HPV Vaccine

[bendix 10]

5 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

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.

 

 

You know the world is getting more and more insane when reasoned debate and rational analysis of data has been replaced by YouTube videos made by young men living in their mum's basements and shouty references to David Icke and his poorly crafted Twitter memes.

 

Seriously.  What has happened to sanity and common sense?

[Waldo 96]

3 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

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.

 

Both sides being permitted, is absolutely not the impression I'm getting here TCH. There are restrictions with apply to one side, but not the other.

 

We need to approach things in a balanced and fair minded way, in order to get to the full truth of the matter, and not deceive ourselves. As with all things we expose ourselves to, there are negative and positive influences; I'm suggesting that we should try to get as full a picture as possible regarding both. Apparently that's just plain wrong though...

[bendix 10]

What exactly does 'fair and balanced' mean?  Is it fair and balanced to give complete free reign to people to post spurious arguments about there being a Democratic pedo ring being run from the basement of a Washington pizza restaurant that doesnt have a basement, or that the Parkland shootings was fake and actually done by FBI actors?

 

Is it fair and balanced to politely give intellectual credence to those who believe the earth is flat (without ever being able to explain why NASA has been tricking us for so long)?

 

Sorry, Waldo.  There are just some positions where fair and balanced is not fair and balanced to those who are fair and balanced.

[Cyclone 10]

2 hours ago, bendix said:

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.

 

 

The problem is that in the meantime they convince many gullible people and this directly impacts herd immunity and damages wider society.

1 hour 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 forum isn't required to give a balanced platform on any topic, and on this topic in particular there is no balanced debate to be had.  There's a sensible, logical position, and there's the nut jobbery that mac represents.

[bendix 10]

4 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

The problem is that in the meantime they convince many gullible people and this directly impacts herd immunity and damages wider society.

 

Well, yeah, but on the plus side my scenario sees the gullible and stupid wiped out too.  And let's be candid here.  Those who are likely to be anti-vaccers are also statistically more likely to be Trumpist nutjobs, flat-earthers, birthers, far right extremists.

 

See, it's win win.  We've come full circle.

 

Bring on anti-vaccers!  It's designed to cure all society's ills.  Permanently.

Edited July 1, 2019 by bendix

[Cyclone 10]

It doesn't though, because naturally some of them survive the disease, and unfortunately people who can't be vaccinated for whatever reason are also directly harmed (be that, too young, or immunocompromised somehow).

 

If it worked as you suggested, then there'd be no need for vaccines at all because diseases would rapidly kill off all the susceptible population and then have no more hosts, but that doesn't happen.

Edited July 1, 2019 by Cyclone

[Waldo 96]

15 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

The forum isn't required to give a balanced platform on any topic, and on this topic in particular there is no balanced debate to be had.  There's a sensible, logical position, and there's the nut jobbery that mac represents.

Of course, it's a private business, and they're perfectly at liberty to shut down free debate and push whatever agenda they like. I completely accept that.

 

One problem with suppressing nut jobbery though, is when it's done in such a way as to also surpress more reasonable inquiries in to the negative consequences of a thing. I think that may be happening here, both on this thread and in the wider context (debate of this topic elsewhere on the internet).

 

Also, the negative consequences of this particular thing, cannot be expressed or considered without supporting scientific evidence of their validity; however, the same requirement is not imposed on expression of its positive consequences. Therein lies the imbalance.

[bendix 10]

29 minutes ago, Waldo said:

 

 

Also, the negative consequences of this particular thing, cannot be expressed or considered without supporting scientific evidence of their validity; however, the same requirement is not imposed on expression of its positive consequences. Therein lies the imbalance.

Are you seriously saying you need scientific proof of the validity that vaccinations have helped humankind?   

 

Here's one.  Polio has been all but eradicated thanks to vaccines.  

 

 

[Waldo 96]

4 minutes ago, bendix said:

Are you seriously saying you need scientific proof of the validity that vaccinations have helped humankind?   

 

Here's one.  Polio has been all but eradicated thanks to vaccines.  

 

 

Sorry, I was trying to say that pro views expressed here, do not need to be backed up with scientific evidence, while anti views do.

 

I am not disputing the value of vaccinations to humanity, or that there is plenty of scientific evidence to support this. Still, I'd be interested to learn if a comparable amount of time and effort goes in to looking for harmful consequences? We should focus as stongly on the downsides as the upsides; not just focus on the upsides because we can make money from it.

 

I'm just pointing out that it's taboo to consider the possibility of any harmful consequences and to adopt anything other than a unquestioning "rah rah rah, this is nothing but comptetely wondeful, no downsides at all" mindset.

[bendix 10]

14 minutes ago, Waldo said:

 

 

I am not disputing the value of vaccinations to humanity, or that there is plenty of scientific evidence to support this. Still, I'd be interested to learn if a comparable amount of time and effort goes in to looking for harmful consequences? We should focus as stongly on the downsides as the upsides; not just focus on the upsides because we can make money from it.

 

 

 

But time and effort - and huge amount of money - does go into this.  Putting aside the hundreds of millions spent on R&D and testing by the producers themselves, every new drug entering the market has been vigorously tested by the FDA in the US and the MHRA in the UK.  Numerous drugs never make it to market because their deemed side effects are too risky.  

 

Are you suggesting that more should be done and, if so, by whom?

Edited July 1, 2019 by bendix

[medusa 16]

I'm not forbidding discussion of both sides of the debate on vaccines.  I clearly stated that if you're going to make an assertion, back it up with proper research and I'll let it stand.

 

No, a documentary with just a few people inputting their opinion doesn't count as peer reviewed research.  It represents a small piece of personal opinion, and that simply cannot be extrapolated upwards to apply to a whole population without a HUGE amount more research and mathematical analysis.

 

I also clearly stated that I'm not going to expect everybody to believe that all vaccines are safe for everybody.  They are, however, among the safest of the medications/treatments offered in the world and even placebo pills have data sheets that state that they have been associated with deaths while patients were taking them during tests.  The fact that the deaths have to be recorded does not imply that the placebo pills were actually the cause of the death.  A certain number of deaths are coincidental and this has to be viewed in the context of the millions of people who live, die and have other life happen during the taking of the medication.

Research, people.  It exists to help the world learn some objective data.  Read some, learn things and share them as your reasoned argument

[bendix 10]

1 minute ago, medusa said:

 

Research, people.  It exists to help the world learn some objective data.  Read some, learn things and share them as your reasoned argument

Don't you go introducing ridiculous notions like facts-based arguments into modern debate.  That's fighting talk.