Gardasil vaccine safety – under attack again by a false authority

Gardasil vaccine safety

Here we go again – another lightweight “science paper” attacking Gardasil vaccine safety. Now, I have to spend time debunking it because we all know that this new article will be used as “proof” that Gardasil is dangerous.

As I have written dozens of times, there are precious few ways for us to effectively prevent cancer. Exercise regularly. Eat a balanced diet. Stay out of the sun. Quit smoking. Don’t drink alcohol. And get vaccinated against hepatitis B and the human papillomavirus (HPV). That’s it. No kale blueberry almond milk shake is going to suddenly make your risk of cancer drop to zero. Avoiding gluten, cleansing your colon, or smoking a joint will have no effect on your risk of cancer.

But the HPV cancer preventing vaccine, known as Gardasil, is a well-researched, scientifically-based medication to prevent a long list of cancers. So we’re going to take a critical look at this new article. Continue reading “Gardasil vaccine safety – under attack again by a false authority”

Nine vaccine questions from an anti-vaccine activist

vaccine questions

Some of you may remember the nine vaccine questions from anti vaccine activists answered so capably by Dr. Mark Crislip. Apparently, anti-vaccine activist Lowell Hubbs (who spends a lot of time trolling the comments section of this website) came up with his own set of nine new vaccine questions – which have no more validity than the original nine. In a post titled “9 Questions For The Pro-Vaxers” – to which I would rather not link here, but if you come across it, you will recognize it (we decided that few the thousand readers of this post shouldn’t have any incentive to click on a link to his website).

Let’s take a look at Hubbs’ nine vaccine questions, and provide the appropriate answers.

Continue reading “Nine vaccine questions from an anti-vaccine activist”

Gardasil DNA and aluminum – myth debunking time

Gardasil DNA and aluminum

Here we go again. Anti-Gardasil activists and other vaccine deniers are attempting, once again, to make specious claims about the HPV anti-cancer vaccine. This time claiming that Gardasil DNA and aluminum somehow interacted to kill a young child.

This time, it’s a claim filed in United States Court of Federal Claims Office of Special Masters, as a part of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), that an injection of the Gardasil vaccine lead to the death of a young male the next day.

As tragic as that death is, and all children’s deaths are tragic, let’s take a look at the evidence being used here. Of course, I’m not a Special Master in the Federal Court System (admittedly, I want that title), I’m not an attorney (nor do I pretend to be one on the internet), and the NVICP has some complex rules and decisions processes. It’s never simple, and remember, the NVICP, or any court for that matter,  lacks the privilege of deciding what is good science.  Continue reading “Gardasil DNA and aluminum – myth debunking time”

Review of 10 years of GMO research – they’re safe

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs or GMs) are one of the most well studied areas of biological and agricultural research. However, one of the tactics of the GMO refusers is that “there’s no proof that GMOs are safe.”

Typically, in a debate, the side making the assertion (those that say GMOs are unsafe) are responsible for the evidence that supports their contention. But, the anti-GMO gang relies upon the Argument from Ignorance, trying to force the argument to “if you can’t prove that they’re safe, they must be unsafe.”

Even though arguing with logical fallacies is rarely productive, I did provide an exhaustive list of high-quality peer-reviewed GMO research articles that clearly stated that genetically modified crops are safe. But that’s never enough. Continue reading “Review of 10 years of GMO research – they’re safe”

Richard III found under a parking lot–are we sure?

RichardIIIUnless you were living under a parking lot, you probably heard that the remains of King Richard III had been uncovered under a parking lot in Leicester, England. Richard III, who was King of England for only two years, 1483-5, died in the Battle of Bosworth Field, which was essentially the last battle of the civil war Wars of the Roses, the civil war between the Houses of Lancaster and York that raged across England in the latter half of the 15th century. The leader of the winning side, the Lancastrians, was Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, who became the first English monarch of the Tudor dynasty, Henry VII (and whose son included the infamous Henry VIII and granddaughters were Mary I and Elizabeth I). Richard was unceremoniously buried, which, over the centuries, was itself buried under the city of Leicester.

