You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #166: Your "unbiased" article states that studies find Merck vaccine safe. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-20-09 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #135
166. Your "unbiased" article states that studies find Merck vaccine safe.
Edited on Thu Aug-20-09 04:25 PM by Jim__
Your "unbiased" article was written by an AP Business Writer.

The article cited in the OP links to an editorial in JAMA written by Charlotte Haug, MD, PhD, MSc. She doesn't seem as convinced as the AP Business Writer that the vaccine is safe. A brief excerpt from her editorial:


The report by Rothman and Rothman13 demonstrates how the vaccine manufacturer funded educational programs sponsored by professional medical associations in the United States. The article illustrates how the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American College Health Association helped market the vaccine and influenced decisions about vaccine policy with the help of ready-made presentations, slide sets, e-mails, and letters. It is of course reasonable for professional medical associations to promote medical interventions they believe in. But did these associations provide members with unbiased educational material and balanced recommendations? Did they ensure that marketing strategies did not compromise clinical recommendations? These educational programs strongly promoting HPV vaccination began in 2006, more than a year before the trials with clinically important end points were published. How could anyone be so certain about the effect of the vaccine? This matters because the voices of experts such as the professional medical associations are especially important with a complex issue such as this.

In another article, Slade and colleagues14 from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US Food and Drug Administration describe the adverse events that occurred 2.5 years following the receipt of quadrivalent HPV vaccine that were reported through the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Even though most of the reported adverse events were not serious, there were some reports of hypersensitivity reactions including anaphylaxis, Guillain-Barr syndrome, transverse myelitis, pancreatitis, and venous thromboembolic events. VAERS is a passive, voluntary reporting system, and the authors call attention to its limitations. They point out that only systematic, prospective, controlled studies will be able to distinguish the true harmful effects of the HPV vaccine. These limitations work both ways: it is also difficult to conclude that a serious event is not caused by the vaccine.

Whether a risk is worth taking depends not only on the absolute risk, but on the relationship between the potential risk and the potential benefit. If the potential benefits are substantial, most individuals would be willing to accept the risks. But the net benefit of the HPV vaccine to a woman is uncertain. Even if persistently infected with HPV, a woman most likely will not develop cancer if she is regularly screened.15 So rationally she should be willing to accept only a small risk of harmful effects from the vaccine.


I'm curious as to how you decided so certainly which article was unbiased; and exactly what basis you had for calling the poster of the OP a liar, especially since all she did was cite a news report and link to the source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Gardisal vaccine: rate of serious adverse effects higher than rate of cervical cancer pnwmom  Aug-18-09 08:31 PM   #0 
  - I'm getting this vaccine tomorrow actually.  SemiCharmedQuark   Aug-18-09 08:33 PM   #1 
  - You're an intelligent adult, so that decision is yours to make, and now you  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 08:38 PM   #8 
     - Oh my god. You have kids?  chascarrillo   Aug-19-09 03:08 AM   #115 
        - Right. I'm illiterate, just like the editorial writer in the Journal of the AMA.  pnwmom   Aug-19-09 07:11 AM   #121 
        - I'm not about to question  FLDCVADem   Aug-19-09 06:24 PM   #128 
           - It's actually being prevented because in the vast majority of cases  pnwmom   Aug-19-09 10:28 PM   #130 
           - Actually, the disease *is* prevented through screening  northernlights   Aug-20-09 01:33 PM   #138 
              - Gardasil vaccinates against the viruses that cause 70% of cervical cancers.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-20-09 03:38 PM   #155 
                 - There is a link between HPV and cervical cancer.  LisaL   Aug-20-09 06:27 PM   #178 
                    - What % of women with HPV types 16 and 18 develop cervical cancer?  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-20-09 10:11 PM   #185 
