Difference between revisions of "Talk:Vaccine"
From Conservapedia
(→Gardasil) |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
: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.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 22:14, 22 May 2008 (EDT) | :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.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 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. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 12:36, 23 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 16:36, May 23, 2008
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.--TerryHTalk 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)
