Developer Of Hpv Vaccines Comes Clean, Warns Parents: Giant Deadly Sca

[Winchester]

Every time some idiot equates the HPV vaccine with sexual permissiveness, God kills a kitten.

 

So please, idiots, shut the Hell up.

[Gabriela]

I have to disagree. What we refer to as anecdotal "evidence" is not really "evidence" - so it cannot be "empirical evidence" -- it may have an empirical character but it is not actually empirical evidence.  I mean evidence in the strict definition of the term, not the squishy colloquial version.  The key term in the definition you provide is "verifiable." Another way of saying verifiable is replicable. Replicability is central to the concept of empiricism.

 

For example, if I see a black cat and stub my toe, my anecdotal experience suggests to me that seeing black cats is correlated with stubbing toes. It is empirical in that I experienced/observed it. But it can't be called empirical evidence -- it is not actually any kind of evidence. Despite my experience there remains no verifiable evidence that black cats are correlated with stubbed toes.

 

We also have a superfluity of anecdotes suggesting alien visitation of earth, elvis living in utah, and big foot stomping around Appalachia. The data is empirical in that people have observed or experienced things which suggest to them that aliens are on earth, elvis lives and big foot likes beef jerky.  None of these experiences are empirical evidence. None of them are verifiable or replicable. 

 

Vaccine safety is a well studied area, but I have yet to see a single article in a peer-reviewed journal with results that call into question the safety statistics put out by the CDC, APA, etc. Links or it didn't happen.  There is the risk of confirmation bias, yes, but it doesn't follow that we can then say the lack of evidence is itself evidence.
 

 

Your definition of "evidence" is circular. You simply assume that "anecdotes" can't be evidence by defining "evidence" to exclude them, i.e., by defining it scientifically. In fact, anecdotal evidence is often a perfectly rational way of arriving at a conclusion—provided the inference made is valid.

 

Verifiable and replicable are not the same thing. Yes, both are central to the scientific method, but they don't refer to the same construct. I can verify that Napoleon is buried in Les Invalides, but I can't replicate that. So, everything replicable is verifiable, but not everything verifiable is replicable.

 

As for alien visitation of earth, Elvis living in Utah, and Big Foot living in Appalachia, they are logically verifiable, but not practically so. They are obviously not replicable for the same reason that the Napoleon example is not. But you seem to be dismissing these arguments not on the basis of the impossibility of verifiability/replicability, but on the basis of their being absurd. Absurdity typically arises from bad inferences, not verifiability/replicability, and in your examples, it is indeed the inferences from what was observed to the explanations of aliens/Elvis/Big Foot that makes the examples absurd. Occam's Razor kills these inferences, not their anecdotal nature.

 

Incidentally, bad inferences are also the primary plague of bad science. There is no shortage of journal articles on this. But your blind faith in peer-reviewed journal articles is as questionable as your blind faith in science. If you think that peer review guarantees legitimacy, or that it guarantees all necessary approaches to a question have been exhausted, then you haven't looked at peer review with a critical eye to all of its consequences. Academics are constantly lamenting that peer review slows scientific progress, that it serves to perpetuate the (often bad) scientific status quo, that it hinders genuine innovation and creativity, etc.

 

Remember Kuhn.

 

 

[Lilllabettt]

\But your blind faith in peer-reviewed journal articles is as questionable as your blind faith in science. If you think that peer review guarantees legitimacy, or that it guarantees all necessary approaches to a question have been exhausted, then you haven't looked at peer review with a critical eye to all of its consequences. Academics are constantly lamenting that peer review slows scientific progress, that it serves to perpetuate the (often bad) scientific status quo, that it hinders genuine innovation and creativity, etc.

 

au contraire. there is a lot of crap in peer reviewed journals, especially with all the pay-to-publish stuff going on. But I think it is a minimum hurdle to clear. it is a low hurdle, too. But I haven't seen any anti-vax stuff get past it. Have you? Once again: links or it didn't happen.
 