        - So how's the pay there in the pharma industry? nt  Jakes Progress   Aug-20-09 02:40 PM   #145 
        - why in the world would you say such a thing?  AuntPatsy   Aug-21-09 03:42 PM   #200 
  - Merck for Merckans. They're testing it on us before they give it to some  valerief   Aug-18-09 08:33 PM   #2 
  - LOL. n/t  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 08:33 PM   #3 
  - hehehehe!  OmmmSweetOmmm   Aug-18-09 08:34 PM   #4 
  - More truth to that than you want to know  liberal N proud   Aug-18-09 08:36 PM   #6 
  - We share the same suspicions.  nc4bo   Aug-18-09 09:26 PM   #43 
  - Honestly? I am a bit skittish about every medicine that came out during w  KakistocracyHater   Aug-19-09 12:52 AM   #101 
  - I think there are always people who cannot tolerate vaccines.  tabatha   Aug-18-09 08:35 PM   #5 
  - Some vaccines are safer than others. The old DPT vaccine, for example,  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 08:40 PM   #10 
     - not all children. only girl children.  northernlights   Aug-20-09 01:39 PM   #139 
        - So that's your problem. mmmmmmkay.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-20-09 03:39 PM   #156 
           - it's one issue...and it's legitimate  northernlights   Aug-20-09 05:48 PM   #174 
              - Because it's not approved for use in boys or men yet.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-20-09 10:13 PM   #186 
                 - I'll believe it when I see it  northernlights   Aug-21-09 04:44 AM   #190 
  - So 6 people out of every 100,000 have a serious reaction? Wow that's scary, not.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 08:36 PM   #7 
  - Then you should feel exactly the same way about cervical cancer.  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 08:42 PM   #11 
  - You're right. What's six or seven thousand deaths per year? n/t  Cessna Invesco Palin   Aug-18-09 08:46 PM   #12 
  - Don't bother arguing with PwnMom; she's a die-hard anti-vacciner. (NT)  Tesha   Aug-20-09 05:29 PM   #173 
  - Almost eliminated, except the 3500 or so deaths per year in the US.  Liberal Veteran   Aug-18-09 08:47 PM   #13 
  - The rate of "serious adverse effects" is higher than  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 09:00 PM   #18 
  - Those serious adverse side effects like fainting.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 09:06 PM   #26 
     - Fainting isn't a serious side effect. Blood clots, seizures, deaths are. n/t  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 09:13 PM   #34 
        - But to date there have only been 39 deaths so not really.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 09:19 PM   #38 
           - Fainting wasn't considered a serious reaction. And your repeating it won't make it so.  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 09:22 PM   #41 
           - It is the most common adverse reaction though. Only 0.006% of people have a serious reaction.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 09:30 PM   #48 
           - Hello?  LisaL   Aug-18-09 10:54 PM   #88 
              - Who here is telling you to give it to your kids?  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 10:57 PM   #89 
                 - What are the long term studies of the rate of servical  LisaL   Aug-18-09 10:59 PM   #91 
                    - I'll tell you what here's how you spell cervical. That may help your research.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 11:27 PM   #93 
                       - Spelling isn't going to make a difference in what this vaccine does  LisaL   Aug-19-09 12:16 AM   #99 
  - This vaccine does not protect against all forms of cervical cancer  K8-EEE   Aug-18-09 09:06 PM   #27 
     - True. And annual pap smears are still required. nt  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 09:14 PM   #35 
        - It's not for everyone.  K8-EEE   Aug-18-09 10:37 PM   #84 
           - That's true. Lesbians have a very low rate of cervical cancer, among certain  pnwmom   Aug-19-09 07:23 AM   #123 
  - 32 deaths from the vaccine compared to 12,000 deaths from cervical cancer sorry it's not even close.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 09:05 PM   #24 
     - Where are you getting the 12,000 deaths?  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 09:12 PM   #32 
        - 4,000 deaths a year 2006-2009.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 09:18 PM   #37 
           - Deaths among older women, the vast majority of whom weren't getting  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 09:24 PM   #42 