According to historical records, Richard III developed idiopathic scoliosis during his childhood, which was mocked by Shakespeare in his tragedy, Richard IIIContemporary historians wrote that Richard was killed by several blows to the head with swords and his helmet might have been knocked off during the battle. (Interestingly, Richard was the last British monarch to have died in battle.)

From these pieces of evidence, scientists from the University of Leicester drew upon historical evidence of both the scoliosis and the battle wounds and compared them to the skeleton found under the parking lot in Leicester. The scientists stated that the skeleton was Richard III “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  Continue reading “Richard III found under a parking lot–are we sure?”

Review of Prometheus on “Why Evolution is True”

From Guest post: Sigmund pans the movie “Prometheus” (spoiler alert) « Why Evolution Is True.

I rarely do this (well, never), but here is another scientific review of Prometheus from “Why Evolution is True” blog. The comments are especially fun to read, because clearly some individuals don’t take kindly to critiques of this rather average movie.

 

Guest post: Sigmund pans the movie “Prometheus” (spoiler alert)

Sigmund is becoming a regular around here, and has contributed a review of the new SF (or is it “SciFi”?)  film Prometheus, which has generated a lot of buzz. He didn’t like it, largely because it’s scientifically inaccurate. As always, readers who have seen the flick should weigh in with their own opinions.

Film Review – Prometheus  (spoiler warning!)

by Sigmund

The film ’Prometheus’, the first return to science fiction for director Ridley Scott since Blade Runner, is supposedly a prequel to his famous 1979 movie ‘Alien’ and is therefore a major event for sci-fi geeks. As it opened a week earlier in Europe owing to the start of the European football championship, I’ve had a chance to see it (twice!) and can offer a personal opinion of the movie without, I hope, giving away too much of the plot. But if you intend to see the movie soon and don’t want to read any spoilers, I’d advise avoiding reading any further. Continue reading “Review of Prometheus on “Why Evolution is True””

Anti-evolution bills put healthcare at risk

My Turn: The Darwin connection | Concord Monitor.

While researching some points for my article on intelligent design, I stumbled onto a poignant and pointed article written by Leslie Brunetta, a New Hampshire science author  who has been diagnosed with breast cancer.  She wrote the interesting (and very readable) book entitled, “Spider Silk: Evolution and 400 Million Years of Spinning, Waiting, Snagging, and Mating.”

Her thesis is that these anti-evolution bills in various state legislatures are a danger to her health, and by inference, the health of all Americans.

Essentially, she states that in the 1960’s, breast cancer was basically a death sentence, whereas today, the 5 year survivability for a woman diagnosed with breast cancer is over 80%.  Partially, the rate has risen because of better and earlier diagnosis, but mainly it is a result of highly effective treatments.

What does evolution have to do with this?  Plenty.  At even the most basic level, the discovery of DNA, which is essential to understanding any of the 200 different cancers, was driven by the need to uncover the basis of genetics and heritability of genes.  Would we have discovered the DNA molecule if we weren’t driven by the desire to understand the foundation of evolution?  Probably not.

Furthermore, Ms. Brunetta posits that everything from understanding the differences between cancer and normal genes to family history all depends upon a scientific foundation of evolution.  She states that now we have genetic tests (arising from our knowledge of evolution) that can help determine which treatments are best for certain types of breast cancer, allowing some patients to forego chemotherapy.

What if we didn’t understand evolution?  We wouldn’t understand that viruses evolve quickly in a population, so we have to adjust vaccination antigens.  We wouldn’t understand how bacteria evolve in response to antibiotics.  We wouldn’t understand the range of genetic diseases that afflict individuals.  I could write for hours on everything in medicine (and just medicine) that depends on an appreciation, and acceptance, of the theory of evolution.  I wonder what the creationists would say if we were to refuse them all procedures and techniques that use evolution (well, I know what the answer would be, that a supernatural being guided the research or something similar).  Of course, the Hippocratic Oath would prevent physicians from implementing this policy.

I’ve contended that the anti-science (anti-evolution) push on the right wing is bad for the security and economy of the country.  Let me add in healthcare to the consequences of this desire to push religious teaching in public schools.

Addendum:  Ms Brunetta points out something about Charles Darwin that is always forgotten but is critical.  He theorized evolution and natural selection with no knowledge of genetics and DNA (the cause of genetic drift).  Amazing leap of intuition on his part.