Forced vaccinations

[VancouverIslander]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punatic007


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gardasil-res...peaks-out/

You may want to reconsider.

---

Except it turns out that article is poorly researched, lacks verifiable sources and is wrong:

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skeptical...t-vaccine/

Please implement Dr. Sagan's detector when reading things on the internet.

Just call me Mike

[Punatic007]

It's a CBS link.

[PaulW]

http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/comm...t-delivers

"But the science is clear: The HPV vaccine has been proven safe and effective. There are no serious side effects. It doesn’t cause fertility problems. And it doesn’t encourage children to be sexually active earlier.
Parents who shun the vaccine put their children at risk.
Generations of Americans dreamed of a vaccine to prevent cancer. One is here now.
The reason to shun it? There is none."

[PunaMauka2]

"... http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html

The video there is well worth watching"


Thanks for the link, Tom ...my kind of quick read! Way to go, Carl Sagan.

[knieft]

VI: Except it turns out that article is poorly researched, lacks verifiable sources and is wrong: <link to skepticalraptor.com>

Since the vaccine is relatively new in widespread use, both claims of a 5 year limit in efficacy and longer year claims are no verifiable yet. Not sure what difference that makes. Even if it is only good for 5 years, I assume more shots could be taken. But claims on either side appear premature.

Curiously absent from the skeptical raptor link is any mention of the actual death rate (gives HPV-"related" cancer infection rates). Thus no comparisons to death rate vs vaccine mishaps.

Those were the two main arguments in the CBS link as I saw it.

You know, just because the anti-vax side commits 100 logical fallacies per hour, doesn't mean the pro-vac side should get a free pass. I think its called the "logical fallacy fallacy"--where something isn't NOT true because a logical fallacy was used to argue for it.

From Tom' Sagan link:

Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").

If this were true in a wholesale way, Thomas Kuhn wouldn't have gotten the milage he did out of his "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" article/book.

All I see, again, is each side so sure of themselves that there isn't any actual discussion going on....

The empiricist...thinks he believes only what he sees, but he is much better at believing than at seeing. [G. Santayana]

Cheers,
Kirt

[VancouverIslander]

Ok, Kirt, here's some more reading for you:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccine...ccine.html

The CDC's own reports and links on Gardasil, which get misquoted and/or quoted out of context in the cbs article (you'd have to read the linked reports to get to that).

http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/gardasil.asp

Snopes took the time to look into it (with links to relevant sources at the bottom)

The take home message here is not how many deaths are reported within x weeks of vaccination, but how that relates to a couple of things: what is the background level of deaths in a similar non-vaccinated population, and the nature of each death encountered (ie: hard to see a mechanism for increased rates of getting hit by a bus from a vaccine). Dig as deep as you want, but the anti-vaccine crowd really hasn't presented any rational argument on this one, just repeated the same tired old battle cries that have been shot down time and time again.

By the way, Sagan's "Arguments from authority carry little weight" does not mean "well designed, carried out and interpreted science" carries little weight. Often this debate feels like discussing evolution with creationists.

Just call me Mike

[Punatic007]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomK

"http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gardasil-res...peaks-out/

You may want to reconsider."

An excellent example to see if the baloney detection kit works.

---

Seriously Tom, you are a scientist and it appears you are getting caught up in a personal prejudice accompanied by condescension. I like vaccines, got most all of them plus boosters. Yet over the years I've read enough about HPV to seriously question the research, and the direction of the pharmaceutical company providing the vaccine.

It's most definitely worthy of respectful conversation.

[MBB]

The science on vaccinations is clear.....vaccines are safe and effective. End of story.

the science on vaccinations is well and truly settled and the " anti vaxxers" are just clueless or stupid....... All the double blind studies have shown that vaccinations are safe and effective........wait, what are the links for those double blind studies again: there isn't any links because the studies have not been done, that would be unethical..... We couldn't compare a group that doesn't get a vaccine with a similiar group that gets vaccinated........let's use a placebo study instead ; but instead of using a straightforward saline injection for a placebo let's add additives that are known to be problematic to the placebo ( as was the case in Guardisil, as noted by the pediatricians)....why?

Is this good science?

[PunaMauka2]

VancouverIslander: "By the way, Sagan's "Arguments from authority carry little weight" does not mean "well designed, carried out and interpreted science" carries little weight. Often this debate feels like discussing evolution with creationists."


Thanks for clarifying that about the Appeal to Authority fallacy. Was considering pointing out the same.

[PunaMauka2]

Punatic 007: "Seriously Tom, you are a scientist and it appears you are getting caught up in a personal prejudice accompanied by condescension."


I'd say one of those comments which doesn't even warrant the effort of a reply.