              - Bringing up the 0.006% of serious adverse reactions doesn't really help your case.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 09:28 PM   #47 
                 - Some experts in the field think the risk is significant.  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 09:36 PM   #50 
                 - The statistics don't demonstrate that risk.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 09:39 PM   #52 
                 - Statistics aren't a great comfort to someone whose family already  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 09:46 PM   #55 
                    - And there it is.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 09:49 PM   #58 
                 - Wait are we talking about vaccines still? Or climate change? Or intelligent design?  Liberal Veteran   Aug-18-09 09:54 PM   #62 
                    - How about this:  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 09:57 PM   #66 
                       - or How about this: also from your OP  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 09:59 PM   #68 
                       - I don't have any problem with people who are informed about the risks and benefits  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 10:02 PM   #69 
                          - The risks are miniscule. I wouldn't push to mandate this vaccine.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 10:07 PM   #72 
                          - I don't think that people in public health should be pushing a particular vaccine  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 10:20 PM   #77 
                             - I didn't say they should be. I said I could understand why they might.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 10:22 PM   #78 
                          - Gov. Perry of Texas wanted to mandate it  Cresent City Kid   Aug-18-09 11:53 PM   #96 
                             - Yep. He tried. For girls entering sixth grade.  LisaL   Aug-19-09 12:46 AM   #100 
                       - So how many people have you treated for HPV and cervical cancer and/or vaccinated?  Liberal Veteran   Aug-18-09 10:05 PM   #71 
                          - I'm not telling anyone whether they should get vaccinated.  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 10:28 PM   #81 
                 - how many girls/women are there in the US? How many die of cervical cancer/yr?  Hannah Bell   Aug-19-09 01:17 AM   #109 
                    - Between 3000 and 4000 deaths a year.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-19-09 06:41 AM   #117 
                       - that's not percent incidence, dave. you're the one who said "12,000" until someone more informed  Hannah Bell   Aug-19-09 11:55 AM   #124 
                          - Sorry you are wrong. The 39 deaths were a total from 2006-2009 as was the 12,000.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-19-09 04:07 PM   #125 
                             - sorry, you are. not percent incidence, & not 12,000/yr.  Hannah Bell   Aug-20-09 02:15 AM   #133 
                                - I never said percent incidence. I never said 12,000 a year.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-20-09 01:07 PM   #136 
  - Dave, if your moniker is accurate I don't expect you'll ever have  tech3149   Aug-18-09 09:49 PM   #57 
     - And Gardisal doesn't save any money on pap smears because pap smears  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 09:54 PM   #63 
     - 772 serious adverse reactions out of 23 million doses.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 10:34 PM   #83 
  - My Goddaughter was vaccinated last year with no ill effects, thank God.  Morning Dew   Aug-18-09 08:39 PM   #9 
  - Unfortunately, trials don't always show the effects that will come out in the larger  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 08:48 PM   #14 
  - that makes sense - general population is less healthy  Morning Dew   Aug-18-09 08:56 PM   #15 
     - Yeah, the people in the doctor's office were alarmed, immediately calling  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 09:03 PM   #21 
  - The 6 people out of 100,000 with "serious" reactions like fainting.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 09:08 PM   #29 
     - Why do you keep saying that fainting is a serious reaction?  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 09:14 PM   #36 
        - It is the most common VAERS reported adverse event. 0.006% of people had serious reactions.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 09:22 PM   #40 
           - bad math.  Hannah Bell   Aug-19-09 01:48 AM   #113 
           - Thanks. Only 0.0035% of patients have a serious adverse reaction. My bad.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-19-09 04:12 PM   #126 