[Gabriela]

au contraire. there is a lot of croutons in peer reviewed journals, especially with all the pay-to-publish stuff going on. But I think it is a minimum hurdle to clear. it is a low hurdle, too. But I haven't seen any anti-vax stuff get past it. Have you? Once again: links or it didn't happen.
 

 

My argument isn't that the scientific community has ever said vaccinations may be harmful in any way, so links to peer-reviewed journals are irrelevant. The journals are YOUR standard for "proof", not mine. And given what I've said about peer review serving as a gate keeper of the status quo, it should be evident that I wouldn't expect to find anti-vaccination research in a peer-reviewed journal. I expect to find evidence for the danger of vaccinations in people's lived experience—people who are not powerful, educated, or academic enough to get their experiences into peer-reviewed journals.

 

My argument is that:

 

1) The scientific community may be wrong about vaccinations (all or some), because science is not infallible and often reverses or qualifies what it's said in the past once it discovers new evidence.

 

2) The medical community is subject to a good deal of corruption because of the financial interests of pharmaceutical companies in rushing products (including vaccinations) to market.

 

3) The "common people" are not as stupid as elitist scientists would like to make them out to be. In fact, the "average person" has a good deal of sense and knows very well how to make good, rational life-saving and health-preserving inferences based upon their experience.

 

I think it's fallacious and unfair for people who are pro-vaccination to leap to the conclusion that people who are anti-vaccination must be ignorant hillbilly snake-handlers who only oppose vaccinations because they're scientifically illiterate. There are many reasons to oppose vaccinations, and people's reasons for doing so are typically diverse, complex, finely nuanced, and very personal. To presume that giving such people a scientific education would automatically change their minds is foolish. One's stance on vaccinations is very much bound up with issues of trust in scientific research, medical institutions, government services, and social institutions generally, not to mention one's personal priorities, unique philosophical worldview, and life experiences.

 

To suggest that scientists will save people from themselves is condescending. People are more complicated than that. Worse than condescending, it is dangerous for us to believe that scientists are all-enlightened and all we need to improve our lives is heed everything they recommend.

[CrossCuT]

i dont even...

[CrossCuT]

Curiousing - a testimonial could be used as empirical evidence however you cant just HAVE a testimony. If you were in a court room this would likely be sufficient however in science its needs to be analyzed  quantitatively or qualitatively. The empirical evidence needs to either prove or disprove something via testing.

 

The typical observations in regards to vaccines are "The MMR vaccines gave my child autism". This testimony has been tested and disproved. 

That observation alone holds no ground what so ever in being "evidence".

 

Peer review is also a cool thing because its just multiple people fact checking. And scientists love to toot their own horn so they will work as HARD as they can to find holes in a hypothesis in order to puff out their chest.

 

[Gabriela]

Curiousing - a testimonial could be used as empirical evidence however you cant just HAVE a testimony. If you were in a court room this would likely be sufficient however ***in science*** its needs to be analyzed  quantitatively or qualitatively. The empirical evidence needs to either prove or disprove something via testing.

 

I'm not denying that it works this way IN SCIENCE. I'm saying testimony/personal experience is NOT science and can be a perfectly rational, legitimate basis on which INDIVIDUALS (not the scientific community) may build their beliefs about vaccinations. My point is: People like you and me may have rational, respect-worthy beliefs and attitudes about vaccinations WITHOUT those beliefs/attitudes being based on science.

 

Might those beliefs/attitudes be wrong? Yes. But they may nonetheless be justifiable, understandable, defendable, etc., given a person's experience with vaccinations.

 

Likewise, the scientific community's beliefs about vaccinations may also be wrong. Science is constantly discovering new things that prove previous beliefs wrong.

