A way to stop the Gardasil threads, maybe.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

I have noticed after reading about 50 Gardasil threads a common link that seems to end them. Ask the anti-vx crew what their medical credentials are, suddenly they are unable to respond to that question and quite rapidly the thread seems to die. Sometimes a vague answer is given, like I worked in a research hospital. When asked in what capacity they worked in a research hospital, suddenly the poster seems unable to respond. Maybe the asking of that question reminds them of the anti-vaccine research experiment they were performing and they simply rush back to their important work. I'm not sure what is truly happening but it does seem to be a thread kill.

David

[beam me up scottie]

1. Thank you.

I have been noticing the same thing for years.

[KittyWampus]

3. appeal to authority, not a way to win a debate.

[Orrex]

46. Very true, and Appeal to Authority is the only tool in the anti-vaxer's tool box

It's high time that they abandoned it as a fallacy.

[KittyWampus]

66. you must not have read the opening post. Typical.

[Orrex]

68. And you have not understood it. Even more typical.

What you're not understanding is that the anti-vaxers' beloved Appeal to Authority fails because they appeal to dubious or unqualified authorities. Chiropractors dispensing anti-vax wisdom, for instance. Or holistic nutritionists declaring that proper diet can take the place of vaccinations. What the pseudoscience crowd never understands is that the facts must stand independent of the authority voicing them, but when an interpretation of data is required, then one who is expert in such analysis is qualified to give that assessment. That's why being the Playmate of the Year doesn't, itself, typically entail sufficient training and experience to enable one to identify the causes of autism, or why being a Kennedy doesn't make one an expert on vaccine protocols.

Anti-vaxers will lovingly embrace any supposed authority as long as the supposed authority confirms the anti-vaxers' assumptions. All other authorities are decried as being greedy parts of the evil, profit-driven system.

[Hannah Bell]

69. in fact, most of what i've seen posted has come from medical journals,

public health agencies like cdc, & mainstream news sources like the nyt.

it's only in your straw man fantasy "anti-vaxers" are posting hysterical accounts from "Hippy Chiropractors' Weekly" & "Fundie Times".

Strangely enough, the source doesn't seem to matter to the "pro-vaxers". No matter how reputable the source, any post from an "anti-vaxer" will be met with ad hom, & an attempt to avoid & smoke over legitimate critique from mainstream sources.

Really disgusting, anti-science, anti-democratic mentality.

[cosmik debris]

74. Did you see the "Gardasil Round Up" thread

Just take a look at the sources cited in that thread.

When you get your science from Newsweek and USA Today, you can't really claim to be well educated in the science.

[Hannah Bell]

85. Whatever, dude. They're not "Fundy Times," they're mainstream "news" orgs.

Supposedly the "news" is how people get their "mainstream, credible" information, you know?

& there were some science sources in that round-up, i believe.

[cosmik debris]

86. Most scientist learn from science text books.

Most scientists use controlled or randomized studies to prove their theory.

But some people think that USA Today is just as good as a text book or a controlled study.

Go figure.

[Hannah Bell]

88. no one's trying to prove theories with news reports.

& if they're out of bounds for your opponents, you'd better tell your friends to quit posting news reports too.

but you're pretty obviously not interested in being even-handed. just in running down & shouting down folks who disagree with you.

[cosmik debris]

90. No, your cohort is trying to use made up facts to prove her theory.

And she has been caught FOUR times.

[Hannah Bell]

92. "made-up facts" - from news reports?

well, then, it's not her who has the problem.

you pooh-pooh the use of news reports to "prove" something, but you start threads with news reports to "prove" things.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=43938&mesg_id=43938

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=32676&mesg_id=32676

people can disagree without being disagreeable or dishonest.

[cosmik debris]

93. She said the vaccination was more dangerous than the disease.

She said that 1 in 1000 had serious adverse side effects.

These are made up facts used to scare people.

In my OPs using news reports, I made no claim that they proved anything.

It would be dishonest of you to pretend that I did make such claims.

[mhatrw]

94. I said nothing of the sort. Meanwhile, you have been exposed as the

rankest of hypocrites.

