U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-04-2012, 01:57 PM
 
Location: Hyrule
8,401 posts, read 9,567,345 times
Reputation: 7421

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by eastwesteastagain View Post
I do not understand why you are making this a "my reasoning, your reasoning" thing. I am not trying to argue, let alone argue with you. A database of reported side effects that may or may not have anything to do with the vaccine (requiring investigation by credible parties to establish some type of pattern, let alone correlation, let alone causation) is NOT science at its best. It is anecdotal data until a relationship has been demonstrated. I could care less what you decide. But when you call non-science science, I am going to call you out on it.

Anecdotal evidence can be the early warning that a scientific theory has a problem. A smart scientist would explore further to discover what must be going on, to find the scientific evidence that proves what the anecdotal evidence hints at. If it is invalid so be it but we don't know yet. I'm waiting to see if it is.

You can find historical examples of serendipity that shows the importance of anecdotal evidence through out medical books, internet, etc. You can look through them for an anecdotal example of the importance of anecdotal evidence. It's been useful in biology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, even pharmacology. I don't take it lightly, or sell it short. It was of great importance in my science classes.

Anecdotal evidence definitely has a part in science. I can and will base my decision on all evidence regarding it, I won't be as selective or close minded as to leave anything out. You obviously don't agree and that's up to you but I wouldn't sell Anecdotal evidence short. It turns into a lot more scientific data than you let on. You can dismiss it all as such but I won't.

A lot of hear says turn into a study, then evidence. We will have to agree to disagree again.

 
Old 02-04-2012, 02:05 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
3,388 posts, read 3,231,658 times
Reputation: 2387
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
Anecdotal evidence can be the early warning that a scientific theory has a problem. A smart scientist would explore further to discover what must be going on, to find the scientific evidence that proves what the anecdotal evidence hints at. If it is invalid so be it but we don't know yet. I'm waiting to see if it is.

You can find historical examples of serendipity that shows the importance of anecdotal evidence through out medical books, internet, etc. You can look through them for an anecdotal example of the importance of anecdotal evidence. It's been useful in biology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, even pharmacology. I don't take it lightly, or sell it short. It was of great importance in my science classes.

Anecdotal evidence definitely has a part in science. I can and will base my decision on all evidence regarding it, I won't be as selective or close minded as to leave anything out. You obviously don't agree and that's up to you but I wouldn't sell Anecdotal evidence short. It turns into a lot more scientific data than you let on. You can dismiss it all as such but I won't.

A lot of hear says turn into a study, then evidence. We will have to agree to disagree again.
There is a difference between anecdotal evidence and systematic observation. That is not debatable. You will be hard pressed to find a scientist who says they hold equal weight in scientific inquiry.

From your post, hearsay can turn into a line of study which can then turn into evidence that supports or does not support your hypothesis. That does not make hearsay, unevaluated, evidence.

Regarding all other points, I am happy to agree to disagree.

Last edited by eastwesteastagain; 02-04-2012 at 03:00 PM..
 
Old 02-04-2012, 03:02 PM
 
Location: Hyrule
8,401 posts, read 9,567,345 times
Reputation: 7421
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastwesteastagain View Post
There is a difference between anecdotal evidence and systematic observation. That is not debatable. You will be hard pressed to find a scientist who says they hold equal weight in scientific inquiry.
I said part of. A lot of studies start with Anecdotal evidence. So I do pay attention to the amount and the symptoms reported. It' hasn't been that long. I'm still not comfortable with getting it for my son regardless if some people on a thread think I'm full of anecdotal nonsense or not.
 
Old 02-04-2012, 03:09 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
3,388 posts, read 3,231,658 times
Reputation: 2387
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
I said part of. A lot of studies start with Anecdotal evidence. So I do pay attention to the amount and the symptoms reported. It' hasn't been that long. I'm still not comfortable with getting it for my son regardless if some people on a thread think I'm full of anecdotal nonsense or not.
Again, I have no problem with there not being enough longitudinal evidence for you to feel comfortable to make a decision. If you re-read my earlier post, I said I'm not making a decision until my kids are old enough and I can evaluate the longitudinal studies at that time.

I'm sorry but no matter how you spin it, anecdotal evidence is just that until subjected to scientific inquiry. I don't care what decision you make, again, but I do care if you present it as the weight of science supporting your choice when you are admittedly giving a lot of weight to anecdotes. To sum up, decide whatever you want, but present it as what it is: waiting on more longitudinal evidence and using current anecdotes.
 
Old 02-04-2012, 04:33 PM
 
Location: Hyrule
8,401 posts, read 9,567,345 times
Reputation: 7421
[quote=eastwesteastagain;22846612]Again, I have no problem with there not being enough longitudinal evidence for you to feel comfortable to make a decision.



Great! I'm glad we agree on something. I don't have a problem with it either.
 
Old 02-04-2012, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
3,388 posts, read 3,231,658 times
Reputation: 2387
[quote=PoppySead;22847434]
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastwesteastagain View Post
Again, I have no problem with there not being enough longitudinal evidence for you to feel comfortable to make a decision.



Great! I'm glad we agree on something. I don't have a problem with it either.
Okay. Same thing I've said across several posts now, but I'm glad it's resolved to your satisfaction.
 
Old 02-04-2012, 06:33 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,579 posts, read 26,222,559 times
Reputation: 26633
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
Is this really about you needing us to care? What would your experience count for exactly?
Nobody on here has a lack of compassion for someone who was ill, we all care but people who die from a vaccine or get seriously hurt don't even have acknowledgment that it could be caused by the vaccine. There is nobody to sue, see or talk to about it. The drug company won't pay for a funeral, hospital costs, not a damn thing. You can try and sue but......well you laughed at me when I even considered paying attention to those silly people.

Imagine if you got your healthy happy kid a shot for something that you aren't even sure will work and they were dead a week later? With no cause attached. Just imagine the guilt, how could you continue living with that? And you knew before that shot that she was a happy, healthy kid? Give parents a break a minute will ya. It's a very hard decision to make.

You aren't the poster child for the hpv vaccine. There can't be one yet, nobody knows if the lack of these 4 types of hpv will reduce the number of cervical cancer cases down the road. Or if this shot will really prevent hpv or how long it will if it does. And, let's not forget that viruses change to live. This shot could possibly make a more potent form of hpv come about, one that is more effective in giving you cervical cancer. Without knowing this yet how hard a decision do you think this should be for a parent? No biggy? I mean are you really saying "look at me" "I'm why you should get the shot?" If you are you are willing to take a lot of responsibility on for other peoples kids that I'm not willing to do.

It doesn't mean people don't wish you could have prevented it. People like me just don't know if it's worth their kid getting hurt or killed right now by taking a leap of faith that this shot will cure anything.

I think people would care if my kid died, feel bad for me, but they wouldn't accept them being poster children for not getting it. If I came back and said my kids were hurt or killed after this shot I'm sure you would all say that it was my imagination. I have no illusions about that but I don't think they would excuse it for collateral damage. That's ridiculous assumption. I hope you are smart enough and don't take that comment seriously.

Everyone has sympathy for anyone who has suffered from any serious illness. Including people who aren't sure they will get the vaccine for their kids. Let's not cloud the thread with it.
Vaccines do not cure. They prevent.

After all this, the fact is that your perception of the risk that your child will die or be seriously injured by the vaccine is based on inaccurate information.

What we are trying to get across to you is that your fears about the vaccine are unfounded.

Do you get Pap smears? Do you believe Pap smears work?

The science that says the vaccine will prevent cancers is the same science that makes Pap smears work.

Pap smears detect dysplasia (CIN). Most gynecologists now offer HPV testing on the same sample that is collected for the Pap smear, because HPV causes dysplasia, which over a period of time can become cancer. If they find a patient carries a high risk HPV type, they know she has to be monitored carefully.

The HPV vaccine is almost 100% effective in preventing dysplasia due to the strains in the vaccine.

If you find dysplasia with a Pap smear and treat it, you can prevent cervical cancer.

If you prevent HPV infection with the vaccine, you prevent the dysplasia, you never have an abnormal Pap smear, and you do not get cancer.

If you believe that Pap smears work, then you have to believe that the vaccines will prevent cancer. You cannot believe in the Pap smear and not believe the vaccine is effective.

So, yes, we do know the vaccine prevents HPV, we do know it prevents dysplasia, and we do know it will prevent cancer.

Here is a summary of the results of the studies showing that the vaccine does prevent HPV infections and dysplasia. If you cannot read and interpret the information in the link, I would suggest that you print it out, take it to your gynecologist, and have him or her explain it to you.

Until you can understand it, you really are not making an informed decision about the vaccine.

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Biologi.../ucm111274.pdf

There is no reason to suspect that the HPV vaccine will cause a "more potent form of HPV to come about." HPV is a virus, not a bacteria. Gardasil is a vaccine, not an antibiotic. A vaccine causes the body's own immune system to kill the virus. It does not do anything to the virus itself. A vaccine does not cause any genetic alteration in the wild virus. All it does is prime the immune system to recognize the virus and get rid of it before it can get into the tissue and cause cellular changes that become cancers.

The only way you can fear that the vaccine will harm or kill your child is by reading internet stories from people who claim their children were harmed by the vaccine. After tens of millions of doses of the vaccine have been administered, it should be clear by now whether these illnesses were caused by the vaccine. It is clear that they are not. Ultimately, the only link between the vaccine and the illness is that the vaccine came first and the illness came second. That does not mean the vaccine caused the illness.

You are free to decide not to vaccinate your children. However, you are not basing that decision on facts. You are basing it on unsubstantiated internet stories.

By the way, there is a program for people who have truly suffered complications from vaccines. You do not have to sue anyone. You file a claim. If the injury is determined to be caused by the vaccine, you are awarded compensation.

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
 
Old 02-04-2012, 07:00 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,579 posts, read 26,222,559 times
Reputation: 26633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
You count among the statistics as do I. I'm in the 5% and the subset of the 5% who had an issue that was caught early enough to treat an cure. I'm there because, from the time I was 14, my mom made sure I had regular pap smears. I was in the habit of seeing my doctor regularly. It's a good thing. Had I skipped my pap smear at 19, I might not be here.