[GregorMendel]

I'm not denying that it works this way IN SCIENCE. I'm saying testimony/personal experience is NOT science and can be a perfectly rational, legitimate basis on which INDIVIDUALS (not the scientific community) may build their beliefs about vaccinations. My point is: People like you and me may have rational, respect-worthy beliefs and attitudes about vaccinations WITHOUT those beliefs/attitudes being based on science.

Might those beliefs/attitudes be wrong? Yes. But they may nonetheless be justifiable, understandable, defendable, etc., given a person's experience with vaccinations.

Likewise, the scientific community's beliefs about vaccinations may also be wrong. Science is constantly discovering new things that prove previous beliefs wrong.

You had me until the last line, which is really the only point I think we disagree with you on. While imaginative leaps are necessary in science, there is no room for "belief"-driven results, much less a collectively agreed upon belief on vaccination. A result is either positive or negative regardless of what you believe. We now know from more than 100 years of intense study the fundamental genetic and molecular reasons for immunity and exactly how it can be modified. There is no room for discussion; an antibody is an antibody is an antibody, and nothing "believed" to the contrary will alter its interaction with an antigen.

[CrossCuT]

I'm not denying that it works this way IN SCIENCE. I'm saying testimony/personal experience is NOT science and can be a perfectly rational, legitimate basis on which INDIVIDUALS (not the scientific community) may build their beliefs about vaccinations. My point is: People like you and me may have rational, respect-worthy beliefs and attitudes about vaccinations WITHOUT those beliefs/attitudes being based on science.

 

Might those beliefs/attitudes be wrong? Yes. But they may nonetheless be justifiable, understandable, defendable, etc., given a person's experience with vaccinations.

 

Likewise, the scientific community's beliefs about vaccinations may also be wrong. Science is constantly discovering new things that prove previous beliefs wrong.

 

Yeesh... every single person whether they are a scientist or not thinks the same way. Observe things, ask questions, and act accordingly in order to [hopefully] get a particular result. We ALL use the scientific method every day. 

 

You are still arguing the same thing that is observation (on a large scale) alone is proof. It is not. You are in essence doing the same thing the scientific community is doing however youre not going deep enough. YOUR method of testing is superficial observation. If you read an article or see something out of the ordinary you take that observation as proof. Just because you do not consider yourself part of the scientific community doesnt mean you can draw conclusions out of thin air.

 

As of right now, you have some observations and a hypothesis: vaccines are potentially bad. You have observations that you believe support this but the next step is to verify. Whether youre a scientist or not you cant just skip that step otherwise everything youre saying means nothing.

 

 

I also dont believe all things people observe are rational. Just like Lilllabettts example of stubbing her toe when she sees a cat. Its indeed an observation but is it rational? No.

Edited November 14, 2013 by CrossCuT

[CrossCuT]

Also, I wanted to add an observation to think about

 

100% of people diagnosed with cancer drink water.

[Gabriela]

You had me until the last line, which is really the only point I think we disagree with you on. While imaginative leaps are necessary in science, there is no room for "belief"-driven results, much less a collectively agreed upon belief on vaccination. A result is either positive or negative regardless of what you believe. We now know from more than 100 years of intense study the fundamental genetic and molecular reasons for immunity and exactly how it can be modified. There is no room for discussion; an antibody is an antibody is an antibody, and nothing "believed" to the contrary will alter its interaction with an antigen.

 

I agree that we don't disagree on most points. I think this is probably one of them, too. When I say "Science is constantly discovering new things that prove previous beliefs wrong", I mean that science is constantly discovering new things that prove previous FINDINGS wrong. Or rather, it's not even the findings per se, but the conclusions drawn from those findings. (More errors of inference—or in these cases, usually just the discovery of complicating factors.) For example, we believe that the flu vaccine is healthy and safe for all. But it is perfectly feasible that, in 20 years' time, we will discover that the flu vaccine actually causes adverse reactions in people with such-and-such traits, this-or-that gene combination, x or y condition, etc.