[beam me up scottie]

95. "They have more risk of dying from an injection of Gardasil."

mhatrw (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-13-08 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #130

172. The VAERS is NOT worldwide, just US.
And the population getting the vaccine is FAR younger and healthier than the population dying from cervical cancer.

Girls are getting this vaccine with the unproven promise that it may help protect an extremely small percentage of them from cervical cancer 30+ years down the line. If even a tiny percentage of them experience serious adverse health effects because of Gardasil, the harm outweighs the potential benefit.

mhatrw (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-20-08 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #3

6. Gardasil is terrible because its risks outweigh its tiny potential, unproven rewards

among its targeted market group.

Fire_Medic_Dave (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-20-08 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #136

137. Let's try this, do rich white women have any risk at all of contracting cervical cancer?


mhatrw (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-20-08 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #137

139. Let's try this. They have more risk of dying from an injection of Gardasil. n/t

mhatrw (1000+ posts) Mon Aug-25-08 02:28 AM
Response to Original message

79. Merck raking in $1.4 billion a year on a vaccine that does more harm than good.

mhatrw (1000+ posts) Mon Aug-25-08 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #15

16. The reason to opt out is that Gardasil will almost certainly do more harm than good.

[mhatrw]

97. Exactly. As I said, Gardasil will almost certainly do more harm than good.

If you disagree then why haven't you responded to the relevant analysis?

[beam me up scottie]

99. Prove that women "have more risk of dying from an injection of Gardasil."

Or admit you made up your own facts again.

[mhatrw]

101. Prove that Gardasil can reduce the incidence of cervical cancer.

This should be good.

[cosmik debris]

102. You are changing the subject because you got caught in a lie. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

103. Nice try but I made no claims, you did. Now prove Gardasil is deadlier than cervical cancer.

mhatrw (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-13-08 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #130

172. The VAERS is NOT worldwide, just US.
And the population getting the vaccine is FAR younger and healthier than the population dying from cervical cancer.

Girls are getting this vaccine with the unproven promise that it may help protect an extremely small percentage of them from cervical cancer 30+ years down the line. If even a tiny percentage of them experience serious adverse health effects because of Gardasil, the harm outweighs the potential benefit.

mhatrw (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-20-08 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #3

6. Gardasil is terrible because its risks outweigh its tiny potential, unproven rewards

among its targeted market group.

Fire_Medic_Dave (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-20-08 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #136

137. Let's try this, do rich white women have any risk at all of contracting cervical cancer?


mhatrw (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-20-08 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #137

139. Let's try this. They have more risk of dying from an injection of Gardasil. n/t

mhatrw (1000+ posts) Mon Aug-25-08 02:28 AM
Response to Original message

79. Merck raking in $1.4 billion a year on a vaccine that does more harm than good.

mhatrw (1000+ posts) Mon Aug-25-08 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #15

16. The reason to opt out is that Gardasil will almost certainly do more harm than good.

[cosmik debris]

96. Here is a direct quote.

"What happens when their little girl is the 1 in 1,000 who has a severe adverse reaction to Gardasil...?

[mhatrw]

98. Supply a link to that. n/t

[cosmik debris]

100. No problem. The internet never forgets.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=42443&mesg_id=43705

[TZ]

49. but not even knowing the difference between drug chemical and vaccine

should disqualify one from talking about vaccines like one is an EXPERT.

[cosmik debris]

2. They make up data, they can make up credentials

I thought I could slow the rampage by pointing out that their goal was unreasonable and unattainable in this forum, that their tactics were self-defeating, and that their success rate was nil.

None of those things mattered.

The crusade must go on! It is a moral compulsion now.

[KittyWampus]

4. And it's immoral to LIE and call those who oppose the Gardasil marketing push as "anti-vaccine"

Most are anti-Gardasil for young girls. Not anti-vaccine, in general. Or even anti-Gardasil, if it's marketed to the women who would benefit from it- those over 20.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

8. It's immoral to accuse people of things they didn't do.

[KittyWampus]

15. at least you are admitting it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. I was talking about you but that's ok.

[cosmik debris]

9. Yes, people certainly get indignant

when they are unable to force others to accept their version of morality.

[beam me up scottie]

13. Especially when it's suggested that "innoculation(sic) leads to riskier sexual behavior"

Indignant is putting it mildly.

