Study: Not Enough Evidence That HPV Vaccine Is Safe and Effective - Page 4

[Rrrrrachel]

Like the viciousness posted about dr offit time after time?

The demise of the validity of cocooning has been greatly exaggerated.

[emmy526]

http://skeweddistribution.com/2012/10/01/dear-anti-vaxxer-yes-i-do-the-research/

Quote:

Here is a challenge for the anti-vaxxers out there. Try, for one day, to pretend like you understand that vaccines are safe and effective. Relax for a moment and let the truth of the science wash over you. Read the studies. Challenge your own beliefs. Open your mind to the possibility. I did it for your side, and now I ask you to try it for your kids.

 I am not anti-vax, i am pro choice....and, I did that once, and then was lied to about my son's obvious reactions he was having all along.    The truth of the science washed over my son and gave him life long complications.    I saw it with my own eyes happening each and every time he was vaccinated, when i  'let the science wash over me'   and yes, it sure as heck made me challenge not only my beliefs, but  to actually question the dr and his excuses for what was going on with my son.  I tried it for my son, it didn't work... i wasn't about to take the same chance with my subsequent children.    

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

People post far more hateful things on this forum than I saw on that blog. Seems like a pretty blatant attempt to shut down a source of information you disagree with.

I don't think it is the information people object to.  Have information?  Bring it on.  Just don't be lazy (not talking to you - just in general) and link it to a site who spends a lot of time spewing hatred against a large number of the members here.  

I don't really think linking to hate filled sites accomplishes anything positive.

This conversation is had amongst non-vaxxers, btw.  There are non-vaxxers who choose not to link to sites like Age of Autism (in addition to not using such sites) and the like because they know it gets others hackles up and shuts down conversations.

Everyone wants to see studies and numbers (it is one thing most on this board have in common).

Edited by kathymuggle - 10/31/12 at 7:56pm

[Rrrrrachel]

Seems pretty arbitrary.

[japonica]

Originally Posted by SkewedD 

Japonica,

Thank you for your response; I think you offer some fair criticism. As a scientist writing a blog, there is always a fine line between the technical writing and having people actually read the blog. In my day job, I do in fact publish many of those scientific papers that you are asking for. The blog, on the other hand, synthesizes the knowledge I've gathered over the years.

It would be very difficult, for example, to post concisely but yet provide all of the scientific literature about why we know beyond any doubt that HPV causes cervical cancer, a scientific fact that Tomljenovic and Shaw seem to dismiss in their paper. Such a journey would begin in the 1800's when cervical cancer was a "whore's disease" and progress through the present day, when we've come to realize that up to 85% of the population has HPV; fewer with oncogenic HPV;  and fewer still who develop cancer.

So I'm at a bit of a loss, because the scientific papers that I take the time to craft are not going appear on a blog; they will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. This is because they are the culmination of 6-12 months plus of work. Since I am not paid to blog, I cannot devote that amount of time to blog entries.  What I try to do with my blog is give a view at 30,000 feet, based on my years as an epidemiologist.

Thanks again for the reply.

It should not be difficult then to provide an annotated bibliography or list of studies that questioning parents can use to further their understanding of the issue. Your own published works may be included, especially if they provide an adequate rebuttal to some of the arguments made by Shaw and Tomljenovic. I appreciate that your blog is probably not intended to be a parental educational resource; however, if there are many of us looking beyond the cartoonish pamphlets and other laughable materials handed out by government agencies, then it might be worthwhile linking the science that you'd prefer we read. The "anti-vax" blogs do the same.

Particularly, I'd like to know what's been published that directly contradicts Shaw's 2009 work:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0162013409001809 

As I mentioned, I don't usually rely on blogs, of either "side," for the bulk of my information. They might provide a starting point, depending on content and author, obviously, but the literature is what I'm going to review in consultation with my family's physician. 

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Seems pretty arbitrary.

Yeah, well, if you want to call someone on linking to a hate filled non-vax site (and put the offending statements in quotes) go for it.

 I do not know if  linking and discussing hate-filled sites should be banned, but that still does not make it a good idea.

What people consider hate-filled is also up for debate.

[Rrrrrachel]

About to say, I think we probably disagree on what qualifies as hate filled.

[prosciencemum]

Interesting that this theme of banning skeptics sites has shown up suddenly on multiple threads. I agree that sometimes their tone is off, but so is the tone on some anti-vax sites when they discuss Paul Offit or the CDC.... 

Wildkingdom put my thoughts well in the other thread this came up on (see here: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1366492/nothing/20#post_17157475)

Quote:

There's a helluva difference between linking to a skeptic site that is disrespectful of anti-vaxers and a true hate site like whale.to that preaches anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.

Any though this is off topic. Shall we go back to discussing the safety and efficacy of HPV? 

[Mosaic]

And this is why the old UA had so many restrictions on discussing off-MDC content.

