HPV vaccine developer drops a bombshell (or two).

[Beachcomber]

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.

thebulletin.us/articles/2009/10/25/top_stories/doc4ae4b76d07e16766677720.txt

(So you see stuffitllllama some of them really do want to be able to sleep at night! Told you it was a good question .)

Oh dear, you're in trouble when even the developer doesn't see the point in it!

Wow! How is this woman still in a job? I like the way she slipped it all in although she was ostensibly supporting the vaccine.

What a strong woman.

Erm... I'd recommend that you read some of the rest of the articles on that site before taking this story as the truth and nothing but the truth....

Do you mean the other stories have no credibility so this doesn't either? Or are you talking about other news about the vaccine? What do you mean exactly?

So...which bit do you not believe Mr Fibble? What she said? Or that she has not the experience you claim?

Or that she does not have the experience she claims?

Do tell Mr Fibble. Tell me exactly why you don't believe this item with reference to the item itself.

Mr Fibble, Dr Harper has said very similar things before so it seems more likely than not that she will continue to advise caution about the fast tracked HPV vaccines.

Do you disagree with what she has said or have information which contradicts her comments re testing in the under 16s and the effects HPV vaccines will (not) have on cervical cancer rates?

Anyway don't know about you but I'm a cynical old bird and don't take ANYTHING I read to be 'the truth and nothing but the truth'. Been lied to too often to do anything else.

Just for you Mr Fibble hear is a link to the CBC news report on the words of caution spoken by Dr Harper way back in August .

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/19/cbsnews_investigates/main5253431.shtml

Oops, CBS news obviously.

Hello stuffit!

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.

hello beach

i am running, have a good day

see you at the coalface later no doubt

That CBS story is very interesting - thanks for the link Beachcomber.

I should add that I don't trust Big Pharma either so add that to not trusting journalists and not trusting most of the doctors that I have come across, I am stuck at where to turn for information.

Ho hum. The problems of being a dyed in the wool cynic.

Google is my friend....

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....

I hear ya Mr Fibble.

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.

Off out too. See you later stuffit.

It would be interesting to see if oral & anal cancers drop across the western world as western population is vaccinated against HPV.

Cervical cancer is regularly tested for with smear tests, which is why rates are so low. However, HPV also causes these other types of cancers, for which there is no regular screening.

OK, I've just spent the morning Googling Diane Harper and the Bulletin article seems pretty spot on actually .

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....

thanks for this. i don't see the point in teh vaccine either but it nice to have some rational behind it. dd won't be having it.

That's an interesting thought Cote. I know Pap tests do exist for anal cancer but they are not as common as cervical smears.

Mr Fibble I'm with you on Halloween! If you have come across a more mainstream source for this article would you link to it for us please? Cheers.