Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It does NOT prevent cancer. There is no study that concludes: "This vaccine prevents cancer." It is a lie perpetuated by the media/marketing. There has been no follow-up -- something that is crucial to prove the success of ANY drug -- that proves it prevents cancer.
The vaccine, however, may/may not prevent one of the four HPV stains that could cause cervical cancer.
Do you know how many women have HPV? 85% to 95% depending on which stats you find. It's harmless. Everyone has it at one time or another. Do you know how many women die from cervical cancer in the U.S. each year? About 4,000. How many of those cases are caused by the HPV strains that the vaccine targets? Anyone know? Anyone?
That's 4,000 out 150,000,000, which is a 0.00002% LIFETIME risk of dying from cervical cancer. It is absurdly low. There is no reason for this vaccine, and the fact that the manufacturer is marketing it to boys is criminal.
A 0.00002% lifetime risk of dying from cervical cancer.
I've noticed you chose one article published in a mainstream newspaper that is published in the United States. Why don't you search for some articles published in Japan? Something written by Japanese scientists? Or check into other countries where there has been a backlash against the vaccine? What about looking at sheer numbers of adverse events? Stories from families where the girls were injured from the vaccine? Any documentaries about the vaccine?
Again, research, investigate and LEARN. One article in a country that is biased in favor of the product proves -- nothing.
The vaccine prevents HPV infection. It takes 10-15 years to develop cancer once infected with HPV. The vaccine has been out just 10 years now. We should soon see a decrease in cervical cancer diagnoses.
The vaccine produces close to 100% immunity.
Yes, 85%-95% of women have HPV. Meaning, that those who don't clear the virus on their own is still a large number. Yes, the HPV-4 vaccine protects against strains that cause about 70% of cervical cancer. The new HPV-9 protects against 90%. I find it shocking that anyone would just blow off 4000 annual deaths.
Why does every first-world country have a different vaccine schedule?
Why do different U.S. states have different vaccine schedules?
Why are some countries SUING the vaccine manufacturer (check out what Japan is doing)?
Why have some countries outright BANNED GMOs?
An excellent example of pseudo-scientific thinking. Find a few irrelevant idiosyncrasies, mix them in with false data, and use them as evidence of some unrelated theory.
The answer to three of your four questions is: because they are different governments made up of different people with different customs and backgrounds. The third question has no answer because it is a complex question fallacy... The country of Japan is not suing any vaccine manufacturers.
Why do different U.S. states have different speed limits? Different requirements for gun ownership? Different requirements for marriage and divorce? Why do the same vehicles sold in the EU and the USA have vastly different tow ratings?
As for GMOs, they are banned in some countries. But so are homosexuals, handguns, some electronics, and certain religions.
How have we as a society managed to produce educated people who are scared of vaccines and GMO food with no scientific basis for that fear but have no problem lighting up something with well documented risks
I'll let beliefs about vaccines alone, but concerning the cigarette smoking: Addiction and intelligence are not mutually exclusive. An awful lot of intelligent people are addicted to nicotine, drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc.
You should be asking yourself if what they believe is TRUE.
And that means going to the primary sources, not the media rants, fear mongering, pharmaceutical-sponsored studies.
It means understanding what a peer-review process is and how it works.
It means understanding that almost ALL medical article peer reviewers are paid consultants of pharmaceutical companies.
It means understanding that medical journals' revenue is mostly from drug ads.
It means that you need to understand how statistics are gathered, what the clinical trial information shows, what populations are being tested and the length of follow-up, and how that impacts the result of the studies.
It means understanding that the FDA does NOT, ever, do any studies on any drugs for safety or efficacy. They rely solely on what studies pharmaceutical companies provide (imagine that in law enforcement: "Oh, he said he didn't do it? Good enough, let him go ..."). So if 20 studies show the drug hurts people and 2 show it doesn't, guess what gets submitted to the FDA?
All of these are real problems in the world's medical research industry. Add to that the problems in obtaining funding. The fact that most researchers are forced to turn to private industry for grants leads to the problem where research often is biased to favor the industry writing the checks. The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists - Vox
But this doesn't mean vaccines are bad by default. Making that argument means that ALL current drugs are bad, because all current drugs are developed in the same way. I don't know if you or any friends or relatives take any regular medication. My dad takes drugs to manage his blood sugar (he's diabetic), and those drugs were developed using the same flawed research process used to create the latest vaccines. I take allergy medicine, developed using the same flawed process. Are you willing to forgo any and all modern drugs based on your vaccine beliefs?
One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is the blatant and unapologetic use of double standards.
Any drug you don't like is flawed because [reason]. But even though a drug you do like is affected by [same reason], that drug is OK because [double standard].
This doesn't just apply to the vaccine issue. Lots of people only eat "organic" foods becasue they don't like pesticides. Did you know that organic farmers can use pesticides (just different types), and often those "organic" pesticides are used in much higher doses than normal pesticides? Double standards combined with a bit of ignorance. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...l-agriculture/
Actually I was posing questions. According to Albert Einstein, an intelligent person can think about an idea. You know THINK? Reason. Seek out ALL evidence. Question authority. Learn. Identify facts. Identify propaganda. Identify TRUTH.
And because countries ban all sorts of things, then reasons and evidence for everything that is banned must be outright dismissed collectively without further inquiry? How did you come to THAT conclusion? Sounds "pseudoscientific" to me.
And per the moderator's request, can anyone define "pseudoscience"? Can anyone define "science"? Are you aware that we are at a most closeminded crossroads, where most intelligent thinkers are calling science a religion because it is blindly followed with no substantial inquiry?