              - yes, you're bad. bad math. the rate of serious complications in *young girls" = higher than the  Hannah Bell   Aug-20-09 02:42 AM   #134 
                 - I love it when you talk dirty.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-20-09 01:08 PM   #137 
                 - Why do you assume that "regular paps" are affordable for all?  Lyric   Aug-20-09 03:28 PM   #151 
                    - wrong. the vaccine doesn't protect against all virus types that cause cervical cancer,  Hannah Bell   Aug-20-09 07:24 PM   #179 
                       - It protects against the virus strains that cause 70% of cervical cancers.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-21-09 07:08 AM   #191 
                          - which leaves 30%, plus idiopathic causes, which is why it doesn't obviate the need  Hannah Bell   Aug-21-09 11:57 AM   #197 
                             - And that is good advice.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-21-09 03:29 PM   #198 
                                - which means getting vaccinated doesn't impact the cost of pap smears;  Hannah Bell   Aug-21-09 06:28 PM   #201 
           - don't know where you're coming up with your #s, but  northernlights   Aug-20-09 01:59 PM   #140 
              - There have been 772 severe adverse reactions out of 24 million doses.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-20-09 03:28 PM   #150 
                 - I get 3.21 x 10^-5  northernlights   Aug-20-09 04:19 PM   #164 
                    - Those numbers are extremely close to the other estimates in the OP.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-20-09 04:24 PM   #167 
                       - ok, I got it. Article downloaded incorrectly on my system...  northernlights   Aug-20-09 04:44 PM   #169 
                       - actually I did a typo somewhere above  northernlights   Aug-20-09 05:59 PM   #175 
                          - Shit happens.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-20-09 10:04 PM   #182 
  - I had already told my pediatrician "thanks but no thanks" on this one. My daughter can decide to  Happyhippychick   Aug-18-09 08:57 PM   #16 
  - Since it doesn't obviate the need for yearly pap smears, I agree.  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 09:04 PM   #23 
  - K  emilyg   Aug-18-09 09:00 PM   #17 
  - Merck was also lobbying for a mandate too.  PM Martin   Aug-18-09 09:02 PM   #19 
  - Up until the age of about 25, young women's own bodies spontaneously rid themselves of this virus  KittyWampus   Aug-18-09 09:03 PM   #20 
  - "Up until the age of about 25, young women's own bodies spontaneously rid themselves of this virus"  foo_bar   Aug-19-09 12:07 AM   #97 
  - Any time ANY vac is brought up in a negative way here a DU  K8-EEE   Aug-18-09 09:04 PM   #22 
  - I'm surprised it's taken them this long. n/t  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 09:05 PM   #25 
  - Someone has to counter the anti-science idiocy.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 09:07 PM   #28 
     - I don't think the OP is an idiot or the post was "idiocy"  K8-EEE   Aug-18-09 09:08 PM   #30 
     - Why is that not surprising?  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 09:09 PM   #31 
     - Oh, yes, from anti-science idiots like Diane Harper, the Director of  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 09:21 PM   #39 
     - No one is dismissing the 0.006% of patients that have serious reactions.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 09:27 PM   #46 
        - You say it's a no-brainer decision. I prefer to use my brain.  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 09:34 PM   #49 
           - So a couple of doctors disagree with what is widely accepted?  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 09:37 PM   #51 
              - From the OP: "The overwhelming concensus regarding Gardasil use  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 09:40 PM   #53 
              - Here is another little gem from the OP.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 09:49 PM   #56 
              - Did you know that up to 20% of people have a genetic risk for blood clots  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 09:52 PM   #60 
                 - "There are 772 serious problems identified in 23 million doses of vaccine,"....  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 09:56 PM   #65 
                 - Adverse effects are as likely to be under-reported by doctors as they are  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 10:10 PM   #74 
                    - Take care of yourself.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 10:15 PM   #76 
