HPV Vaccine

[Top Cats Hat 10]

27 minutes ago, ez8004 said:

This is because the general public have been proven time and time again to be stupid. 

While not being a big fan of censorship you do make an important point.

 

There are people who will never choose well reasoned argument over fake news on facebook. Either they are too lazy to put the effort in or simply just too damn dumb to follow rational argument. It is no surprise that a lot of this anti-vaccine nonsense gets a lot of traction in religious communities (New York measles outbreak last month) where people with strong religious views tend to reject science and logic. Of course this isn’t helped in the US where many states allow religious nutters to exclude themselves from public health schemes.

 

This isn’t a straightforward individual freedom argument either. You may think that you have the right not to have your kids vaccinated, but my kids have the right not to be infected by your kids because of your religious beliefs.

 

The good of society should always trump the good of the individual.

[medusa 16]

On 28/06/2019 at 09:42, MAC33 said:

I agree we should not have people questioning vaccinations.

 

After all this a forum right.

 

Something like three billion dollars paid out already in the U.S by the Government not the Pharmaceutical companies for compensation to people harmed by them.

 

 

 

 

[Forum manager who also happens to be a trained medical scientist hat on]

 

In this case, whether this is a forum or not really isn't relevant.  What is relevant is that every bit of air time that the 'antivacc agenda' gets is dangerous to the babies and children (and in this case everybody's daughter) who don't receive the vaccination because there is a proportionally minuscule chance that there could be a complication as a result.  It's dangerous because for every person who reads this sort of argument, doesn't think to verify for themselves whether it's actually a risk they should be taking and consequently leaves their child at more risk, that's our fault for leaving it up.

 

Nobody has ever claimed that vaccines are entirely safe, but the risk has been shown to be vanishingly small, and ridiculously small compared to the risk of having the diseases.  My sister and I didn't have most of the childhood vaccinations because of my dad's allergies, and as a result I was dangerously ill with measles and rubella at the same time as a small child.  In our case it was genuinely necessary at the time, but yes, we suffered for it and there is unequivocal data to show that vaccination has changed the world for the better by eradicating some truly deadly diseases.  When was the last time you saw a young person unable to breathe through polio (at least in a developed country)?

 

In this case, the HPV vaccination has been shown to be safe, have very few side effects and to prevent a whole selection of cancers later in life.  Why on earth would anybody who understood the risks expose their children to them, if there was a chance to prevent it?

 

If you can find genuine, peer reviewed and verified data online to use to support your position then you can post it.  By this I don't mean an opinion piece or something posted on YouTube, I mean genuine verified and statistically analysed scientific research in a journal, showing the information they are looking at in the context of the worldwide uptake of these vaccinations.

 

We don't allow people to post political discussion from the murkiest corners of the internet as support for an argument- why should we allow similar discussion promoting something as genuinely potentially harmful as this?  You can make your own choices for your own family, but I'm not prepared to take the risk that anybody takes that choice because of something they happened to read here.  
 

We have never claimed to offer freedom of speech on Sheffield Forum BTW.  We operate within the laws of the land, and also within a family friendly ethos, and we simply couldn't allow free speech and still fit with both of those. 

 

If you want freedom of speech then there are plenty of bits of the internet where that is permitted, so I suggest you use one of them if that's really your aim.  Be prepared to try to get your opinion in edgeways with the spam, porn and scams.

 

[/forum manager and scientist hat off]

[MAC33 10]

I posted a link to a Danish documentary that had testimony from many of the teenage girls harmed after taking the HPV vaccination. The link was deleted for no reason.

 

There has been numerous hearings in the U.S against vaccinations.  To both State and Federal Governments - are you saying their testimony does not count as evidence?

 

I have also mentioned there has been around three billion dollars paid out in the U.S as compensation for harm caused by vaccinations. 

 

The side effects are written on the vaccine packages - though most never take the time to read them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Halibut 12]

17 minutes ago, MAC33 said:

I posted a link to a Danish documentary that had testimony from many of the teenage girls harmed after taking the HPV vaccination. The link was deleted for no reason.

 

There has been numerous hearings in the U.S against vaccinations.  To both State and Federal Governments - are you saying their testimony does not count as evidence?

 

I have also mentioned there has been around three billion dollars paid out in the U.S as compensation for harm caused by vaccinations. 

 

The side effects are written on the vaccine packages - though most never take the time to read them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, it was deleted because it was unscientific conspiracy freak nonsense, with the potential to cause real and significant harm.

[Waldo 96]

I think there's a case to be made that shutting down debate (stipulating extremely narrow criteria for anti views, and no criteria for pro views), as done on this thread, actually causes more distrust of vaccinations, and so harm to people.

 

May as well just call it as it is, and say this particular topic is not up for debate (as is clearly the case), and close threads.