People post mean, hateful, generalized, inaccurate pseudoinformation all over the internet. We know this, but we try our best to sort through it, discern the parts that are helpful, and bring them here to share and discuss while disregarding the rest. We will likely interpret the same information differently, so, with that in mind:

Rrrrrachel: please edit your post attacking Taximom. If you don't agree with her interpretation of the results, you are welcome to disagree, but stay focused on the issue and not the poster.

Taximom: please edit your posts to remove speculation about member's gender... it personal and off-topic. I will talk with the admins about reviewing the site, but just a heads-up that the list of sites that are actually blocked on MDC is, to my knowledge, extremely small.

SkewedD, if I misinterpreted your post and you meant it as Rrrrachel and prosciencemum clarified, then please edit your post so that others don't make the same mistake I did. Otherwise, I can delete the post for you, but you're going to have to do more than make an oopsie on the forum guidelines to earn a ban from me.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Interesting that this theme of banning skeptics sites has shown up suddenly on multiple threads. I agree that sometimes their tone is off, but so is the tone on some anti-vax sites when they discuss Paul Offit or the CDC.... 

Not really.  I mentioned it on another thread and maybe Taxi read it and used it as a jumping off point…or maybe she too was becoming annoyed by the proliferation of skeptic sites being linked. 

The skeptic sites I have seen are not just pro-vax (there are lots of decent pro-vax sites) they are actively disrespectful towards non-vaxxers.  Non-vaxxers are stupid, incompetent, selfish, manipulative…..and that is just from the first vaccine page of the skewed distribution site!  

[Rrrrrachel]

I must've missed all these other skeptic sites that are suddenly being linked. As well as all those names skewed called people who don't vaccinate. Gotta pay more attention.

[kathymuggle]

Skewed and name calling….right down at the bottom of the page:

http://skeweddistribution.com/

I counted about 7 links to Skeptic sites in the last 2 or 3 week - most on the moms who thoughtfully vaccinate page.

_____________

In any event, I think the matter is settled for me.  I got it off my chest that I think most Skeptic sites are pretty vile (just excuses to name call, really, I think they could make their points without resorting to being hateful) and that linking to these sites is not overly helpful for discussion among diverse groups or a respectful atmosphere.  If people want to link to it, I will just point out their ickiness.  Lather, rinse, repeat.  

Edited by kathymuggle - 11/1/12 at 5:59am

[Rrrrrachel]

That seems like an appropriate place to link to them. I'm not sure why you're reading that thread if it upsets you.

[Rrrrrachel]

I don't think my bottom of the page is the same as yours. I'm on my iPad and it just keeps loading new posts when I get to the bottom.

[Mosaic]

Rrrrrachel, I deleted your post since you didn't edit. Just FYI.

[Rrrrrachel]

Ok, sorry, I meant toask which one because I wasn't sure.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

That seems like an appropriate place to link to them. I'm not sure why you're reading that thread if it upsets you.

Actually, I thought the bingo card on Skewed's site was funny 

The name calling was the bottom blog.  It was written by skewed (I assume) and not a link. it is called :Dear Anti-vaxxer: This is why I do not care for you.  If you are really curious, pm me and I will C/P the words.  It is too long for copyright here.  

The thoughtful moms thread does not usually upset me.  Some of it is kind of interesting.    I am ticked off that non-vaxxers are not really allowed to post on it, when vaxxers most definitely are allowed to post on non-vax forum threads.  The skeptics sites do not upset me personally (I am rarely upset by sites I do not post on), and honestly, I am pretty aware some pro-vaxxers think non-vaxxers are a bunch of morons.  It is not a news flash or anything.  I do spend a fair bit of time posting and engaging in debate on MDC, though, so I think a respectful tone here is important (even if I do not always live up to it).  Repeatedly linking to sites that go out of their way to call non-vaxxers names does not contribute to a respectful atmosphere.  

I am finding myself getting repetitive, though, so…over and out.

Edited by kathymuggle - 11/1/12 at 7:40am

[Rrrrrachel]

Ok. You just . . . Seem upset.

I think you are allowed to post on any thread you want, you've just been asked to stay on topic. You can't post whatever you want on any thread you want, and that's true across the board.

[Rrrrrachel]

So it's not the skewed site that calls names but something else that's linked to from that site?

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Ok. You just . . . Seem upset.
I think you are allowed to post on any thread you want, you've just been asked to stay on topic. You can't post whatever you want on any thread you want, and that's true across the board.

Nah, I am not.  

The internet has given me thicker skin than I had once upon a time.

I can have an issue with something without being personally upset by it.  

Post 84 by Adinal on thoughtful moms:

"I have asked the non-vaxers to not post and bring their viewpoints to the thread.  We are working on keeping it to just mamas who vax"

Edited by kathymuggle - 11/1/12 at 7:59am