                       - Thank you, Dave.  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 10:25 PM   #79 
                          - My apologies again.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 10:41 PM   #85 
                             - No need. Most of us DUers, I suspect, would get along fine if we met person  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 11:01 PM   #92 
                 - I would like to see more research as well.  moriah   Aug-18-09 10:27 PM   #80 
              - Another quote from the OP Dr. Kevin Ault, associate professor of Gynecology and Obstetrics at Emory  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 09:55 PM   #64 
                 - The editorial in the JAMA that accompanied the journal article  pnwmom   Aug-19-09 01:04 AM   #104 
                    - If only everyone got screened every year.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-19-09 06:40 AM   #116 
                       - If only we had universal health care.  pnwmom   Aug-19-09 07:08 AM   #120 
              - So, to sum up your position  Newshues   Aug-18-09 10:05 PM   #70 
                 - So to sum up your position the 4,000 deaths a year from cervical cancer don't matter?  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 10:11 PM   #75 
                    - The makers of this vaccine don't even claim you won't get  LisaL   Aug-18-09 10:57 PM   #90 
                    - Those deaths could be prevented by fully funding pap smears for women  pnwmom   Aug-19-09 01:16 AM   #108 
                    - No we're talking. There is a rational and likely cost effective alternative...  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-19-09 06:44 AM   #118 
                    - if the deaths didn't matter I wouldn't have said "pap smear"  Newshues   Aug-19-09 06:19 PM   #127 
                       - I ignore people who pretend I said something I didn't say.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-20-09 03:30 PM   #152 
                          - Well, here's what you said  Newshues   Aug-20-09 09:40 PM   #180 
                             - and here's what you said!  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-20-09 10:02 PM   #181 
     - I'm glad you trust Big Pharma with your daughter's life.  aquart   Aug-18-09 09:26 PM   #44 
     - So you support not giving any vaccine till age 18?  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 09:44 PM   #54 
        - There is a huge difference between giving a minor a vaccine for a condition  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 09:49 PM   #59 
           - I didn't know kids were waiting till adulthood to have sex now. Nice to know.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 09:58 PM   #67 
              - Most kids aren't having sex at age 9 or even 11. And by the time they're 15 or  pnwmom   Aug-18-09 10:30 PM   #82 
     - excuse me, but I am a science student  northernlights   Aug-20-09 02:05 PM   #141 
        - 772 severe reactions out of 24 million doses. Pretty easy to understand.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-20-09 03:33 PM   #153 
           - I didn't have the page that referred to 772 severe reactions of 24m doses  northernlights   Aug-20-09 06:05 PM   #176 
              - I don't know.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-20-09 10:05 PM   #183 
                 - yer just jealous  northernlights   Aug-21-09 08:05 AM   #194 
                    - Not really.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-21-09 11:46 AM   #196 
  - ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##  DU GrovelBot   Aug-18-09 09:12 PM   #33 
  - Salt, meet Old Wound.  leeroysphitz   Aug-18-09 09:27 PM   #45 
  - My daughter got it  udbcrzy2   Aug-18-09 09:52 PM   #61 
  - she will still need annual pap smears  northernlights   Aug-20-09 02:13 PM   #142 
  - I want more information on the deaths/strokes/blood clots.  moriah   Aug-18-09 10:08 PM   #73 
  - 90% of the women who developed blood clots had other risk factors according to JAMA.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-18-09 11:36 PM   #94 
     - Right. That's a reason there's a need for more research.  pnwmom   Aug-19-09 01:21 AM   #110 
        - Absolutely. I'm all for additional testing.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-19-09 06:47 AM   #119 
  - Fucking monkey puss witch doctor medicine!  L0oniX   Aug-18-09 10:42 PM   #86 
  - Fucking monkey puss witch doctor medicine!  L0oniX   Aug-18-09 10:43 PM   #87 
  - That is not even possible.  alarimer   Aug-18-09 11:41 PM   #95 
  - WTF is your problem?  LisaL   Aug-19-09 12:11 AM   #98 