[KittyWampus]

14. yes, you certainly are

[cosmik debris]

22. I left my morality out of this

because we have too many people here claiming that their morality trumps science.

So if you are accusing me of forcing my morality on someone, maybe you could cite the post where I said I am "morally compelled..." (a direct quote from a Merck basher)

On the other hand, If you are saying that I was indignant about have the morality of others foisted on me, you are 100% correct.

But the truth is I really couldn't tell what you were saying because your posts were not very communicative.

[Liberal Veteran]

12. Actually, according to recent studies done, the benefit drops off dramatically for women over 20.

So that kinda is a problem for what you are suggesting.

[KittyWampus]

16. actually, the FACTS are that young women spontaneously rid themselves of the virus

but then, you don't give a shit about medical facts.

[beam me up scottie]

17. .

[Liberal Veteran]

18. Now, now....let's be civil.

SOME women are able to clear the virus during acute infection. Others go on to become cronically infected.

[beam me up scottie]

20. You mean it's not magic?

I need a moment...

:cry:

[cosmik debris]

23. Speaking of facts,

can you back that up? With facts that is.

[TZ]

50. HAHAHAHAHA!

Where'd you learn your vaccinology? Dr. Snake Oil's on line bullshit school?
Virology 101--once infected with a virus ALWAYS infected with a virus. HINT: READ A TEXTBOOK.

[beam me up scottie]

6. Exactly, it is a religious crusade.

If you do a search on the talking points it inevitably leads to either Wooville or a right wing dis-info website.

[Mojorabbit]

5. I have only posted to one or two threads

but my credentials are that I am a retired critical care nurse. My husband is a family physician who is not recommending the vac till more post marketing info comes in. He has had to pull people off a ton of meds the past several years as more info came out on them. Been burned too many times. It may end up being a perfectly fine vaccine or not.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

7. Fair enough.

[Celebration]

10. better way

Let's have a Vaccine forum.......At this point there seems to be plenty of interest. Then everyone can go duke it out there, and we won't have to hunt for non vaccine threads here.

I think it is pretty silly to ask people for credentials (understatement). This is a message board, not a professional seminar.

[beam me up scottie]

11. If someone tells me that this vaccination is more dangerous than what it prevents

they goddamn well better have credentials to back it up.

[Celebration]

21. oh baloney

Opinions on everything are a dime a dozen on the internet. Anybody who feels differently is in lala land.

[cosmik debris]

24. Hey! that's one of my favorite ad homs.

"Anybody who feels differently is in lala land."

:rofl:

[Celebration]

27. I stand by it!!

How can anyone disagree with that? Opinions here ALL have to be taken with a grain of salt, at the very least. It's a pretty silly idea for people to be asking other for credentials on an anonymous message board. But I do think there are too many vaccine threads, in general. Everyone is trying to outdo each other. It's annoying. Having a vaccine folder seems like a good idea.

[beam me up scottie]

37. Posters are not allowed to solicit medical advice, so why are they allowed to dispense it?

And pretend that they're qualified to do so?

[Celebration]

54. um.........who does that exactly?

If anyone dispensed medical advice, REGARDLESS of their credentials, they would be subject to thread locking, etc. by the administrators.

Nobody on a message board, whether credentialed or not, may give medical advice here, whether it has to do with letting a daughter have a Gardasil injection, or NOT letting a daughter get a Gardasil injection (or anything else for that matter). People give their own opinions here, but personalizing it is entirely different.

[mhatrw]

26. But it's perfectly fine for any stupid, uneducated hack to claim the opposite!

That's eminently logical, as usual.

[beam me up scottie]

36. "Gardasil is a crappy, ridiculously expensive product being pushed 24/7 on unsuspecting parents"

Spoken like a college professor who teaches logic to med students.

:rofl:

[mhatrw]

43. Please feel free to quote me as much as you wish. n/t

[dropkickpa]

52. ding sing muthfuckin DING!

I was just thinking this the other day.

[mhatrw]

25. And the strange obsession with censorship continues ...

[cosmik debris]

28. And the strange obsession with the "sex vaccine" continues.

Are you enjoying your crusade?

[mhatrw]

30. Gardasil is a crappy, ridiculously expensive product being pushed 24/7 on unsuspecting parents

by television advertisements, lobbyists and paid off doctors as some sort of amazing medical breakthrough.

