Gardasil

[IphigeniaSaysHi]

No, I didn't. If you read I said I agree with SOME scientists.

 

You agree with scientists who agree with you.

[jenny_mcs]

Here is an excerpt from a long article with many prestigious peer-review medical journal bibliographic citations, for anyone who is interested:

 

 

And here is an article de-bunking or qualifying every single point in that article:

 

link removed

[Seraphim]

You agree with scientists who agree with you.

 

As do YOU.

[IphigeniaSaysHi]

As do YOU.

 

Nope. I can acknowledge points in opposition and recognize there is truth in them that I may not know about because I am not an expert.

I'm open minded.

[Seraphim]

Nope. I can acknowledge points in opposition and recognize there is truth in them that I may not know about because I am not an expert.

I'm open minded.

 

I am open minded.

[tiredofvampires]

And here is an article de-bunking or qualifying every single point in that article:

 

link removed

 

I don't refute that there is credible data on both sides. The question is, who is right?

 

And also, unfortunately, what do the parties have to gain by their stand?

 

In the case of pro-vaccination parties, there may be pure intent; OR other kinds of motivation that have nothing to do with pure science or patient health.

 

I don't see what anyone would stand to gain by devoting their professional life to debunking the widely accepted truths about vaccinations.

 

I'm merely supplying a snippet of literature for anyone on this thread who believes there is no supportive data or research behind the anti-vac position. People are perhaps not aware that formidable data exists to this effect (someone said they couldn't understand why anyone would NOT want to vaccinate), and that to be an informed consumer means to investigate this just as rigorously.

[Seraphim]

I don't refute that there is credible data on both sides. The question is, who is right?

 

And also, unfortunately, what do the parties have to gain by their stand?

 

In the case of pro-vaccination parties, there may be pure intent; OR other kinds of motivation that have nothing to do with pure science or patient health.

 

I don't see what anyone would stand to gain by devoting their professional life to debunking the widely accepted truths about vaccinations.

 

I'm merely supplying a snippet of literature for anyone on this thread who believes there is no supportive data or research behind the anti-vac position. People are perhaps not aware that formidable data exists to this effect (someone said they couldn't understand why anyone would NOT want to vaccinate), and that to be an informed consumer means to investigate this just as rigorously.

 

This exactly. Look at both sides. In the mean time I have to decide what best looks after my own child. If someone proved to me without a doubt that vaccines do only good I might think about it.

[hossman]

If someone proved to me without a doubt that vaccines do only good I might think about it.

 

That's not going to happen.

[renaissancewoman101]

Just a technical question, for vaccines against things like mumps, measles, polio, etc (common type vaccines), is it up to the parents whether their kids get the vaccine or not? Or can they refuse it for their kids?

 

I always assumed that with shots and vaccines for kids, you HAD to give it to them, like it was the law or something.

[Seraphim]

That's not going to happen.

 

Then why tell me not giving vaccines only produces bad outcomes?

[hossman]

Then why tell me not giving vaccines only produces bad outcomes?

 

That's not going to happen either.

 

Many people skip the more routine vaccines such as the flu, and never get sick.

[Seraphim]

Just a technical question, for vaccines against things like mumps, measles, polio, etc (common type vaccines), is it up to the parents whether their kids get the vaccine or not? Or can they refuse it for their kids?

 

I always assumed that with shots and vaccines for kids, you HAD to give it to them, like it was the law or something.

 

You can refuse them for your kids Renny, you must sign a waiver when they go to school.

[Seraphim]

That's not going to happen either.

 

Many people skip the more routine vaccines such as the flu, and never get sick.

 

Many people on here told me there are only bad outcomes for me not vaccinating.

[hossman]

Many people on here told me there are only bad outcomes for me not vaccinating.

 

Many people say lots of different things.

[arsenal]

Helping 3rd world countries with their infastructure and giving them cleaning water and living spaces and access to soap and water would probably help the people more than vaccines ever could. Help them build a cleaner country. That costs more money however than giving a vaccine so they give vaccines instead.

 

Vaccines are cheaper and more effective than sanitation and that it why they are used.

 

There has been much effort to improve the infrastructure and sanitation of developing countries and it has been helpful in reducing many diseases like cholera. It still doesn't prevent all diseases which is why vaccines are needed.

[Seraphim]

Vaccines are cheaper and more effective than sanitation and that it why they are used.

There has been much effort to improve the infrastructure and sanitation of developing countries and it has been helpful in reducing many diseases like cholera. It still doesn't prevent all diseases which is why vaccines are needed.

 

Exactly what I said. And I bet if more was done to improve sanitation in these countries you would see a lot of reduction in all diseases. Why do they tell us the best defense against cold and flu and viruses is a bar of soap and some water.

[hossman]

Why do they tell us the best defense against cold and flu and viruses is a bar of soap and some water.

 

That's what those corrupt and money hungry soap manufacturers WANT you to think.

 

 

[Seraphim]

That's what those corrupt and money hungry soap manufacturers WANT you to think.

 

 

Lots less invasive that putting stuff in someone's veins. And MUCH cheaper.

[arsenal]

Exactly what I said. And I bet if more was done to improve sanitation in these countries you would see a lot of reduction in all diseases. Why do they tell us the best defense against cold and flu and viruses is a bar of soap and some water.

 

That is because there is no cure for the common cold. You use sanitation to help prevent it, but it still occurs all the time.

 

If there would be a vaccine for the cold, then taking the vaccine would be the best way to prevent it.

[karvala]

Here is an excerpt from a long article with many prestigious peer-review medical journal bibliographic citations, for anyone who is interested:

 

Curious, as you rightly cite the importance of peer-review and reputable journals here, that you chose to recommend an online article written by an "independent" (aka unemployed) researcher, that was not peer reviewed at all and clearly wasn't publishable in ANY journal.

[annie24]

vaccines and sanitation are two different things. i'm pro both. some diseases are spread through water (cholera is a great example) and others are not. like smallpox or the flu, for example, which is spread through human contact. so you really need both.

 

it's not that NOT vaccinating will lead to a bad outcome. it's a risk vs. reward game. someone could not be vaccinated against anything, never get sick, and die at 98 of old age. they're taking the risk that in 98 years, they will never come in contact with that bacterium or virus or that if they do, their immune system overpowers it without any ill effects. it's not a risk i would take, not at all.

[hossman]

Lots less invasive that putting stuff in someone's veins. And MUCH cheaper.

 

Not necessarily. Soap ain't so cheap you know, and in the hands of the Obsessive-Compulsive a bar of soap won't last a day.

[annie24]

Curious, as you rightly cite the importance of peer-review and reputable journals here, that you chose to recommend an online article written by an "independent" (aka unemployed) researcher, that was not peer reviewed at all and clearly wasn't publishable in ANY journal.

 

yeah, was wondering that too.

[Seraphim]

Not necessarily. Soap ain't so cheap you know, and in the hands of the Obsessive-Compulsive a bar of soap won't last a day.

 

 

[Seraphim]

Curious, as you rightly cite the importance of peer-review and reputable journals here, that you chose to recommend an online article written by an "independent" (aka unemployed) researcher, that was not peer reviewed at all and clearly wasn't publishable in ANY journal.

 

Why does something have to be published in a mainstream medical journal to have merit?

 

Lots of people here tell me stuff they know diddly about but I still listen and think they might have merit.