  - No vaccine is 100% effective.  SemiCharmedQuark   Aug-19-09 01:01 AM   #103 
     - How effective is Gardasil? Not a 100 %? So how much?  LisaL   Aug-19-09 01:05 AM   #105 
     - "herd immunity" doesn't apply here AT ALL  northernlights   Aug-20-09 02:26 PM   #143 
        - I was actually going on a tengent there about vaccines in general, not Gardasil specifically.  SemiCharmedQuark   Aug-20-09 03:51 PM   #158 
           - but it's a tangent that doesn't support your correct point that no vaccine is 100% effective  northernlights   Aug-20-09 04:04 PM   #161 
              - "It's not 100% effective" can be used against ANY vaccine.  SemiCharmedQuark   Aug-20-09 04:13 PM   #163 
                 - I'm not saying a caveat is an admission a vaccine does not work  northernlights   Aug-20-09 04:41 PM   #168 
  - Tell that to the editorial writer of the Journal of the American Medical Association,  pnwmom   Aug-19-09 01:06 AM   #106 
  - I'm not anti-vaccine at all. But I am pro informed consent. n/t  pnwmom   Aug-19-09 01:25 AM   #111 
  - Recommend  TexasObserver   Aug-19-09 12:53 AM   #102 
  - But what does this mean for the death panels?  Hippo_Tron   Aug-19-09 01:09 AM   #107 
  - How is the drug "linked to 32 unconfirmed deaths?"  Nevernose   Aug-19-09 01:27 AM   #112 
  - It'd be very hard to confirm something like that.  LisaL   Aug-19-09 02:13 AM   #114 
  - They are unconfirmed, according to the articles, because Merck doesn't  pnwmom   Aug-19-09 07:17 AM   #122 
     - So you're saying Merck did the autopsies of these people that died?  HiFructosePronSyrup   Aug-19-09 06:28 PM   #129 
     - I don't think the poster is saying Merck did the autopsies  northernlights   Aug-20-09 02:34 PM   #144 
        - You realize that's absurd, right?  HiFructosePronSyrup   Aug-20-09 02:40 PM   #146 
        - I was missing 2 pages of the article, yet was pretty darn close.  northernlights   Aug-20-09 05:19 PM   #172 
        - The reports went to VAERS. Did you even read the article?  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-20-09 03:41 PM   #157 
           - yes, I read the article  northernlights   Aug-20-09 04:51 PM   #170 
     - It's hysterical when one suggests a link between the vaccine and illness  Nevernose   Aug-20-09 01:30 AM   #132 
  - I'm not anti-vaccine and I chose not to get this shot  rebecca_herman   Aug-20-09 12:57 AM   #131 
  - LIAR! Also, for an unbiased article  dropkickpa   Aug-20-09 03:26 AM   #135 
  - apparently the same planet as the research director cited here:  northernlights   Aug-20-09 02:55 PM   #148 
  - Or this doctor from the OP  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-20-09 03:37 PM   #154 
     - that does not make the OP a liar  northernlights   Aug-20-09 04:11 PM   #162 
        - I didn't call anyone a liar and yes those numbers are from the article.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-20-09 04:22 PM   #165 
           - the post I was responding to called the OP a LIAR  northernlights   Aug-20-09 04:59 PM   #171 
              - I'm all for further study.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-20-09 10:09 PM   #184 
  - Your "unbiased" article states that studies find Merck vaccine safe.  Jim__   Aug-20-09 04:24 PM   #166 
     - The OP only posts that which supports her anti-vax viewpoint  dropkickpa   Aug-21-09 02:00 AM   #188 
        - "The lie that the vaccine has harmed more women than have gotten cervical cancer"  Jim__   Aug-21-09 07:50 AM   #193 
  - This was easy to decide on.  Jakes Progress   Aug-20-09 02:49 PM   #147 
  - Phil Plait of Discover Magazine is calling bullshit on the spin of this one...  DRoseDARs   Aug-20-09 03:21 PM   #149 
  - so who is Phil Plait?  northernlights   Aug-20-09 03:51 PM   #159 
     - Perhaps try clicking through the links he provided throughout his blog entry?  DRoseDARs   Aug-21-09 12:50 AM   #187 
        - he made the claims  northernlights   Aug-21-09 04:41 AM   #189 
           - OK, now I know you're being dishonest. He provided links to his information...  DRoseDARs   Aug-21-09 07:13 AM   #192 
              - I most certainly am not being dishonest. I scanned the linked blog  northernlights   Aug-21-09 08:14 AM   #195 
  - ABC the network of John Stossel- misinforming gullible Americans again  depakid   Aug-20-09 04:02 PM   #160 
  - Aussie doe make good scientists...but are also totally nuts  northernlights   Aug-20-09 06:19 PM   #177 
  - How dare you?  Aragorn   Aug-21-09 03:39 PM   #199 
  - Yet another clueless American  depakid   Aug-22-09 03:51 AM   #202 
  - I am just fucking blown away that any rational person would have a child  NoSheep   Aug-22-09 03:57 AM   #203 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC