Dr Harper has spoken out before about her concerns with the HPV vaccines that she played a role in developing. Here she goes again, I think we should listen to the lady because she is certainly in a position to know what's what.
OK. Badly phrased post but I was rushing to get to the shower.
All I'm saying is that I would be cautious of a story presented in a newspaper that carries stories of the ilk of some of the others I saw on the site e.g Obama is leading us to fascism, Halloween is Bad etc etc (I paraphrase here).
The doctor may have said what she is quoted to have said. She may have said it in exactly the context she is quoted in. She appears to be fully qualified, I don't know. However, I am not convinced that the Philadelphia Bulletin is entirely without its own agenda.
I am the first to admit that I don't know enough about the vaccine but I am uncomfortable letting the popular press help form my opinion since I simply don't trust journalists.
Well, it might have an agenda, but sensible people like us can just ignore that. It's very straightforward to check her out if you are interested enough and if you have doubts about the source. It's always good to get more than one source anyway, but that's not difficult here (ibid: Beach)
I suppose it depends what you want. If you want to carry on believing "oh those people are all nuts" then don't look into it any further -- it shows that you're not that interested, I guess.
But if you want to find out if there's a good grounding to the story, you can check it out elsewhere. And find out that there's truth to it. Hurray! Reason and research win the day.
Not sure I would describe what I do on Google as research though - it's more data gathering. I'll leave research to those who stayed in science rather than peeps like me who strayed to the Dark Side....
Thing is though that although mainstream news sources do carry stories which show vaccines in a negative light, like the CBS story, many of them don't.
Therefore it is often in more marginal sources that one can find interesting stuff. Personally I try not to chuck the baby out with the bathwater and if the story holds up after some research (or is an update on a story I have read about elsewhere) then I will give it time.
I forget that not everybody works in this way.
Agree with you that journalists are often not to be trusted although I suspect that is because they often don't look farther than the press release issued to them by pharmaceutical lobbies rather than because they have a calculated agenda.
I don't have very many polite words to say about most doctors due to my personal experience with their treatment of my daughter. There are some, however, who still believe in old fashioned things like ethics and intellectual honesty and it would appear that Dr Harper is one of them.
OK, I've just spent the morning Googling Diane Harper and the Bulletin article seems pretty spot on actually <<humble pie duly consumed emoticon>>.
The woman is a star. She appears to me to be acting with integrity and ethics. She speaks sense and she takes action against those who mis-quote her. Her points about mass marketing seem spot on to me as does her point about the vaccination of under-11s.
Still don't believe the other stuff on the Bulletin website though and still think they have an agenda. However, I will not put in time to get back up information and articles as to whether Obama is a facist or that Halloween is evil....
And my deep distrust of Big Pharma is getting deeper and deeper.
You see, this is the problem with working at home, I can get too easily sidetracked....