You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: HPV Vaccine Risks/Damage in Japan: Don’t be a Bigot. Let’s Have a Conversation.
Denialism is not the same as skepticism. You are engaging in denialism of science and vaccines. You are part of the problem.
The research indicates the HPV vaccine is safe, the data is what it is. Regardless of anyone's anecdotal assessment.
Denialism is not the same as skepticism. True.
As for the rest of your comment:
Claim. (non-substantiated)
Claim. (non-substantiated)
Claim. (non-substantiated).
You could have defended this claim by referencing studies or calling into question the data, methodologies, etc, of the studies/arguments referenced in this post.
You failed to do so.
Just because I didn't doesn't mean I can't.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21198715/
Your whole stance is unsubstantiated by the actual research. So your high horse has some short legs.
There are a plethora of publications one could dig into. The data just is what it is. No amount of anecdotal claims can change it either.
People say a lot of stuff. Most of it is probably true in their own minds, but not true in reality.
There’s no need to get offended here man, or to start throwing around insults about someone’s high horse.
If you feel like coming here and telling these girls that can’t move anymore they’re full of shit, be my guest.
And still, you’ve presented one study which does not refute my simple claim that more research in the area of HPV vaccine safety would be beneficial.
This is literally the most anti-science position anyone could take. I won’t be responding anymore, but thanks for reading.
Lol, you started with the insult buddy. Not me :) again you don't have legs to stand on. You even edited your comment to remove it, which is all the more damning that you know what you did.
I'm not the one emotionally invested here. It's clear based on your replies that you however are very much so.
Then you follow with projection about me having an anti science position. No amount of research can ever suffice on vaccines and that is the issue. People will keep chasing ghosts.
I would gladly tell the people that they are wrong, no problem with it at all.
I'm not saying they dont have health issues, just that those issues are seemingly derived from something else. What that is, I don't know.
For anyone reading this, he’s correct. I did, in my initial response, say “you sound like a fool.”
This was after being told, laughably, from this user’s very first comment, in exactly the sense of bigotry this post addresses, “you are part of the problem.”
I see that as a personal insult, but it’s really not a big deal, and typical of this type of comment.
Anyway, that’s that, for what it’s worth, to those reading this.
Nope, it's not an insult. I am a part of the problem on many issues. That just is just my opinion and assessment of your stance.
I agree. I find it odd you admit it, but your febrile effort to prevent independent and careful study of the issue is exactly what you say it is: part of the problem.
Most of the problem isn't shills like you, agitating against rational science, and for covering up the many injuries caused by unaccountable profiteers pushing toxic swill into the veins of innocent, beloved chidren, it's the corruption and venal profiteering itself.
Lol, what a bunch of nonsense. Go wash your mouth out with soap child.
Did you ever spend anytime researching the publisher and institution of your link above? There are many hands in the kiddy. Don't you think big Pharma has influence over these institutions and their findings? Hard to keep receiving that grant money if the findings counter the hand that feeds them. It is one big machine which turns the other cheek ever so slightly down through the system until it snowballs into a real life threatening situation for the masses. I would look into them a little closer before posting a link to a study which may or may not be entirely ethical or accurate. I think @kafkanarchy84 is just simply making the point that we need to seriously hold accountable even the highest authorities.
No
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't make your paranoia true. Do you have any proof? No? Okay then. Let me know when there is any.
Wow, no more conversation with you. As per the topic of this post. Let's just have a conversation. Proof of what? I asked you some simple questions. You respond by saying I'm paranoid. This is an immature and defensive position even feels combative via this platform. I never claimed to have any proof of anything. To clarify my position, we shouldn't trust any information anywhere anymore in this world unless we are experts and did the research ourselves. The truth doesn't matter any more. People just want to survive. The value systems of common individuals have been destroyed. The researcher who may value their entire life's work; or let's just say they have a family; dependent upon that grant money so that they can advance their career or put food on the table may just turn the other way for the sake of self preservation. The stakes are too high and very few individuals are going to do the right thing when it comes before basic self preservation. That means it is up to us to question everything. It doesn't lend a hand at all to delusions of paranoia. This platform of Steemit is a perfect tool for people to have intelligent conversations and crowd source the truth. Don't get upset when someone challenges your position. You should first question yourself and then challenge yourself to grow. Good for you if you don't think big Pharma has any influence. You can choose to go on living with the blinders on. In the real world, the people who sit on the board of directors for these institutions tend to have worked for the major corporations which stand to profit from selling you the lie that these things are safe. Many of them have vested interests through stocks, profit sharing. etc. Clear conflicts of interest. Many of them have even served in political positions and with lawmaking authority. Big Pharma is one of the largest lobbyist groups in the U.S.A. I am pretty sure they spent a dollar or two getting their influence over any votes. I hope you have a nice day...
You are the one who is upset not me. Whether or not pharma lobbies the gvt (they do) has no bearing on the validity of information in scholastic publications. You are accusing the data of being fabricated and to that I suggest you are paranoid.
Seriously, how old are you? Do you have no social skills?
I could ask the same of you.
I'm kind of sitting with @justtryme90 on this in so far as you have used "claim . (non-substantiated)" as a response around the research, yet that is what is being called for. I read the Guardian article as well,and the girls seem legitimately ill (which is very sad and unfortunate for anyone to be afflicted with any debilitating illness), however, the link to the cause being the vaccine is a "claim. (non-substantiated)".
If the call is for more research around the vaccine, and neither the government or the researchers can be trusted then who's going to do the research?
As for Wakefield, no one could reproduce his data, it's one of the tenants of research. Reproducibility.
Science journals are still under pressure and have suffered from increased retractions as the pace of information and the increase in the amount of information has grown. It's not an excuse for shitty and obtuse or compromised research methodology.
Reproducibility and 3rd party peer review and substantiation is the only way I see to trust research data.
Is that what you are calling for?
I’m not sure I said the issue has been solved, one way or the other. I called for more research, as do many other studies, and many medical professionals, regarding the HPV vaccine. Your claim that I made such a claim is incorrect. If I did, please show me where.
Well. Objective, disinterested third parties are the only way legitimate scientific research is done.
As you say:
Yes, that is what I am calling for. It’s also already being done, but is largely ignored.
What is interesting to me is that a self-proclaimed research scientist like @justtryme90’s first reaction to my post is not to examine the data and/or studies I’ve linked to, but to boldly proclaim that I am in denial and “part of the problem.”
This is a big red flag. Research is done a certain way, and making broad claims as he has done calls into question, for me, the real depth of his understanding of science and the scientific method.
I appreciate your comment, @jasonbu. Thanks.
Yup, I just want to see that the tables are evenely stacked and that the call for substantiation comes from both sides. I'll leave it at that. I did go back through your post and you are correct you never said anything linking the illness to vaccines (I stand corrected).