here, most notably that recommendations are also based on availability. As the vaccine became more available, more demographics were recommended to take it. Obviously, in the beginning, you want the highest risk groups to take it, then you grow the radius.
They didn't use young girls as some safety experiment. They just had the largest benefit and so, in scarcity, they're prioritized. It's not that scarce anymore.
As an aside, the HPV vaccine also prevents some male cancers, like penile cancer. It also prevents cosmetic, but relatively safe, conditions - like genital and anal warts. That's not the goal of the vaccine so it's not really taken into account. But you, someone who may take the vaccine, should consider it anyway.
Either the vaccine has notable safety issues or it should be at least fine to get the vaccine at an older age.
The reason many people don't trust the CDC's advice is they don't really tell you why or why not.
If you're over 26 you're pretty likely to already be exposed to HPV but not necessarily every strain which would be protected by the vaccine (as it says in the article).
So this pushes the question: why shouldn't I get it even if there's only a small chance it will be beneficial at my age? Is there really a risk they're not telling me about or are they giving bullshit answers? There isn't a third direction.
Vaccine recommendations are based on more than just safety. Efficacy, cost, availability, and prioritization are also considerations.
> Compared with the benefit of the existing HPV vaccination program for adolescents and young adults through age 26 years, the additional benefit of vaccinating people age 27 through 45 years would be minimal.
> Given abundant evidence for safety of HPV vaccines, undesirable anticipated effects are minimal. Also, anticipated population-level benefits are minimal for vaccinating adults over age 26 years. In this scenario, other considerations including cost-effectiveness play an important role in guiding policy-making.
> There’s not a safety issue past age 45. We just aren’t sure how much the vaccine will help men and women who are past that age, because so many of us have acquired HPV by that point, and because it takes many years for cancer to develop after acquiring the virus. However, as the average life expectancy increases, it may benefit the population to increase the age limit for HPV vaccination as well.
I've noticed a few book stores which intermingle new and used stock and they're great. (it's obvious when something isn't new stock but it's all pretty good condition regardless)
>Nobody was seriously arguing against fresh-squeezed juices (especially when served with the pulp).
Yes they are.
And when it comes down to it a little bit of fiber especially when something has been aggressively mashed up, doesn't make your orange juice all that different from a Mtn Dew. Fructose is fructose and no amount of magical extras is going to make that big of a difference on its metabolic effects.
I say that but I'm not advocating you to not drink juice. Just balance your inputs.
>I also recently had a PT tell me that blending fruit into smoothies removes all the nutritional value, which is why no one should get nutritional advice heath professionals who are not nutritionists.
I'd just suggest nobody get nutritional advice. Really so much of it is just nonsense and there's no good advice in my opinion outside "eat a variety of food in moderation" unless you have specific health problems. If a health professional told me that blending fruit into smoothies removes nutritional value I'd make it a point to try to get them fired. (I have gotten healthcare professionals fired, but for more serious stupid statements)
I don't entirely disagree but my kid was with me and I feel like I need someone now to reassure her that blending doesn't magically remove vitamins from food.
( I asked her if blending tomatoes for sauce removed the nutritional value but that's different for reasons that no one understands. )
I'm with you. Eat a variety of food and as close to the natural source as possible. If you think that orange juice and mountain dew are the same because of sugar content than you've lost the plot.
How about we agree that people making food controversial are the problem and we can just ignore them. It's like they have a religion that refreshes its beliefs on a 5 year cycle.
A secular religion, replacing a million ourFatherWhoYouAreInHeaven to prevent the dwindling disease, with a milliin microfastings.. it lacks the little whips for self flaggelation though.
> Is there a way to "eugenics" (I know it's a bad word) birds on intelligence?
Of course there is. Develop an intelligence test and remove the bottom x percentile from the breeding pool. Alternatively develop an environment that gives a competitive advantage to intelligence.
Are you sure that was an Impossible burger and not a Beyond burger? I've tried both and the aroma of Beyond burgers (which I think taste fine but the aroma of uncooked patties reminds me of cat food) was much more noticeable to me.
They can't. They're saying it out loud updating their guidance.
In polite terms, on earnings calls you're going to hear "we don't know what the fuck to predict".
Follow Bloomberg and you'll hear bank CEOs saying the same thing about the markets, they have no idea what to predict or how to price anything. Right now the line is that America looks like an emerging market with unpredictable wild swings based on policy changes. That is going to drive everyone away from the US, industries, customers, and trade partners.
reply