The fact remains that for the vast majority of people this virus will not cause an issue either because they won't get it or they will be able to fight it off. Of those who will have an issue, the vast majority are treatable if caught early during a routine pap smear. This is not a vaccination where herd immunity helps the entire community. It's an individual decision. IMO, there are too many risks of getting this vaccine for a minute possibility it might help years from now.

Even if my girls are destined to die of cervical cancer, how many more years will they have if they would be destined to die from the vaccine? I choose one less (make that two) teenaged girls dying or with neurological issues that suddenly appear after getting the vaccine and then we're supposed to believe there is no relationship between the vaccine and the onset of the issue or death.

What I find really funny is that I've used this same argument on three doctors and all three had the same response....dead silence and the issue was dropped. Not one of them tried to argue with me that this, particular, vaccine is worth the risk. The odds of having an issue because you contracted HPV are low and the transmission of HPV can be stopped other ways. This is NOT a vaccine like measles or mumps or polio where there is a high liklihood of serious issues if the herd is not vaccinated. This is a vaccine for a sexually transmitted virus that is of questionable efficacy. There are other ways to protect against sexually transmitted bugs that don't carry the risk of death or neurological issues.

The risk factors for cervical cancer are: A compromised immune system, age (occurs most frequently in women over 40) and having had multiple sexual partners. While almost all women who develop cervical cancer have HPV, most women who have HPV don't develop cervical cancer. This vaccine is NOT a cervical cancer vaccine!!! It's a vaccine for a virus that is believed to cause about 70% of cervical cancers BUT having the virus itself does not mean you'll get cervical cancer not does having the vaccine mean you won't. I, for one, am waiting for some longitudinal data on this one. In the meantime, I will teach my daughters that there are risks to sleeping around and that if they choose do do so anyway, they should protect themselves. What many are missing here is that the spread of HPV is preventable like any other STD.
Pap smears are not perfect. There are false negative smears. Usually this is not a problem, because the next smear will catch the abnormality in time.

The goal of a Pap smear is not to diagnose cancer, it is to diagnose the precancerous condition called dysplasia.

The irony is that you obviously believe in Pap smears, but you refuse to believe that it is the science behind Pap smears that shows how the HPV vaccine will prevent cancer.

It is a vaccine that will prevent cancer.

The vaccine will also contribute to herd immunity. The fewer people who are infected, the fewer the opportunities for other people to be infected.

You are sadly mistaken if you think condoms will prevent all transmission of HPV. Condoms may provide some protection to the cervix and vagina. They will not protect the surrounding skin. Condoms help, they are not 100% effective. They do sometimes slip or tear.

Despite the tens of millions of doses of HPV vaccines that have been given worldwide, there is no evidence that they cause neurological disease. If you believe that, it is only because you place more faith in unsubstantiated internet stories than you do objective evaluations of the vaccine.

It is the risks that are "minute". The benefit is tremendous.

Please print this out, take it to your gynecologist, and have him or her explain it to you. If you do not understand it, you are not making a truly informed decision about the vaccine.

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Biologi.../ucm111274.pdf

If doctors have not pursued the vaccine with you, I suspect it is because they lack the time and energy to do it, since you are convinced your internet sources are more authoritative than the science behind the vaccine.
 
Old 02-04-2012, 07:08 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,579 posts, read 26,222,559 times
Reputation: 26633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
Given the amount of money that has been sunk into this venture and the amount to be made, the jury is still out. It will be interesting to see if this vaccine is still being pushed when competition among manufactures drives the price down. Time will also tell if it actually works. Given that most cervical cancers occur in women over 40 and they are recommending vaccinating 12 year olds, the jury will be out for a few decades on this one. I feel like they have marketed this prematurely. That being the case, we're choosing to wait and see. Even if I'm wrong, the odds have it my dd's will suffer no ill effect from that decision. And who knows, at the rate that cancer treatments are being developed, they may cure cervical cancer before the 12 year olds in this experiment getting the shots today even reach 40.
You have already told us you had a significant abnormality at age 19. The women who get dysplasia are in their prime childbearing years. Some of them will have fertility issues related to cervical biopsies, including the biggest cervical biopsy: hysterectomy.

You have blinders on when you you just mention cervical cancer. HPV also causes vaginal, vulvar, anal. and throat cancer. Pap smears are not as good at picking up vaginal abnormalities as they are cervical.

Cervical cancer can be cured. It may involve radical surgery, chemo, and radiation therapy.

Or you can take the vaccine and greatly reduce the risk of needing that treatment.

Prevention is better than cure.

HPV vaccine is no longer experimental.
 
Old 02-04-2012, 07:20 PM
 
Location: Geneva, IL
12,976 posts, read 11,815,244 times
Reputation: 14681
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
HPV also causes vaginal, vulvar, anal. and throat cancer. Pap smears are not as good at picking up vaginal abnormalities as they are cervical.
That reminds me, many years ago I took care of a woman recovering from a total vaginectomy. Just an awful surgery, and a horrible situation.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top