It's best possible benefit profile is tiny among the population it is being most aggressively targeted to. It may not reduce cervical cancer rates at all. And its safety level is currently unknown.

[cosmik debris]

32. I've never seen a Gardasil ad

So I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about.

I wasn't even very interested in it until I heard the paranoid screech of "SEX VACCINE!" repeated ad nauseum.

So when you say it is being pushed 24/7 I've got to figure you need to get a life.

There are plenty of places you can go and plenty of things you can do where you won't hear a word about Gardasil.

You might start by turning off the boob tube.

[mhatrw]

33. You might consider not viewing this forum.

If you don't look, it isn't there.

[cosmik debris]

35. It wasn't a problem until

a few loud obnoxious posters decided to spam the forum with thread after thread after thread.

In the past, the discussion on that topic had been civil and informative.

Ahh, the good old days.

[beam me up scottie]

39. Yeah, I never thought I'd miss the autism/mercury debates.

I don't actually, but this forum looks more and more like the dungeon every day.

[cosmik debris]

41. Well at least they gave us some interesting reading

Remember the 0fer18 guy. That was some very interesting reading.

When he proved that amalgam is safe, I was elated.

But now all we get is made up facts.

Boring!

[beam me up scottie]

44. Yeah, the exact same "facts" are posted verbatim in conspiracy forums all over the net.

When asked for cites, they reference the same talking points they made elsewhere.

[dropkickpa]

53. Don't forget that bastion of scientific thought

renewamerica.us!!! They're all experts and stuff!

[beam me up scottie]

56. Yuck, those bottom feeders.

Nothing like lowering the bar all the way to the sewer.

[dropkickpa]

57. But they are a valuable resource for informations!

:puke:

[beam me up scottie]

60. All threads that link to that and other conspiroid sites should be moved to the dungeon.

Same resources, same tactics, same fallacies, if you don't believe their pet conspiracy, you're "in on it".

[mhatrw]

42. Yes, I'm sure you were the height of decorum ...

as long as nobody who ever posted anything you disagreed with ever tried to fight back.

[cosmik debris]

45. Actually I stayed out of those discussions.

But they were not disrupting the forum with self-righteous and sanctimonious rants about a "sex vaccine". You should have been there. You missed a wonderful opportunity do disrupt even more.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

29. Yes, you'd never know this is the Democratic Underground, with the attempts to squelch free spech

But damn if the "Health Forum" isn't the worst place in the world to criticize big pharma
or express skepticism of any vaccine that has harmed some children.

[LeftishBrit]

31. So arguing is 'squelching free speech'?

Don't you think that those who disagree with you might also be entitled to free speech?

[mhatrw]

34. You are not the problem. You haven't been wringing your hands trying to come

up with ideas about how to best shut down free and open discussion on this forum.

Substantive disagreement is fine. We can all learn something from it.

[cosmik debris]

38. That's funny

YOU deciding who the problem is.

:rofl:

[beam me up scottie]

40. "Gardasil is a crappy, ridiculously expensive product being pushed 24/7 on unsuspecting parents"

"Substantive disagreement" ?

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[Liberal Veteran]

47. It's kinda like the "substantive disagreement" one sees among....

...creati...er...Intelligent Design proponents, global warming denialists, and AIDS denialists.

[beam me up scottie]

48. It's looking more and more like a crusade every day.

Let the little girls get pap smears. Will this vaccination make girls more promiscuous? Vaccines do more harm than good, etc.

I can't wait to see their reaction when a promising HIV vaccination is developed.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

61. You said aspirin had killed millions of people can you back that up?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

64. See that's all it took this time.

[cosmik debris]

65. SNAP

There is nothing quite as rewarding as when the adversary proves your point for you.

[mhatrw]

72. No, I cannot. It was a guess, and I admitted that. Can you prove me wrong? n/t

I'm willing to be educated. I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. I don't care about "winning." I care about the truth. How about you?

[cosmik debris]

75. More made up facts. Well, alright then.

I'm glad we cleared that up.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

76. I didn't make a statement of fact, you did.

Aspirin would have to have killed 12,930 people a year since it's discovery to get your numbers. There were 52 deaths from aspirin in 2000, 49 of them were suicides. There's some truth for you.