[Cyclone 10]

It's not a debate though anyway is it.  Mac isn't interested in logic or facts, he posts his copied and pasted nonsense, puts his links up to the youtube conspiracy theory nutcase videos and then refuses to follow any evidence or logic that doesn't fit into his predetermined worldview and conclusion.

[bendix 10]

On the plus side, couldn't you make a case that if anti-vaccer numptie conspiracy nutjobs genuinely believe what they say (and are not simply posturing), then they themselves won't take vaccinations and, ipso facto, will die out early as a result, those closing down all that nonsense?

 

It's Darwinian Theory at its purist.

 

 

[MAC33 10]

I am quite shocked at the closed mindedness of many on this topic.

 

There are many physicians who have went public with their concerns of vaccinations.

 

A doctor voicing his concerns on youtube does not make them a nuttter.

 

 

 

 

[Waldo 96]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

It's not a debate though anyway is it.  Mac isn't interested in logic or facts, he posts his copied and pasted nonsense, puts his links up to the youtube conspiracy theory nutcase videos and then refuses to follow any evidence or logic that doesn't fit into his predetermined worldview and conclusion.

It's not a debate if only one side of a thing is permitted to be expressed.

 

For example, if "If you can find genuine, peer reviewed and verified data online to use to support your position then you can post it." also applied to pro views, that would represent a more even balanced environment in which to discuss the topic.

 

It seems though, that the restrictions on posting which apply to people with anti views, doesn't apply to those with pro views? If that's the case, then we don't have a debate here, we have pro view propaganda masquerading as debate.

 

As for MAC33, I'm not sure how balanced, scientific and fair he is when it comes to forming his views. I'm not too familiar with his posting history, other than I think the flat earth stuff? Oh boy! In any case, I'm not at all endorsing his views on this or any other topic.

 

People do have concerns with vaccinations though, but to my mind, they should address and discuss those concerns in a fair and balanced manner without hysteria etc.

[petemcewan 27]

Mac 33,

With respect,in case you don't want to read through the whole of the paper:

 

". In summary, this meta-analysis suggests that a prophylactic vaccine against HPV16/18 has the potential to prevent more than two-thirds of worldwide ICC and half of HSIL ".

 

I would  recommend that GUM clinics offer sexually active  people a HPV vaccination. They can clearly benefit from it.

I do believe one can obtain HPV vaccine on-line and self administer.

Scholarly articles for Human Vaccines and immunotherapeutics HPV

Human papillomavirus type distribution in invasive … - ‎Smith - Cited by 1788 … vaccinia virus encoding human papillomavirus types … - ‎Borysiewicz - Cited by 603 … metastatic tumors expressing human papillomavirus … - ‎Ji - Cited by 138

Edited July 1, 2019 by petemcewan

[Annie Bynnol 612]

13 minutes ago, Waldo said:

It's not a debate if only one side of a thing is permitted to be expressed.

 

For example, if "If you can find genuine, peer reviewed and verified data online to use to support your position then you can post it." also applied to pro views, that would represent a more even balanced environment in which to discuss the topic.

 

It seems though, that the restrictions on posting which apply to people with anti views, doesn't apply to those with pro views? If that's the case, then we don't have a debate here, we have pro view propaganda masquerading as debate.

 

As for MAC33, I'm not sure how balanced, scientific and fair he is when it comes to forming his views. I'm not too familiar with his posting history, other than I think the flat earth stuff? Oh boy! In any case, I'm not at all endorsing his views on this or any other topic.

 

People do have concerns with vaccinations though, but to my mind, they should address and discuss those concerns in a fair and balanced manner without hysteria etc.

The origin of this "debate" in the UK was the attempted fraud by Wakefield.

It relied in part on the need for a "balanced debate" in our media.

 

The "need for balance" required the BBC for example to search up and down the country for the tiny number of people who had concerns before the publicity created as part of the fraud. They did not manage to find sufficient people which resulted in publicity for religious extremists, anti-vax campaigners, distraught parents etc. who could not be expected to engage in a rational debate.

 

The result,  neadless deaths, disability, long term life changing conditions, serious illness etc.

To say that health professionals, scientists , parents of autistic people(like me), parents of vaccinated children , children who cannot have protection, children who rely prents to make decisions and and the vast majority of people are engaged in " ....pro view propaganda masquerading as debate." is totally wrong.

 

[Top Cats Hat 10]

29 minutes ago, Waldo said:

It's not a debate if only one side of a thing is permitted to be expressed.

But both sides have been permitted.

 

Most posters, including myself, have said that there are side effects with this vaccine, they are well known and not being hidden, but are not statistically important and are more than outweighed by the positive public health benefits to the whole population.

 

What hasn’t been permitted has been the replacement of debate with the simple posting of links to spurious sensationalist websites or YouTube videos of no real scientific value.