 

I use "beliefs" in reference to "scientific beliefs" here: We believe the earth is round, that HIV leads to AIDS, that the flu vaccine is safe for all, etc. This is a perfectly legitimate use of this word, provided you don't assume that the word "belief" implies that there is no (scientific) evidence for the content of the belief, e.g.: "Religious beliefs are just beliefs, whereas scientific claims are based on fact."

 

It's important to remember, also, that just as beliefs—even scientific ones—can be false, they can also be true. Many scientific ones are. But if you look at the big picture of scientific advancement, it is intellectually humbling. Scientists often think they've got a thing all figured out, and then, waddayaknow, someone somewhere discovers it's not so simple after all.

[Gabriela]

Yeesh... every single person whether they are a scientist or not thinks the same way. Observe things, ask questions, and act accordingly in order to [hopefully] get a particular result.

 

We ALL use the scientific method every day. 

 

You are still arguing the same thing that is observation (on a large scale) alone is proof. It is not. You are in essence doing the same thing the scientific community is doing however youre not going deep enough. YOUR method of testing is superficial observation. If you read an article or see something out of the ordinary you take that observation as proof. Just because you do not consider yourself part of the scientific community doesnt mean you can draw conclusions out of thin air.

 

As of right now, you have some observations and a hypothesis: vaccines are potentially bad. You have observations that you believe support this but the next step is to verify. Whether youre a scientist or not you cant just skip that step otherwise everything youre saying means nothing.

 

 

I also dont believe all things people observe are rational. Just like Lilllabettts example of stubbing her toe when she sees a cat. Its indeed an observation but is it rational? No.

 

[facepalm] Read Descartes' Meditations. We do NOT all think the same way.

 

But it is true that most of the things we "know" we have learned from observation. That in and of itself, however, is not the scientific method.

 

Yes, I'm arguing that "superficial" observation (compared to targeted scientific falsificationism) is alone proof enough for us to come to SOME conclusions. And I argue that:

 

observation + logical inference based upon experience = rational conclusion —even when the conclusion is false

 

Truth/falsity is not the same thing as rationality. I'm not arguing for the truth of anti-vaccination beliefs here. I'm arguing that they're rational, and so deserve respect.

 

Actually, people can draw conclusions out of thin air. It just isn't a very rigorous method of arriving at knowledge.

 

And I am saying precisely that I do not expect non-scientists to verify the beliefs they have formed from observation. They're not scientists. That's not what they do. What I expect is that scientists will take non-scientists' claims of experience seriously enough that they will investigate them in a rigorous scientific fashion. There's a cooperation between scientific and non-scientific communities that needs to happen in the area of vaccinations. That's my point. It's condescending and irresponsible to ignore a mass of public claims that, say, the flu vaccine is causing people to get sick.

 

It could be perfectly rational for someone to believe that seeing a black cat causes toe-stubbing. If the correlation happens once, it probably is not, as there's no reason to think the two connected. (It would, in that case, be a false cause fallacy.) But if someone stubs their toe EVERY TIME they see a black cat, it would become increasingly rational for that person to think that seeing a black cat causes toe stubbing. Again, the truth value of a belief is not the same as its rationality. Truth value is determined by correspondence with events in the real world. Rationality is determined by how a belief "hangs together" with one's other beliefs and experiences. Those are very different things.

Edited November 14, 2013 by curiousing

[Lilllabettt]

I'm not denying that it works this way IN SCIENCE. I'm saying testimony/personal experience is NOT science and can be a perfectly rational, legitimate basis on which INDIVIDUALS (not the scientific community) may build their beliefs about vaccinations. My point is: People like you and me may have rational, respect-worthy beliefs and attitudes about vaccinations WITHOUT those beliefs/attitudes being based on science.

 

Might those beliefs/attitudes be wrong? Yes. But they may nonetheless be justifiable, understandable, defendable, etc., given a person's experience with vaccinations.

 

Likewise, the scientific community's beliefs about vaccinations may also be wrong. Science is constantly discovering new things that prove previous beliefs wrong.