For instance: HPV cures cancer ... but we won't know for at least 10 years ... but it cures cancer .... and was tested in teens for safety ... but it's OK for 9-year-olds .... it wasn't tested on them, but they will be fine... and boys can get the vaccine too, even though they DON'T GET CERVICAL CANCER ... sounds like perfectly sound science to me ... very well-researched and thought out, many years of follow-up data to prove conclusions ... SMH.
I am well aware regarding methods of organic farming. Don't assume I do or do not know something. That is profound ignorance on your part. Do your inquiry first before drawing a conclusion.
Actually I was posing questions. According to Albert Einstein, an intelligent person can think about an idea. You know THINK? Reason. Seek out ALL evidence. Question authority. Learn. Identify facts. Identify propaganda. Identify TRUTH.
The problem is that you are posing questions that have already been answered ad nauseum. Because of one "study" with falsified data linking one specific vaccine to autism (the "scientist" patented his own version of the vaccine just before publication), scientists all over the world conducted their own studies. Any scientist who could find a real link between the two would be world-famous. He would get rich off of speaking fees alone. However, none of them found any evidence whatsoever linking the MMR vaccine to autism. Absolutely. Zero. Evidence.
That's how science works. Any time there is a question, people all over the world try to answer it using the scientific method. Pseudoscience works by ignoring data and just basically making crap up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
And because countries ban all sorts of things, then reasons and evidence for everything that is banned must be outright dismissed collectively without further inquiry? How did you come to THAT conclusion? Sounds "pseudoscientific" to me.
Uhh... no, that's not what I said, and that was not my conclusion. You implied that, because some countries banned a particular item, maybe we should also ban that item. I was trying to point out why that was a stupid idea.
Of course we should continue with further inquiry. We should be continuously analyzing and re-analyzing the effects and safety of anything and everything. Seat belts, GMOs, e-cigarettes, vaccines, fast food, etc. But banning something just because someone else banned it is ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
And per the moderator's request, can anyone define "pseudoscience"? Can anyone define "science"? Are you aware that we are at a most closeminded crossroads, where most intelligent thinkers are calling science a religion because it is blindly followed with no substantial inquiry?
Definition:a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.
The term has been around since the mid 1800's and has a well-established definition. It's where someone or a group basically just makes stuff up and pretends that it's scientific to fool the masses, and generally used to make money. The guy who tried to blame autism on the MMR patented his own competing vaccine before publishing his false "study". The Organic industry is massive and pulls more money than the "evil" Monsanto.
Absolutely nothing in science involves "blindly following with no substantial inquiry". Everything in science is continuously questioned and re-questioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
For instance: HPV cures cancer ... but we won't know for at least 10 years ... but it cures cancer .... and was tested in teens for safety ... but it's OK for 9-year-olds .... it wasn't tested on them, but they will be fine... and boys can get the vaccine too, even though they DON'T GET CERVICAL CANCER ... sounds like perfectly sound science to me ... very well-researched and thought out, many years of follow-up data to prove conclusions ... SMH.
And no, men cannot get cervical cancer (duh). But they can get penile or anus cancer, as well as genital warts, which have also been linked to the HPV virus. While the physical shape of male vs. female genitals are vastly different, they all develop from the same group of cells and therefore share similar characteristics. Do your research.
People are generally not going to accept science or reality which would put themselves in a bad light.
For example, the couple with 8 children may not accept the damages of overpopulation, excess fossil fuel use and the tendency of children born to older parents to be autistic and/or have other problems.
In order to accept such things they would have to admit to themselves and others "I am/was a fool" and this is something humans will go to just about ANY lengths to avoid.
And do they look for - and find - excuses, anecdotes and coincidences which explain their experiences and worldview.
It's a classic piece of documentary making - one of the early History Channel shows about how we become humans showed a scene of some primitives walking and a mother/daughter getting hit by lightning. They both fell - apparently dead. One cavedude was grunting over them....and the daughter came back to life!
And so was born the leader, the priest, the puesdo-scientist and the politician.
I'll let beliefs about vaccines alone, but concerning the cigarette smoking: Addiction and intelligence are not mutually exclusive. An awful lot of intelligent people are addicted to nicotine, drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc.
The words addiction and disease have negative meanings in our language and culture - but who is to say they are "bad" in all cases?
For some reason we exalt those "addicted" to money, to power/fame/celebrity and even to killing (American Sniper, etc.).
Many of the most creative people in history - as you are alluding to - used substances of various kinds to enhance their art and lives. Steve Jobs called LSD one of the biggest influences in his life...
These words are often "value judgements" based on culture, tradition and/or out-of-date ideals. We might call someone who enjoys smoking dope, drinking beer or popping some pills a slacker...good for nothing. But if he starts selling Real Estate (joining MILLIONS of other RE pumpers), we'd say he was "productive". Or, if he raised money for nonprofits that spent most of their money....raising more money....we'd say he had a fine career.
I think flexibility in thought is perhaps the most important quality we can nurture. Things truly are different today and we have to come to grips with it. Instead of 10,000 people being needed to spot-weld car bodies in a factory, now it is done by robots with perhaps 1/100th of the number of humans. What are the rest supposed to do? Sell Real Estate or Copy Machines? Multi-level marketing?
I remember hearing a podcast about how France pays those who play music on the streets or in a Cafe a certain monthly stipend...because, in fact, such a person may be more valuable to society than someone trying to hustle another quick buck through selling Amway.
Anyway - being straight - IMHO, is way over-rated. My kids and grandkids...from the time they were able to, enjoyed spinning around, going on rides and similar things because it was an altered state.
Someday science will accept that the human mind desires such things...and that roller coasters, skydiving, and bungie jumping aren't the only ways to get there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
