336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 31:
Line 31: + + +
→Gardasil
:::::Those who comment on, and especially those who make, public policy would be a lot more effective if they would just do a little bit of critical reading every now and then.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 15:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Those who comment on, and especially those who make, public policy would be a lot more effective if they would just do a little bit of critical reading every now and then.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 15:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Again, I'm trying to improve the validity of this article by analyzing the references, not arguing for or against the efficacy or hazards of the vaccine. Why do you ask me whether I'd give the vaccine to my daughter? Unless my answer is going to be part of this article, it is absolutely irrelevant. (For your information, I do not have any children, and if I had a daughter I will not give her the shot before the age of 16. When she's reached that age she'll make her own decision regarding the shot.)
::::::If you cite a primary source, it'd remove any potential bias that inherently exists in secondary sources. All I've been trying to say is that you should read that news article with the same attitude as you should with medical journals - with a grain of salt. Especially given the gravity of the statement - that the deaths has been linked to the vaccine - I believe we need something a little more than a news article. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 22:29, 24 May 2008 (EDT)