 

People have different feelings about religion. because of their diverse experiences.
But in spite the fact that people's different religious beliefs are "understandable" it remains that there is but one true faith.

People have different "feelings" about vaccines. But there is true truth out there about whether they are safe and effective.

Science cannot identify the one true religion, but it is the best (and I would argue only) way to find the truth about this or that vaccine.

Do we want feelings based medicine or science-based medicine?

[Maggyie]

My argument isn't that the scientific community has ever said vaccinations may be harmful in any way, so links to peer-reviewed journals are irrelevant. The journals are YOUR standard for "proof", not mine. And given what I've said about peer review serving as a gate keeper of the status quo, it should be evident that I wouldn't expect to find anti-vaccination research in a peer-reviewed journal. I expect to find evidence for the danger of vaccinations in people's lived experience—people who are not powerful, educated, or academic enough to get their experiences into peer-reviewed journals.

 

My argument is that:

 

1) The scientific community may be wrong about vaccinations (all or some), because science is not infallible and often reverses or qualifies what it's said in the past once it discovers new evidence.

 

2) The medical community is subject to a good deal of corruption because of the financial interests of pharmaceutical companies in rushing products (including vaccinations) to market.

 

3) The "common people" are not as stupid as elitist scientists would like to make them out to be. In fact, the "average person" has a good deal of sense and knows very well how to make good, rational life-saving and health-preserving inferences based upon their experience.

 

I think it's fallacious and unfair for people who are pro-vaccination to leap to the conclusion that people who are anti-vaccination must be ignorant hillbilly snake-handlers who only oppose vaccinations because they're scientifically illiterate. There are many reasons to oppose vaccinations, and people's reasons for doing so are typically diverse, complex, finely nuanced, and very personal. To presume that giving such people a scientific education would automatically change their minds is foolish. One's stance on vaccinations is very much bound up with issues of trust in scientific research, medical institutions, government services, and social institutions generally, not to mention one's personal priorities, unique philosophical worldview, and life experiences.

 

To suggest that scientists will save people from themselves is condescending. People are more complicated than that. Worse than condescending, it is dangerous for us to believe that scientists are all-enlightened and all we need to improve our lives is heed everything they recommend.

 

The point is that the "folk wisdom" - and it's not even common among most of the "folk" - is largely equivalent to superstition, at least when it comes to this issue. The examples about the black cat and the drinking water are perfect. It's one thing if these vaccines hadn't been studied. They've been studied over and over! More than a million doses have been given over the course of a decade, and the patterns people talk about are just NOT showing up. Is it theoretically possible that in 50 years we'll know the hpv vaccine causes a bad reaction in certain types of people? Sure. Likely? Nope.

 

Meanwhile there have been only 68 vaccine injury claims paid on the hpv vaccines, with 81 pending and 63 dismissed. The disease it helps prevent kills thousands of women in the United States every year, in spite of the article above that claims it's no big deal. You do the math.

[Maggyie]

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose!

 

Look at some of the literature from 100 or more years ago related to vaccination, for instance

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1641090/

http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S536.htm

Folks were just as rabid then as they are now.

 

About Dr. Harper:

She is not at all against the vaccine; you can tell this by reading her recent papers.  Her most recent,
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0077961,
talks about whether the vaccine is being given efficiently.   Another very recent one,
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/208/9/1391.short, talks about how the Cervarix HPV vaccine turns out to reduce genital warts.
And in http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/105/10/749.short she *advocates giving the vaccine to young boys*!   All of which really doesn't support the notion that she is warning parents away from giving the vaccine to kids.

 

Thank you so much for posting this!!! I wish somehow the title of the thread could be edited, or the OP edited with links to either the article from the Guardian or these journal articles. "Giant Deadly Scam," not exactly. It's close to slanderous to drag Dr Harper's name through the mud as many of these meme articles do.