Talk:Vaccine

I'm surprised. This is an acceptable article. Liπus the Turbogeek^{(contact me)} 13:37, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes. it is. It actually tells me something.--British_cons (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Blaylock Wellness Report

Parts of the paragraph that used the Blaylock Wellness Report as a source is very questionable. The website itself is a promotion for subscribing to a paid newsletter; it has "points" that says why vaccine is bad - but no logical evidence to back it up. Discover "the truth behind Gulf War Syndrome"? A website like that shouldn't be trusted, let alone used as a source. ATang 15:12, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Gardasil

The source cited for the connection between Gardisil and deaths explicitly states that no connection has been proven. I'm going to remove this bullet. -- Aaronp

The bullet has been restored. If you had read the article further down, you would have seen that the article writer was improperly accepting as two-plus-two-equals-four-level fact the boilerplate from the manufacturer and from the health authority, each of whom has an ax to grind. And you would have seen dissenting opinions, from a patient advocacy group and from a general practitioner who expressed grave doubts about the applicability to adolescent girls of a safety study conducted on adult women.

The over-reliance on vaccination for the avoidance of diseases best avoided by other means will probably be the subject of an Essay someday. For now, the bullet stands, following a proper critical reading of the source.--TerryH^Talk 22:14, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Fletcher and Oakley - from the patient advocacy group, and a GP, respectively - simply stated that the effects of the vaccine on adolescents are unknown - meaning they themselves haven't established the link purported in this article. I'd like to see the actual report from Judicial Watch that the news article was referring to though; since the news article itself did not cite it, I find the entire Telegraph article suspect. ATang 12:36, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, but you miss a vital element in the Hippocratic Oath: Never bring harm upon anyone. In latin, primum non nocere. First of all, do no harm. By that standard, a physician who does anything to a patient without first verifying that that thing is safe is behaving in an irresponsible manner. But modern medicine has forgotten that lesson and in that manner has gone completely off the rails. And Gardasil is a prime example.--TerryH^Talk 14:00, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

This detracts from the point that I haven't seen what the "link" is - i.e. the cited article is a secondary source and therefore not strong enough to justify the statement in this article regarding vaccines.

The Oath also mentions not cutting out stones as well.

In all seriousness, it is simply impossible to verify the safety of any drugs completely before phase IV clinical trials - meaning after the drugs has been marketed. Unless you test the drug on every single person on earth and obtain a reading on it, no drug is "safe". Patient care is always riddled with uncertainty - and if physicians waits until he's 100% all the time, they'd actually do more harm to patients by their inaction. That's when professional judgment and experience comes in.

And to bring this back to our original discussion about _this_ article - all drugs have adverse reactions. Stating that Gardasil "has now been linked to a number of sudden deaths reported within days of its administration" from a news article (as opposed to a medical journal) is just a cheap, baseless way of attacking vaccines. ATang 15:08, 23 May 2008 (EDT)