David

[mhatrw]

77. Aspirin was far less popular in 2000 than from 1920 to 1970, and homes

and containers had been child-proofed by 2000.

Bayer has sold aspirin for 109 years, not 77 years so I'm not sure where your 12,930 per year figure is coming from. 1 million/109 = 9175 deaths per year worldwide.

While you did not prove me wrong, you did contribute substance to the discussion and for that I sincerely thank you. I am happy to concede that my "millions killed by aspirin" was a blind guess based largely on anecdotal evidence of my own childhood and that the actual value may well be in the hundreds of thousands.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

80. Millions would mean more than 1 million.

Aspirin was discovered in 1853. 2 million/155=12903. Aspirin's popularity decreased in 1956 when acetaminophen was introduced and even more in 1969 when ibuprofen was released. There has been a huge surge in the popularity of aspirin since the 1980's for the preventative treatment of heart attacks and strokes. It remains extremely popular today.

David

[mhatrw]

81. Tasty children's aspirin was in almost every family's medicine cabinet

when I grew up in the 60s. This was before child-proof caps. Aspirin is no longer nearly as popular as a children's medicine.

Again, I concede that the number of fatal aspirin overdoses in the history of the world may be in the hundreds of thousands and rather than the millions.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

84. It may be in the tens of thousands.

It may be less than 10,000.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

87. Chewable (children's) aspirin is still very popular and still very tasty.

Granted Acetaminophen and Ibuprofen have proven for more effective in treating most of the things that children were given aspirin for. So it's still popular just not for use in children.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. So asking your credentials is censorship?

[Liberal Veteran]

55. Yes it is. And also a personal attack! Unlike the congenial highbrow discussion...

...of one's domicile in the basement of one's mother while reaping in mercenary dollars to proselytize for the pharmaceutical industry.

Welcome to backwards land.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

59. Now that's funny.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cosmik debris]

62. I just wonder how long the Mods will tolerate it.

One of them has even admitted to being morally compelled to keep this up indefinitely.

That's depressing. To think that one person with a raging grudge could do that.

Makes you go Hmmmm....

[mhatrw]

71. Yes, it's horrible to think that anyone could express any ideas you don't agree with!

We need a holy crusade against any such people!

[cosmik debris]

73. Substituting a moral crusade for reasoned discussion is not

the purpose of this forum.

It is clear that you will continue this crusade until the mods stop you.

I'm not sure how long that will be, but I'm sure it will happen, and then you will realize that your strategy is self-defeating.

[mhatrw]

78. You are the one who is purposefully attempting to defeat reasonable discussion.

Why?

[cosmik debris]

79. When you are challenged to prove your points, you change the subject

When you are confronted with the absurdity of your position, you resort to ridicule and logical fallacy. When you are pressured to produce credible evidence, you try to cast a bad light on the ones who demand answers.

When you participate honestly in reasoned discussion, I'll stay away from you. But when you throw tantrums, I intend to get the most pleasure I can out of watching you squirm.

If you wish to deny me that pleasure, quit being such a weenie.

[mhatrw]

82. No substance once again. n/t

[cosmik debris]

83. If you don't like it you can quit blowing smoke.

When ever you are on the spot, you only want to talk about other people.

If you want substantive discussion, stop talking about the way other people behave, and persecute you, and censor you, and suppress you.

If you want to have a substantive discussion, stop making up facts.

If you want to have a substantive discussion, only make substantive statements. But make sure you can back them up. We don't need any more claims about millions of people killed by the boogie man.

[kdmorris]

63. Hide threads...

I never used that feature...in all the years since it's been implemented. Now, it's what I do with all of them. I almost hid your thread, since it had the word in the title, but decided at the last minute to read it.

[xchrom]

67. the anti-vaxers are spreading bad medical advice. period.

[mhatrw]

70. Because Jesus told you so? n/t

[depakid]

89. And quite frankly, it's disappointing and embarrassing that they're still allowed on the site

They've turned the health forum into a spamming ground for their obsession.

[Liberal Veteran]

91. Inject the thread with Gardasil and Thimerosal....

....according to the anti-vaxer's, that ought stop it dead.